In this concluding article, I address another of the Constitution’s more serious “camels”—which Christians should be choking on instead of swallowing.
Amendment 8’s Denunciation of Cruel and Unusual Punishments
Amendment 8 prohibits cruel and unusual punishments. But what did the framers mean by “cruel and unusual”? No one knows because the framers never defined this term, nor did they make exceptions for any of the Bible’s civil judgments:
Amendment 8’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments implies the Constitutional Republic’s punishments must be kind and usual. The Constitution’s failure to define “cruel and unusual” allows unbiblical and antinomian courts to arbitrarily determine what is allowable.1
Some of the framers believed that capital punishment in any form was cruel and unusual:
“There were some significant voices at the time in favor of abolishing capital punishment. Some argued that the success of the new republic should depend upon the virtue of its citizens and not on their fear of a harsh penal code, which many saw as the hallmark of tyranny. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence [and, reputedly, one of fathers of America’s unbiblical penal system], declared that “capital punishments are the natural offspring of monarchical governments.” Even a conservative like Alexander Hamilton believed that “the idea of cruelty inspires disgust,” and that the death penalty undermined republican values and behavior.” [International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights.]
The virtue of capital punishment was settled by Yahweh2 in His law long ago, but the debate over the death penalty rages on, thanks, in part, to the ambiguity of Amendment 8’s wording….
As of 2012, fifteen states have repealed the death penalty. The Supreme Court’s capriciousness regarding “cruel and unusual punishments” is witnessed by its varied and often contradictory decisions … [which are a demonstration of] a government of, by, and for a fickle people and adjudicated by a mercurial court system….
“We have nothing to guide us in defining what is cruel and unusual apart from our own consciences. A punishment which is considered fair today may be considered cruel tomorrow. And so we are not dealing with a set of absolutes. Our decision must necessarily spring from the mosaic of our beliefs, our backgrounds and the degree of our faith in the dignity of the human personality.” [Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy, draft of an unpublished dissent (1946), quoted in International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights.]
What we find described above is government ruled by the prevailing humanism of the day.3
Without a definition or specific standard by which to determine what constitutes cruel and unusual, the Constitution is unequivocally a “living document,” left to the capricious interpretation of each and every Supreme Court.4
More importantly, what does Amendment 8’s interdiction against cruel and unusual punishments say about Yahweh’s righteous judgments?
Instead of making His punishments as humane as possible, Yahweh chose cruel and unusual forms of punishments. Stoning [is] His principal means of carrying out public executions….
If we believe Yahweh is unquestionably just, we must embrace His means of punishment and renounce the Eighth Amendment as rebellion against Him. Because He is a loving and merciful God, who desires no one to perish and everyone to come to repentance, His judgments are not only just but also remedial and preventative:
“And thou shalt stone him [a promoter of false gods] with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from YHWH thy God…. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.” (Deuteronomy 13:10-11)….
“The death penalty [especially stoning] … provides a deterrence effect—deterring the criminal from future crime (he dies), deterring other criminals from committing similar crimes (fear of death), and deterring God from bringing His covenant judgments on the community for its failure to uphold covenant law (fear of God’s wrath).” [Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 324.]5
There are several compelling judicial reasons why Yahweh instituted stoning as His principle means of execution:
In order for the death penalty to be the greatest possible deterrent, Yahweh chose a brutal form of execution. The harsher the punishment, the greater the deterrent. People are less likely to write checks against insufficient funds when they are penalized thirty dollars rather than thirty cents. Likewise, people are less likely to commit felonies when the maximum penalty is mandatory for unrepentant criminals. This is especially true if it is compulsory for the whole community to attend and participate in public executions:
“And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation [community] stone him…. And he that blasphemeth the name of YHWH, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land….” (Leviticus 24:13-16)
Stoning is one of the few methods of capital punishment that allows direct involvement by the witnesses and others. Witnesses must be so certain of their testimony that they, along with the blood avengers, are prepared to initiate judgment. Yahweh did not prescribe lynchings, decapitations, gassings, electrocutions, or lethal injections because they do not allow for the blood avenger, or next of kin, the witnesses, and others in the community to be involved [Deuteronomy 17:6-7, 19:11-12].5
These and other judicial safeguards were forfeited as a result of Amendment 8’s interdiction against Yahweh’s righteous judgments.
