Glaucon wrote:The constitution is a body of law, as well, same as other laws, even if it 'reigns' those other laws. Just like 'the one ring to rule them all' is a ring too. (Old school nerd, here.)
I know that the US constitution has taken on semi-religious aspects, though, being seen as a defining document and a moral 'source' in itself (quite different from most of the rest of the world, where it is seen more as a 'tool' on a par with other laws, even if it occupies the highest spot in the legal 'hierarchy', a body of law that most countries overhaul or rewrite fairly regularly as well).
There is also a treaty clause in the US constitution, so the obligation to honor agreements you have made, legally, agreements not ruled to be unconstitutional, agreements ratified by a qualified majority of the Senate, etc. is legally supported by the constitution as well.
And one may wonder why the USA would make such a big deal out of this whole double jeopardy thing. Because it isn't exactly true that you cannot be put on trial for the same offense, twice, after an acquittal. Maybe only once for criminal law, but there is civil law as well. It happened to OJ, who was found not guilty, and then found guilty in a civil case. I do not believe that that would be possible in Italy.
Theoden wrote:Well, I had no idea that europeans sometimes fuck with the extradition treaties because they think capital punishment is inhumane.
Glaucon, you try to draw a line between preventing capital punishment (moral judgement) and giving up a U.S. citizen's constitutional right (which you call judicial process).
How is Double Jeopardy simply a 'judicial process' when it is in the 5th amendment, of which belongs to our Bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights constitute the 1st to 10th amendments.
If something is a constitutional 'right', and considered a right in the Bill of Rights, then can't you argue it is a moral 'right' as well? Like 'human rights'? Just as moral as say, an opposition to Capital Punishment?
I'd say they stand on equally level 'moral ground debate status'.
Now, since Amanda Knox violated laws in another country, and other reasons I've stated before, I'd be willing to throw her under the bus and let her do without her constitutional right to no Double Jeopardy.
But since europeans think they can extend their own laws and morals to how we adjudicate things here in the US via the extradition treaties, why can't we extend our constitutional 'right' to them as well?
Glaucon wrote:But that doesn't mean that this extradition treaty with Italy (along with most extradition treaties the USA has with the rest of the world, and I read that the USA happens to be the country making most extradition-requests to other countries, and not just Snowden) IS unconstitutional. I have seen people claim that in comments, but I haven't seen anyone make that case in more legal terms. To me, it would be surprising if this double jeopardy thing would render extradition unconstitutional. Because that would mean that nearly all extradition requests made to the USA would have to be denied because, potentially, the extradited person could face a second trial if the State appealed a not-guilty verdict. Which would mean the US should never have entered into any treaties in the first place. That would seem odd, so, maybe extraditing Knox would not be unconstitutional at all. Doesn't mean it will happen, of course.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests