Legislation: Declaration of Rights Amendments, 1789 (Passed)

[Donerail]

Mr. Speaker,

I do not consider capital punishment to itself be cruel or unusual, but there are certainly instances where its forms and applications may be. A jury sentencing a murderer to hang would be, in my view, entirely appropriate, but a sentence of death for petty theft would not be. Similarly, if a jury can be shown to have decided on a particular punishment as a result of a person's religious or political beliefs, rather than because of the facts of the case, that would be a case of unusual punishment. Death by hanging, too, is in a different category than death by torture, the latter of which is considered cruel in all decent societies.

I yield.

[Donerail]

Mr. Speaker,

I am in full support of the proposed amendment and will encourage the members of the Western faction to vote likewise.

[Donerail]

Mr. Speaker,

To respond to some of the concerns raised by my colleague from Pennsylvania: while at the present moment states do have the authority to levy the tariffs and duties they see fit in their ports, this power has little meaning in practice -- foreign ships in particular will seek out the least expensive port and avoid paying those duties. Regulating internal commerce is the duty of the states, but the federal government ought to take some interest in regulating commerce between these United States and foreign nations -- and ought to do so without discriminating between states.

As for trade between states, this proposal would apply only to those states that have endeavored to establish tariffs on interstate trade, and should not be construed to expand the powers of this federal government; rather, it merely establishes that inhabitants of the several states are able to trade freely amongst themselves. While this may be considered as a minor limitation on the powers of states, I prefer to view it as a significant enhancement of liberty -- residents of states such as North Carolina, which lacks major port cities, will not be subject to punitive tariffs as a result of the unfortunate whims of geography.

On the eighth point, the purpose is to ensure that the lands are to remain open to all, rather than under the ownership of a particular individual or corporation, along similar lines to those established by the English Magna Carta. There is no particular regulatory role envisioned, save possibly suits brought against individuals attempting to unjustly enclose some part of the land. I suppose you could consider the land to be under federal regulation, as such enforcement of the provision would be through the system of federal courts, but it ought not to reflect active regulation or ownership by the federal government.

On the seventeenth point, I do not foresee the writ being suspended save in the most urgent occasions, in cases where the crisis has overwhelmed the normal channels of justice. Personally, however, I am not wedded to that exemption.

I do not see the potential scenarios you highlight in the nineteenth point coming to be, as the point is limited to the rights of the people, and does not allow the federal government to impose any laws it wishes. If a government chose to pass a bill declaring a right to own slaves, I do not believe it would be enforceable upon the states. If it were to pass an amendment, that would be another matter, but the procedures in place for such amendments are, I believe, sufficient to ensure any such measure would have to command broad support.

I yield.