Consider another important reason why Amendment 8 must be renounced for its apostasy:
Christians’ aversion to Yahweh’s judgments is one of the prime reasons Christians have lost dominion. Those who define criminal behavior and dispense judgment clearly rule society. Antinomians’ aversion to Yahweh’s judgments can only mean they believe man’s judgments are superior to Yahweh’s and that non-Christians are more competent to dispense judgment than Christians, which in turn means most modern Christians do not believe “…the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether” (Psalm 19:9). They also do not believe “the law of YHWH is perfect” (Psalm 19:7), because any law void of its judgments is an imperfect law, lacking one third of its indispensable components. Abolishing a Commandment’s judgment guts the Commandment the judgment enforces:
“There has been an ancient tradition on the part of Christian commentators of appealing selectively to Old Testament laws whenever convenient in moral arguments, but almost never to the God specified sanctions…. This is wholly illegitimate exegetically, and it has led to the accusation by consistent critics that Christians who uphold “the moral law of God” apart from God’s specified civil sanctions are hypocritical, that they want all the moral benefits of theocracy without any of the embarrassing theocratic sanctions.” [Roy L. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 116 (July 1959), p. 226, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1997) pp. 913-14.]….
People opposed to Yahweh’s judgments prefer crime over judgment, criminals over victims, and man’s law—at least man’s judgments—over Yahweh’s. Put another way, these same people would prefer people be murdered, kidnapped, raped, and plundered rather than claim responsibility for administering Yahweh’s righteous judgments:
“The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment.” (Proverbs 21:7)5
As with most of the Constitution, Amendment 8 forces us to choose between the framers’ capricious traditions or Yahweh’s perfect law. In this instance, it’s a choice between Amendment 8’s interdiction against cruel and unusual punishments or Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments. Choose carefully!
“[You have] … changed my judgments into wickedness … for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them. Therefore thus saith the Lord YHWH; Because ye … have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments … behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations.” (Ezekiel 5:6-8)
Related posts:
Chapter 14 “Amendment 5: Constitutional vs. Biblical Judicial Protection”
Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments”
1. Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
2. YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. In obedience to the Third Commandment and in honor of His memorial name (Exodus 3:15), and the multitudes of Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, I have chosen to use His name throughout this blog. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
3. Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
4. The Constitution is also demonstrated to be a “living document” in that, unlike the Bible, Article 5 provides for its own amendment. There is nothing in the Constitution that cannot be amended or repealed.
5. Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
This is one area that so-called “Christian Constitutionalists” conveniently ignore. They are great at selectively quoting the framers own words, out of context, in attempting to justify their continued support for their idol. However, when it comes to God’s law versus the 8th Amendment, they are conspicuously silent in aligning themselves with the framers extant philosophies concerning the “savagery, brutality, and abject tyranny” of Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law. Their hypocrisy and blindness apparently knows no limits.
Once again, you have spoken out on a topic that you do not seem to have properly understood. You claim that the vagueness of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments left the interpretation of this amendment “to the capricious interpretation of each and every Supreme Court.” That is entirely false. Let me recommend that you read the following article: http://www.federalistblog.us/2012/03/cruel-and-unusual-punishment/ for a better understanding of this amendment. And for additional reading, let me suggest that you consider the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Burger in Furman v. Georgia which is available online at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0408_0238_ZD.html
Once again, you have shown the propensity to speak out on a topic that is clearly above your ability to comprehend. You continually denigrate Ted’s intellect, accusing him of being “entirely false”, on every issue. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but this isn’t a contest of intellects, or egos. If this were an intellectual contest, I like my odds; an ego driven one, I feel no need to engage. However, the purpose here is strictly about humbling ourselves before the King of Kings, and seeking to align our fallible hearts with His perfect heart. It would be so easy for me to dismiss all of your arguments as intellectually inferior, and devoid of any substance. The problem is, I am imperfect, and have found that my arrogance can cause me to err grievously. I can, and have, learned from you. Are you so prideful, that you feel it impossible to learn from someone you consider lacking? I certainly pray that is not the case.
As for the subject of this post, It is you who is “entirely false”. The overwhelming weight of the historical evidence, shows Ted to be entirely CORRECT in his assertions. The links you provided only serve to further prove Ted correct. Regardless what legislators, by majority vote, determine to be suitable punishment for capital crimes, the fact remains, that this is still one more arena in which the seditious framers usurped authority from the only Sovereign Legislator. If the antichristian framers had merely instituted Yahweh’s perfect judgments, the 8th Amendment would be utterly superfluous. Since they completely rejected Yahweh’s perfect law-order, the 8th Amendment instead serves to PREVENT Yahweh’s justice from being executed.
Mr. Fortenberry, I fear you will go to any length, to prevent the Constitution from being biblically exposed as the riotous, unholy, seditious, humanistic, antichristian decree that it truly is. One can only wonder what wonderful things could transpire, were you to advocate for the Kingdom with the same amount of zeal and fervor!
