- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,177
- Reaction score
- 7,551
- Location
- Ft. Campbell, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The "Air Force" started out as the Army Air Corp, so it is covered under the Constitution and in no way illegal.
The practice was never an official punishment in the United States, but a form of vigilante justice. So it does not apply at all.
The 8th amendment literally translated still means exactly the same thing. You are trying to reference something that is subjective and left for the courts to decide. If a punishment is found to be cruel and unusual punishment, it is said to be so by the courts. Then it would be found unconstitutional and removed as such.
So far the argument you present is weak as all that you have shown is Tiger is over the top.
I think you destroyed your own argument in your third point. The fact that it takes a court to decide what something in the Constitution means it cannot be taken literally because there is no literal definition of the word "cruel" is something which is seen through the eyes of an observer. If the document could be taken literally there would be no room for disagreement, and thus no need for a court to decide disagreements because there would be no disagreement. Even my example earlier about a word like "five" having a literal meaning isn't entirely true either its also subjective to people's personal interpretations. For example if I said "I have 5 apples" whos to say what Constitutes an "apple" and what doesn't. Perhaps you could ask a botanist, but which one how do you now his information is good, what if another botanist decides this particular type of fruit isn't an apple but something else.
It sounds crazy but its the truth, no document can be so perfectly written to only require a literally interpretation especially when its unclear what the authors original intent was or when hundreds of years pass and the world and people change.
Literally interpretation is impossible.