[Hard_Space]

I don't know. Even the constitution acknowledges the possibility of truths that are 'self-evident'.

I remember when the Guantanamo torture scandals emerged in the 2000s, how various political actors attempted to say 'Let's not get hot under the collar about this - let's put it on the table and talk it through.'

For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act, as outlined in 'A Modest Proposal' . I agree with the parent poster that this is one of those cases.

EDIT: This was supposed to be a response to the parent comment of the one it got attached to (for some reason).

[rmcpherson]

“We hold these truths to be self evident...” is from the Declaration of Independence. It does not appear in the Constitution.

[MisterBastahrd]

Doesn't matter. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is not limited to the words of the document. The Constitution itself is derived from a history of law, letters, and intent that predate the very concept of the United States.

[sjg007]

Depends on if you are an originalist or not.

[MisterBastahrd]

Nope. A textualist, maybe, but originalists would very much be looking towards English law for guidance on what the Constitution meant.

[sjg007]

It’s called originalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[lurquer]

> For me, there are some things that just don't warrant debate, and encompass such deep-seated truths about humanity that putting them up for debate is a repulsive and disingenuous act,

The authors of the Declaration of Independence would perhaps agree.

But, keep in mind that stance — as they will knew — would result in the ‘disagreement’ being resolved by force and war.

Consequently, it’s wise to really give some thought to whether an issue is ‘self-evident.’ I personally do not think capital punishment is such an issue; that is, I acknowledge there are good arguments on both sides.

(Are there good arguments on both sides regarding whether some people — like King George — are inherently and divinely superior to others by virtue of their lineage? That’s a different matter... I would have fallen into the ‘self-evidently’ absurd camp on that one.)