Bill, thank you for the article and decision you posted. They shed additional light upon the subject. As a result, I intend to clarify some of my comments herein and in the next edition of the book.
That said, this article and decision do NOTHING to alter the much more significant issue at hand (that you have, once again, ignored)—that is, that the framers were not defending Yahweh’s law but man-made law. In fact, Amendment 8 would have been completely superfluous had they simply declared that all judicial determinations would be governed by Yahweh’s perfect law and altogether righteous judgments. The confusion that has prevailed over Amendment 8’s wording because of their ambiguity would have disappeared with that one declaration that Yahweh’s law was to be the standard for United States law.
Not only did the framers fail to generally promote Yahweh’s law and judgments, they also nowhere specified stoning, lex talionis, beatings, and indentured slavery as the judgments for convicted criminals. They obviously did not believe Psalm 19:9 that Yahweh’s judgments are altogether righteous. (Consequently, to my knowledge, none of these judgments have ever been proscribed by any court since the Constitution’s ratification—unlike courts in 17th-century Colonial America.) This alone reveals the framers had no intention of promoting Yahweh’s triune law (His commandments, statutes, and judgments).
The information you provided ultimately changes nothing concerning the fact the framers rejected Yahweh’s morality as codified in His law. Amendment 8 doesn’t protect the integrity of YAHWEH’S law but instead ANY judgment any given constitutional legislature at any given time decides should be the judgment for any given crime. It would seem that (along with the Constitution itself) this is also what you’re protecting—once again “straining at gnats while swallowing camels.”
Not only does the information you provided change nothing regarding the thrust of my article, it actually substantiates it. Neither the framers nor future legislatures codified stoning or any of Yahweh’s other criminal judgments into the United States legal system. Consequently, had a judge enforced stoning or any of Yahweh’s other righteous judgments, he would have been in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s interdiction against cruel and unusual punishment. Without such constitutional legislation, such a judgment would have fit the criteria of at least “unusual.”
Moreover, without Yahweh’s commandments and statues specifically declared as the law of the land, such legislatures can also capriciously decide what is and what is not crime (i.e., what is good and what is evil), thus usurping domain that belongs exclusively to Yahweh (Isaiah 33:22, James 4:12). And, of course, that’s exactly what they’ve done since the ratification of the Constitution, which has predominately resulted in calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20).
The article “Original Meaning: Cruel and Unusual Punishments” you recommended summed it up perfectly: “I’ll leave the last word to Justice James Iredell: ‘Let us also remember, that as those who are to MAKE THOSE LAWS must themselves be subject to them, THEIR OWN INTEREST AND FEELINGS
WILL DICTATE TO THEM not to make them unnecessarily severe.’” (Emphasis mine.)
Stoning by the community requires the witnesses to actively engage in the execution, whereas lethal injection, beheading, hanging, etc., becomes the domain of a professional killer. Inevitably, the professional executioner is in the pay of the controlling interest, i.e., the State.
Any man (or woman) who acts as a professional executioner would become callous to the value of human life. Witnesses to a capital crime, however, more than likely be average, common citizens. They would hate to throw the stones, but would throw them anyway. Stones are common everywhere and it would only take a few dozen (or less) to effectively “put the evil away”.
Excellent observations! “Professional killers”: Another consequence of the framers’ failure to establish government upon Yahweh’s triune law.
Execution, as it is practiced today, is neat, clean, sanitary, painless, and out of sight. Except for the evening newscast or tomorrow morning’s headline, most people would have absolutely no contact with the practice or procedure. Stoning in and by a local community would change this radically. It would be bloody, messy, and quite disagreeable to anyone who witnessed it or participated.
Not only this, but it would be a lot cheaper and the word would get around rapidly. Is the death penalty a deterrent today? Hardly. Would it be in that scenario? I’d be willing to bet on it.
Not only is it not a deterrent today, thanks to the Constitution’s unbiblical LITIGANT appellate system (and other reasons), it facilitates crime:
“Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
I favor the firing squad as a means of accomplishing the requirement of death in capital cases. I view the bullet to be a modern equivalent of the stone. Further, the steely barrel “casts” the bullet in a way symmetrical to a man’s arm. The use of this method would be compatible with the need for witnesses and avengers. Further, the firing squad has been in use throughout the United States’ history and, given the fact that it is a commonplace feature of wars up to this very moment, it should still criticism that it is “cruel and unusual” punishment. Parenthetically, the Israelite people have always erred on the side of kindness, or soft-heartedness, witness King Saul, et al, and drawn Yahwey’s wrath for a fault often cited as a virtue.