George W wrote in
:

On 25 Oct 2007 16:52:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

(Doug Miller) wrote in
.net:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about
ten are well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him,
and in my experience, nearly all adults who support capital
punishment do so precisely because they understand that *very*
clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word
here. It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal
penalty." "executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2.
One who puts another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real
meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your
perception of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the
question of whether any particular act is, or is not, within the
law.


well,for liberals,

Note that "liberal" and "conservative" are BOTH desirable qualities in
limited amounts. Unconditionally favoring one over the other makes no
sense. The use of such labels are necessarily incorrect (there are no
absolutes) and effectively limit people's thoughts and actions.

I use the term "liberal" as it is generaly meant in current usage.
Meaning "leftist/socialist/'progressive'/Communist".
I agree that many current "conservatives" are not always conservative.
I myself am not 100 % "Conservative".
But I DO believe that written law should mean the same as written *always*.
Otherwise,it's meaningless.

the law means different things at different
times,according to popular opinion at the time.

Proving it's lack of correspondence with reality.
I believe you lost "context" here.

"people" in one Amendment does not necessarily mean the same in
another Amendment,

And none of those are necessarily the same as actual people.

Again,a loss of context.

The law is in no way, in control of reality.

LAW doesn't "control" anything;it provides for punishment after the fact.

according to liberals/"progressives".
To them,the Constitution is a "living,breathing document" whose
meaning changes with the times.

Note that can be used as an excuse for anything. In effect, you are
saying it means nothing at all.

"I" said nothing of the sort.
IMO,that's your interpretation.

That's why they want judges to decide on everything.
(liberal judges,of course)

Of course,judges are not responsible to anyone,generally,in power for
life.



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net