Friday, July 12, 2013
Capital Punishment, Same-Sex Marriage, and Abortion
The
title of my new book, Human Rights in the Constitutional Law of the United States, references the subject matter that has been my
principal scholarly obsession since the beginning of my academic career. In
the book--the introduction to which is available here for download--I elaborate three internationally recognized human rights, each of
which, as I explain, is entrenched in the constitutional law of the
United States: the right not to be subjected to “cruel and unusual”
punishment, the right to moral equality, and the right to religious and
moral freedom. I then pursue three inquiries that are of special concern to MOJ readers:
• Does punishing a criminal by killing him violate the right not to be subjected to “cruel and unusual” punishment?
•
Does excluding same-sex couples from civil marriage violate the right
to moral equality or the right to religious and moral freedom?
• Does criminalizing abortion violate the right to moral equality or the right to religious and moral freedom?
I
also pursue a fourth inquiry: In exercising judicial review of a
certain sort--judicial review to determine whether a law (or other
public policy) claimed to violate a constitutionally entrenched human
right does in fact violate the right--should the Supreme Court of the
United States inquire whether in its own judgment the law violates the
right? Or, instead, should the Court proceed deferentially, inquiring
only whether the lawmakers’ judgment that the law does not violate the
right is a reasonable one? In short, how large/small a role should the
Court play in protecting (enforcing) constitutionally entrenched human
rights?
I have long been engaged by, and have before written
about, questions such as those I address in this book: questions about
the implications of constitutionally entrenched human rights--and the
question about the proper role of the Supreme Court in adjudicating such
questions. (The title of my first book, published in 1982: The
Constitution, the Courts, and Human Rights.) Indeed, I have before
written about each of the three constitutional controversies at the
heart of this book: capital punishment, same-sex marriage, and
abortion. Because I was not satisfied with my earlier efforts, I decided to revisit
the controversies.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2013/07/capital-punishment-same-sex-marriage-and-abortion.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
Professor Perry, shall we presume in your questions in regards to The Constitution, The Courts, and Human Rights, that you began with the self-evident truth, that because The Constitution and The Courts serve to protect our unalienable Human Rights that have been endowed to us from The True God, then the purpose of our unalienable Rights are what God intended?