My understanding is that this idea that our "creator" has "given" us these rights would be seen as a misconception by the FF.

They would say rather that those rights 'endowed by the creator' are things which are inherently part of us as living beings.

John Locke says we have basically just ONE right, the right to self-defense. A living thing will resist being killed and as long as it remains a living thing you cannot stop that resistance; so the right is "inalienable" that is, it cannot be taken away. You CAN kill the creature (or really, rather, person, Locke didn't deal with animals, PETA notwithstanding) of course, but that doesn't "take" the right to resist away. Rather it takes LIFE away as resisting being killed is part of life.

Now how this gets into property rights and also how Locke believed one could sign over even the "inalienable" rights as part of the social contract can become rather complicated, but this is, AFAIK, pretty much the basis for rights as most of the FF understood the matter.

So am I.

__________________
Alizee Jacotay, the reason god invented hips

so first you say innocent men aren't executed, then you say in the next paragraph that the reality is that innocent men are executed sometimes.

how would abolishing the death penalty drag the entire justice system to a halt?

Evidence Mounts That State Executed Innocent Central Texas Man

__________________
"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." --Thomas Paine

I just think it is rather curious that the constitution doesn't address directly the right to be alive when it enumerates at least a few rights that aren't near as important as life.

No it has nothing to do with abortion. I could care less about abortion. I really would like to know if an implicit right to live is protected under the ninth ammendment. It's really that simple. However I realize that it's not a simple question because the ninth ammendment is a bit vague.

I think it implicitly assesses that "rights" are a human artifice, and wisely allows for us to "retain" new ones as we see fit as a nation.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

The Forth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments aren't that vague.

IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

__________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. ---P. J. O'Rourke

Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job at the Convention, with our secular Constitution. As the supreme law of the land, it enumerates all the morals and ethics required for our form of political-economy.

Thus, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is implied in the declaration, our mission statement, and explicit in the text of our long-term, legally binding social contract:

Apparently you did not understand what was said.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

Only if you consider it wrong to punish someone for committing an injustice, or that it is always wrong to kill someone. Is it wrong to kill someone in self-defense? If not, then whether it is wrong to punish someone would depend on whether or not they committed an injustice worthy of such a punishment.

I do, however, think it's silly for a judge condemning someone to death to not act on evidence proving someone to be not guilty of a crime and just having him executed anyway with the knowledge that it is wrongful application of the punishment.

You would have to abolish all imprisonment-type punishments, too. Do you honestly think that freeing someone after 20 years of wrongful imprisonment because of new evidence is going to somehow undo those lost 20 years? 30? 40? How much are 50 years of your life worth to you? For how much money would you trade them?

How did you come to that conclusion, Slon?

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

I explained in the last part of the post.

Oh really? On numerous occasions Scalia has said he can't find a right to privacy in the constitution (completely ignoring the 9th amendment).

Justice Scalia Challenges Privacy Rights At Conference | Americans United

On the issue of executing innocent men, he said its not unconstitutional either.

So the right to life apparently doesn't exist for Scalia either since its not spelled out in the constitution. Gogo textualism.

Ok, I just don't really understand the connection between the part I quoted and the last part of your post. No one is saying that the justice system is perfect, but all reasons for abolishing the death penalty aren't necessarily related to the problems that exist in our justice system as a whole. No, the DP shouldn't be abolished simply because people were wrongfully sentenced to death row. Economically, the death penalty sucks and in my opinion should be discarded for that reason alone.

__________________
"Hard work without talent is a shame, but talent without hard work is a tragedy." -fortune cookie

The only reason it sucks is because appeals are treated differently for it than they are for prison terms. Either you believe that punishment of the innocent is seriously unjust enough to warrant such appeals in both cases or you think it's too expensive and the appeal processes for the death penalty should be reduced to those of imprisonment penalties. Both cases would result in the costs for both punishments roughly the same, except perhaps even cheaper for death sentences since the person will likely have a shorter life span than that of a lifer.