If this is how they "think," then I wouldn't trust any of the members of The New York Times editorial board to edit an eye chart. Check out today's editorial on a Supreme Court case to determine whether or not lethal injection is a cruel and unusual punishment, banned by the Eighth Amendment. (Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy has a good summary of the arguments here.)
What's the Times' editorial board's argument?
We believe that the death penalty, no matter how it is administered, is unconstitutional and wrong.
I might have a recurring feature. "The New York Times defines...unconstitutional:" Anything we don't like.
Seriously, you've got to be a upper Manhattan liberal to read the constitution and come to the conclusion that the death penalty is unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment clause "No person ... shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." apparently doesn't exist in the abridged version of the constitution found in the Times' offices.
Argue that the death penalty is morally wrong and that it should be abolished, but don't say that it is unconstitutional, because it isn't.