Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FUBLUE
I had my government class read this thread and comment on it...while they mostly think it is stupid to even consider this type of legislation, they were able to find parts of the Constitution of the United States that would argue that creating this legislation would be acceptable.
The Preamble mentions "general welfare." Safety may fall under general welfare clause.
Article I, Section 8 mentions "...all laws necessary and proper..." This may well be used to argue for allowing this type of legislation.
Not bad for a bunch of emotionally disturbed, learning disabled children!
|
Now define "general welfare" and "necessary and proper".
There is a reason that only titanium bats have been banned based on the alloy used. It is the only alloy that could be proven to increase the speed of the ball. No other alloy or composite carries that distinction in the world of softball. IOW, there is absolutely no proof that the bat itself causes a dangerous environment. IOW, this law cannot be proven as a remedy, so how would this law be to the benefit of the general welfare, or necessary or proper to enact?
In my mind, it would be "necessary and proper" to return to the whipping post as a means of punishment for convicted criminals because it benefits the "general welfare" of the community. And I have an argument to accompany this. Would a criminal (dealer, user, thief, etc.) knowingly commit a crime in your community where the punishment would be 30 lashes and 5 years or go down down the road where the punishment would be 5-7 years? Granted, many criminals are not that smart and think doing the time is easy, but they know pain.
I'm sure some in your class would be repulsed by the idea of a whipping post. Then ask them, if they had to commit a crime to survive, and had an option of a jurisdiction with flogging as opposed to one without, where would they commit the crime
