"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731 (1931).

In overturning the D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court [of the United States] referenced the above statement. Similar comments have been made (about our Constitution) since its inception; most notably, the framers themselves argued that the court must refer back to the original intent of those making the law.

Sadly, the same court overlooked that directive when they recently ruled against capital punishment in relation to crimes involving child rape. In that case, five unelected justices effectively tossed out state laws to the contrary (five states had laws allowing the death penalty for child rapists) while conveniently thumbing their noses at the Tenth Amendment and original intent (of the Eighth Amendment).

Illustrating a simple elegance and an adept understanding of the potential for harm, Thomas Jefferson penned numerous thoughts expressing his distaste for the court's propensity to undermine original intent and limitations of power [placed upon the court]. Jefferson wasn't alone though; as many of the actual framers felt compelled to voice their dismay over the court's potential to take power not granted.

Today we tend to look at the three branches [of government] as being separate, but equal. That concept runs counter to the thoughts of those men who actually authored the Constitution; as they made it obvious that they considered the Judicial branch to be the least powerful.

Almost from the very beginning the court began to usurp power; seizing the moment to declare itself the final arbitrator when it comes to Constitutional authority. Since that time each subsequent court has pushed the envelope further and further; straying so far from the original limits that some justices now openly advocate the inclusion of foreign laws in their legal opinions.

"Strained constructions... loosen all the bands of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to George Ticknor, 1817. FE 10:81

At issue (in regards to capital punishment for child rapists) is the intent of – both of the framers and those ratifying – the Eighth Amendment. The court was charged with the responsibility of interpreting the intent of the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment.” Typically, the arguments offered [for the proposed bill] are used to understand the meaning of those making the law. In the case of the Eighth Amendment we find little to go on, as few made comments one way or the other.

A representative Livermore did question the vagueness: "It is sometimes necessary to hang a man, villains often deserve a whipping, and perhaps having their ears cut off,

but are we in the future to be prevented from inflicting those punishments because they are cruel?"

In his comments, some light is shed upon [the intent of] the phrase “cruel and unusual punishment.” Clearly the representative saw that vagueness as an opportunity for future infringements upon accepted methods of punishment. In addition, we can draw conclusions on the basis of that expressed concern. Obviously the intent was to apply the standards as understood at that time (1789) and it was not meant to be loosely translated as differing political whims took hold. The Constitution makes allowances – via the Amendment process – for change; it does not allow for judicial fiat nor does it allow for a strained reading of the framer's words.

The basis for our Eighth Amendment is founded upon the (1689) English Bill of Rights. The primary concern was selective – or irregular - application of harsh penalties and the aim was to prohibit arbitrary penalties, of a harsh Nature, from being applied in a discriminatory manner. The English Parliament sought to forbid punishments that were illegal, in that they were against common law. Those punishments that were against the common law – or the historic custom of the community – were said to be “illegal” or “unusual.” The two words were frequently interchanged in describing prohibitions upon punishments that were deemed “cruel” or harsher than the common law allowed.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution does not grant the judicial branch the power to legislate, the power to determine fairness, the power to decide if laws meet the current political whims, or the power to force its will upon the states and/or people. Instead the court's powers are limited (per the Constitution) and subjected to those limitations in all matters.

The sad fact that five justices saw fit to rule in a manner that does not comply within those specified limits is a testament to the depths that freedom has fallen. It isn't merely a matter of not liking a decision: it's a matter of the decision having nothing in common with the Constitution itself. We often see a divided court; close decisions are the norm and they ought to frighten us all. If those learned individuals charged with interpreting the Constitutionality of our laws cannot abide by the very law they supposedly defend, the people will be forced to intervene. We should strive to sit a court that routinely abides by the intent of the Constitution; it should be the norm that all nine justices comprehend that intent and offer opinions accordingly. Accepting anything less is tantamount to encouraging the usurpation of power and our eventual servitude at the feet of an oligarchy.