Laura v. Mornings
Mornings have, from the dawn of time, been a bane to civilized man's existence. Each mornings brings tiredness, the forcing of oneself out of bed (which is quite unhealthy in itself), painful and dangerous stumbling, and a propensity to sound like an idiot while the mouth opens spewing forth random drivel while the brain synapses are trying to fire, engaging the dormant part of the mind to awaken and participate in what is deemed appropriate conversation. Many a daybreak I have longed for reprieve only to suffer disappointment, emotional trauma and even physical affliction and yet persistently every emergence of the sun brings with it renewed agony. My proposition, ladies and gentlemen, is simply this: to ban morning time and aid the millions suffering from its cold, heartless stranglehold.
My argument is as follows: as Americans, under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, we are protected from 'cruel and unusual punishments'. I boldly state that mornings directly violate this right and therefore should be abolished henceforth.
In Furman v Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'." Let us examine this supposition further while addressing these principles.
1. The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture.
I ask you to examine the evidence:
Ladies and gentlemen, can you truly answer me in the negative, seeing the evidence for yourselves, that first light is not, by severity, degrading to the human dignity?
2. A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.
Mornings are not random, but quite predictable and are in fact not 'unusual' at all. There are those who would argue that under this stipulation, the dawning of a day no longer fits the requirements of 'cruel and unusual punishments'. However, Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual, if it was too severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty. I therefore declare this principle to be null and void for the case in point.
3. A severe punishment is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.
And here we have a true argument. Are not the moments of waking in early hours of the day generally an accepted practice in today's society? Sadly yes. There are even those who cherish those moments each day, as strange as it may seem. I can only pray for such misguided souls and hope that they will see the error of their ways. However, the argument remains, how can mornings qualify as 'cruel and unusual' if they are given credence to and practiced today? Here my reasoning says, "But aren't there punishments which are now considered torturous that were once received throughout society as acceptable?" As our culture and communities grow, so do our understandings of what truly damages our well being. Though our traditional conventions are accepted, does that mean that they are always to remain so, if they deter the growth and progress of the human experience in such an anguishing manner?
In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S.86 (1958), Chief Justice Earl Warren said: "The Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Subsequently, the Court has looked to societal developments, as well as looking to its own independent judgment, in determining what are those "evolving standards of decency".
Though there are those in society who would look down upon this proposition with extreme prejudice, there are also among us enlightened souls who see the injustice of the imposing of this superfluous addendum to the daylight hours and would swiftly see it eradicated. We must consider the overall good of society in this instance and abolish the dawn forthwith.
4. A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.
Does this point really have to be argued at all?
In closing my proposal, I would simply like to state that I believe that I have shown the evidence required to rightly petition a ban on all mornings. They have proven in my life to be a agonizing time of day which truly causes rifts in my daily lifestyle and cruel happenstances, the detrimental results of which may only be able to be determined through future generations. I respectfully request that you find mornings guilty and that they are from this moment on, deprived of appearing.
The motion has been presented. Is there anyone who will second this motion?
Seconded?
All who are in favor say "Aye".
Motion passed.
Mornings are henceforth abolished in accordance with this new decree and all early hours of the day that are found in a state of noncomformity can kiss a part of my body which is not displayed to the general public.
Thank you.
Ladies and gentlemen, can you truly answer me in the negative, seeing the evidence for yourselves, that first light is not, by severity, degrading to the human dignity?
2. A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion.
Mornings are not random, but quite predictable and are in fact not 'unusual' at all. There are those who would argue that under this stipulation, the dawning of a day no longer fits the requirements of 'cruel and unusual punishments'. However, Justice Brennan also wrote that he expected no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles. In this way, the United States Supreme Court "set the standard that a punishment would be cruel and unusual, if it was too severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty. I therefore declare this principle to be null and void for the case in point.
3. A severe punishment is clearly and totally rejected throughout society.
And here we have a true argument. Are not the moments of waking in early hours of the day generally an accepted practice in today's society? Sadly yes. There are even those who cherish those moments each day, as strange as it may seem. I can only pray for such misguided souls and hope that they will see the error of their ways. However, the argument remains, how can mornings qualify as 'cruel and unusual' if they are given credence to and practiced today? Here my reasoning says, "But aren't there punishments which are now considered torturous that were once received throughout society as acceptable?" As our culture and communities grow, so do our understandings of what truly damages our well being. Though our traditional conventions are accepted, does that mean that they are always to remain so, if they deter the growth and progress of the human experience in such an anguishing manner?
In Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S.86 (1958), Chief Justice Earl Warren said: "The Eighth Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." Subsequently, the Court has looked to societal developments, as well as looking to its own independent judgment, in determining what are those "evolving standards of decency".
Though there are those in society who would look down upon this proposition with extreme prejudice, there are also among us enlightened souls who see the injustice of the imposing of this superfluous addendum to the daylight hours and would swiftly see it eradicated. We must consider the overall good of society in this instance and abolish the dawn forthwith.
4. A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary.
Does this point really have to be argued at all?
In closing my proposal, I would simply like to state that I believe that I have shown the evidence required to rightly petition a ban on all mornings. They have proven in my life to be a agonizing time of day which truly causes rifts in my daily lifestyle and cruel happenstances, the detrimental results of which may only be able to be determined through future generations. I respectfully request that you find mornings guilty and that they are from this moment on, deprived of appearing.
The motion has been presented. Is there anyone who will second this motion?
Seconded?
All who are in favor say "Aye".
Motion passed.
Mornings are henceforth abolished in accordance with this new decree and all early hours of the day that are found in a state of noncomformity can kiss a part of my body which is not displayed to the general public.
Thank you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment