Eight amendment framers intent and supreme court jurisprudence

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Eight amendment framers intent and supreme court jurisprudence

Hamilton The Establishment Clause: Hamilton An accurate recounting of history is necessary to appreciate the need for disestablishment and a separation between church and state. The religiosity of the generation that framed the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of which the First Amendment is the first as a result of historical accident, not the preference for religious liberty over any other right has been overstated.

In reality, many of the Framers and the most influential men of that generation rarely attended church, were often Deist rather than Christian, and had a healthy understanding of the potential for religious tyranny.

This latter concern is to be expected as European history was awash with executions of religious heretics: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim. Three of the most influential men in the Framing era provide valuable insights into the mindset at the time: Franklin saw a pattern: If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.

The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans.

These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

The father of the Constitution and primary drafter of the First Amendment, James Madison, in his most important document on the topic, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessmentsstated: During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial.

What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?

Eight amendment framers intent and supreme court jurisprudence

In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.

Two years later, John Adams described the states as having been derived from reason, not religious belief: It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are examples of early discord. In Massachusetts, the Congregationalist establishment enforced taxation on all believers and expelled or even put to death dissenters.

Baptist clergy became the first in the United States to advocate for a separation of church and state and an absolute right to believe what one chooses. Baptist pastor John Leland was an eloquent and forceful proponent of the freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state.

Even so, the Quakers set in motion a principle that became a mainstay in religious liberty jurisprudence:In First Amendment jurisprudence, original intent means the perceived purpose of the constitutional framers In the area of government speech, the U.S.

Supreme Court has. The Case for Marriage- Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, And Better Off Financially. The Supreme Court in the case of Trop v Dulles, expressly endorsed the view that what are prohibited "cruel and unusual punishments" should change over time, being those punishments which offend society's "evolving sense of decency." The cases on this page suggest the wide variety of questions raised by the Eighth Amendment.

UPDATE: Philippine Legal Research By Milagros Santos-Ong Milagros Santos-Ong is the Director of the Library Services of the Supreme Court of the ashio-midori.com is the author of Legal Research and Citations (Rexl Book Store) a seminal book published in numerous editions and a part-time professor on Legal Research in some law schools in the Metro-Manila.

The Court would take these cases because abortion, speech, and the Fourth Amendment are three of its favored rights. The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan.

Full text of the Supreme Court Judgment:Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India.

Equal Protection Clause - Wikipedia