I realize, of course, that the New York Times doesn't have any respect for any provision of any Constitution other than one clause of the First Amendment, but in this case it also betrays such a fundamental ignorance of the law and the constitution of the State of Texas as to be laughable.

Texas is infamous for the cavalier way that it applies the death penalty. Still, the case of Charles Hood, who is scheduled to be executed on Wednesday is especially appalling. Mr. HoodÂ’s lawyers have presented evidence that during his trial, the judge was having an affair with the prosecutor. Gov. Rick Perry should grant Mr. Hood a temporary reprieve, and if the reports of the affair are correct, Mr. Hood must be given a new trial.

Only one minor problem there, NY Times editors -- Rick Perry cannot do that in the way you want him to.

You see, the governor does not have that sort of power here in Texas. Call it a remnant of the days of Reconstruction where the power to grant pardons, reprieves, and commutations was so abused by one of the incumbents that the 1876 state constitution effectively removed that power from the governor. For Perry to grand more than a 30-day reprieve, it would require an affirmative vote of the Board of Pardons and Paroles. At best, Perry can grant Hood a single 30-day reprieve -- after which the execution proceeds with no further gubernatorial intervention possible, absent a recommendation from the Board.

But there is one other minor detail -- the romance issue was apparently raised before, and not seen as grounds for overturning the conviction due to the lack of evidence of any inappropriate conduct or rulings that prejudiced Hood's right to a fair trial. That was the ruling of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, which this week dismissed an attempt by Hood to raise the issue again (Oh, yeah -- NYT doesn't mention the fair trial issue has already been adjudicated against Hood). I guess that in this case the folks in New York don't really care about that whole separation of powers thing.

Oh, and by the way -- want the best example of how little respect the folks at the Times have for the unambiguous language of the Constitution? It is right here.

We believe the death penalty is, in all cases, unconstitutional and wrong.

However, the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution explicitly permits capital punishment. Unless we are to accept the argument that a part of the Bill of Rights itself is unconstitutional, their entire stance against the death penalty is based upon the belief that the opinions of the Editorial Staff, not the text of the Constitution, is (or ought to be) the Supreme Law of the Land.

Posted by: Greg at 02:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 3 kb.