About the juvenile death penalty decision...

As you know, the High Court just decided that it's unconstitutional to execute minors. My cautious support of the death penalty notwithstanding, I feel this decision was basically a good idea. I do have one concern though. Many conservatives (as usual) are upset about this decision, saying that it's a violation of state's rights. The thing is, they might be right on this one.

My question is, what is the constitutional support for the decision? Is there an issue of federalism involved here? I think they said only six states actually still execute minors, so wouldn't this be a case of an issue rotting on the vine? Is their a legal reason for the Court to trump the states?

If not, then I think a better path might have been to either go the way of a constitutional amendment, or settle this amongst the states. Am I wrong here? Any experts who can help me out?

I'm not sure (and I probably should know this before I pontificate on it), but wasn't this considered "cruel and unusual" in the Kennedy decision? If so, there would have to be a Constitutional ammendment to allow for the killing of those convicted for crimes committed as minors.

My opinion is that, since minors are not "full" citizens, meaning that they have not fully realized the virtues of being citizens (the right to vote, the ability to enter the armed forces, a full education), an execution of this type is cruel. It serves no other purpose than to exact some kind of sick revenge for a heinous crime committed by an ignorant person (i.e. a minor).

The majority used the idea of an evolving "national consensus" concerning "standards of decency" re: cruel and unusual punishment. There was also discussion regarding the emotional capacity of minors to make decisions in an adult manner, and how problematic making a legal decision on that matter is. Additionally, there was a consideration of "international consensus" regarding the execution of juveniles. The US has been alone in the world for the last three years in permitting this practice.

The Right naturally went nuts over the "national consensus" and especially the "international consensus" parts of the decision. Scalia's dissent reads like the delusional wingnut that he is; at one point he claimed that since the execution of children as young as seven was not considered "cruel and unusual" at the time the Constitution was penned, then there is no constitutional reason to prohibit such practices now.

O'Connor wrote a separate dissent where she went to some trouble to make sure everyone understands she thinks Scalia is nuts, even though she came to the same legal conclusion as he did. Very entertaining reading:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html