It took just two years for the City of Grants Pass to get its day before the Supreme Court in appealing the Ninth Circuit’s ruling mandating the use of city parks as homeless shelters. This case could have an impact on how the Eight Amendment’s “cruel and unusual” clause is interpreted.
Progressives tend to read the wrong conjunction in that clause. It has an “and” not an “or” which creates a hendiadys, the expression of a single idea by two words. So, it’s not a constitutional ban on all cruelty. This is not just an opportunity for judges to legislate their normative sense of what is cruel. Perhaps all punishment is cruel on some level.
The clause requires novelty. Imposing a monetary fine for illegal camping needs to be both cruel and unusual. Is the imposition of a fine for misuse of the commons, public property, unusual? That’s an easy question to answer. No, it is not.
Eric Shierman lives in Salem and is the author of We were winning when I was there.
The post City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson first appeared on The Oregon Catalyst.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Eric Shierman
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://oregoncatalyst.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.