better or for worse the constitution often uses vague wording to state a law. This may have very well been intentional. Perhaps the framers of the constitution wanted to establish a belief but allow it to adjust to the interpretations of the times. What exactly did the framers have in mind when they closed the eight amendment prohibiting punishments that are "cruel and unusual-? .
We have learned that the framers intended for the Law of our country to be a "living law- with the ability to grow and conform to the ever-changing norms of society. But then why would the framers write a statement that simply declares the modern punishment to be within the norms of society. All punishment is within the realm of society's norms, because it responds to the present needs of that society, mainly through juries and a democratic government. So is the 8th's final statement pointless, or did the framers intend to set a standard for the limits of harsh punishment? .
In Trop v. Dulles of 1958 Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that the clause "must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society-. In 1944 Albert Trop was an American soldier stationed in Casablanca, Morocco. He was incarcerated by the army for a "disciplinary violation-. Trop surrendered when he ran into an army truck on its way into Casablanca. Claiming his surrender was intended for a voluntarily return to the stockade, a court martial convicted Albert Trop of desertion. He served three years of hard labor, loss of pay, dishonorable discharge and a loss of citizenship. (http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1068/).
In 1952 Albert Trop wanted to get a passport. He applied like everyone else, but was denied. Under the Nationality Act of 1940, Section 401 (g) he was rejected because of his lost citizenship, and dishonorable discharge for wartime desertion. He failed to get a declaration of US citizenship from the district and Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which led him to appeal to the Supreme Court.