It doesn’t matter what Trump thinks about executing drug dealers, because courts won’t allow it

Some in the media now wonder whether, since the legal scholar in the White House has proposed executing drug dealers, we will now have a debate about it. They can save their breath, and so can Trump’s mouth-breathing legions, because the death penalty implicates the Eighth Amendment (the one about cruel and unusual punishment), which in turn implicates the US Constitution, which in turn takes this out of the hands of political circus clowns and puts it in the hands of courts, which, as long as some Nixon-through-Obama-appointed judges still exist, might avoid becoming reality-TV entertainers.

In 1977, the Supreme Court insisted on proportionality where the death penalty was concerned, and the Court ruled that the death penalty is not a proportional sentence with regard to any crime–even rape–that does not directly result in the death of a victim. Directly–as in not somewhere far down the line of causation. So unless there’s a homicide involved in a drug transaction, courts will not allow the death penalty, as a matter of constitutional law.

So this is going nowhere. It’s red meat for rubes who don’t understand the Constitution, the role of courts, or the concepts of judicial review and supremacy.