Perhaps no controversy has generated as much attention as that
surrounding the imposition of the death penalty. Since the adoption of the
Bill of Rights, our Constitution has contained the eighth amendment1
proscription against those punishments which are "cruel and unusual."
Notwithstanding this principle the implementation of capital punishment
has been traditionally accepted as a legitimate function of our system of
criminal justice.
In order to understand the problem of capital punishment, the social
and political background of the movement against capital punishment, both
in the United States2 and abroad, must be examined. Accordingly, before
undertaking an analysis of Furman v. Georgia,5 this Comment will undertake
a detailed and exhaustive examination of capital punishment as it
developed in England and the United States. Such an examination will
set the foundation for a critical evaluation of the arguments for and against
capital punishment as advanced by the Furman Court. The issue of capital
punishment cannot be discussed in a legal vacuum, but must be viewed
from a moral, social, political, and philosophical, as well as legal, perspective.
With this structural background, this Comment will examine the road
to Furman - the legislative history and case law which comprises the
backbone of the eighth amendment. It is only by a combination of the
social and political trends and the legal precedents that Furman can be
fully appreciated
I believe your answer is C)
The president was given power by the U.S. Constitution to veta or sign/pass a bill.
Hope this helps
~Onyx~
The Otto system had begun, a close alliance between the German kingdom and the Church. Charlemagne had also carried out a grandiose concept of unity between Church and State, but ecclesiastical thought had given religious overtones to the Frankish state, while Otto planned a state church, owner of a hierarchy that would be a simple branch of government interior of the kingdom. To solve this problem, Otto had to permeate the Church with a new spiritual and moral life, and to liberate himself from the domination of the secular aristocracy. His best guarantee was his deeply religious nature.
Mankind and royal brute of Britain
