- Status
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Illigitimate law made by an activist court. The Constitution requires Congress to debate and pass a bill for the POTUS to be signed. This has never been done. With 5 Catholics including the Chief Justice on SCOTUS I am appalled they do not strike it down immediately. The Law is clear- courts cannot make law and is why we have 3 branches of government.
It is not correct. Our Declaration stipulates Life and Liberty are not things granted by governments but by God, and this particular government the Founders were forming was instituted to protect those inalienable rights for Americans specifically, but was a statement to the world and all human beings at large. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights adopts that premise in full.
SCOTUS ruled without considering the human being in the womb who also has these sacrosanct rights of Life and Liberty. The Constitution need not be ammended but followed. If our society wants to declare the fetus from zygote to natural birth a non-living, non-human person that is not due the protection of law all human beings are afforded then they can propose a bill for Congress to debate and a POTUS to sign into law.
Every (American) living human being has the right to due process before having it’s life ended prematurely. Criminals sit on death row for 10-15 years before executions are carried out. Allow the fetus the same judicial review before being kille din each and every case.
It would require a Constitutional Amendment to clarify what a person is since common sense ruled our common law before 1973. Now, since the unjust law has been in effect for 35 years and 50 million human babies have been killed with state support/protection; common law is that the human child is not a living human child due protection of law and life. This is no longer restricted to religious arguments as science supports the human zygote as a uniquely fully human, living being. A 6 month old born is still developing to be an adult just as a 2 day old conceived child is still developing like a 7 year old child.
This callousness toward all human life is evident in our society in many ways; not the least of which is turning a blind eye to other Constitutional requirements such as requiring Congress to declare war an dnot pass that responsibility to the POTUS.
The mythical 'separation of Church and State" of the 1st Amendment is the greatest cause of our current dilema. Many progressives read it is demanding a fully secular state and they are trying with all their might to enfoce that, but the 1st Amendment says no such thing; it simply restricts government from establishing a state religion like England had.
It is also very clear: Congress shall make no law…
the tax code (16th Amendment improperly ratified) has allowed (since LBJ) to restrict free speech by threatening Churches and religious institutions with taxes. What part of ‘shall make no law’, restricting the free practice of religion and of free speech’ is unclear? Congress made law (tax law) and it restricts my pastor from speaking out as it likely restricts yours.
Demand our elected leaders follow the law as written.
W
Wirraway
Guest
what an interesting interpretation of the constitution you briefed. why don’t you take the real world step and actually test it it court, which is the only place where such opinions matter.
because that would be too hard?
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
Some things are more simple than we try and make them out to be. I don’t need a Constitutional scholar like Barack Obama to tell me Roe is ‘effectively’ established law, or AG’s like Gonzales to say Congress ‘Authorization to use Force’ in Iraq is a legal war.
It isn’t a matter of interpretation; it is clearly written. Those that want to interpret:
Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 1 - The Legislature
-**All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress **of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
-Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
-To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States
-To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
-To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
-***To make all Laws ***which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article. II. - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, **when called into the actual Service **of the United States;
Article III. - The Judicial Branch
-The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
When our elected/appointed leaders break the law, using the law to correct it is difficult and may require extraordinary means to bring about the law.
M
manualman
Guest
Abortion is quite clearly NOT a guaranteed right in the Constitution. Arguing hypotheticals that it is is like arguing “What if there is no God…”
No less than pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has admitted in the past that the legal rationale underpinning Roe v Wade is fallacious. IIRC, she favors transferring the ‘right to abortion’ to the amendment abolishing slavery on the equally laughable grounds that forcing to woman to carry a child she does not want is equivalent to slavery.
These people oviously have the answer they want predetermined and rationalize like crazy to find a way to justify it.
No less than pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has admitted in the past that the legal rationale underpinning Roe v Wade is fallacious. IIRC, she favors transferring the ‘right to abortion’ to the amendment abolishing slavery on the equally laughable grounds that forcing to woman to carry a child she does not want is equivalent to slavery.
These people oviously have the answer they want predetermined and rationalize like crazy to find a way to justify it.
W
Wirraway
Guest
there is a constitutional right to abortion until either the USSC or congress or a constitutional convention says otherwise.
ginsburg was very cleverly misquoted by LifeNews to give the appearance of adopting that position (she was responding to a question where the slavery question was raised), as you well know, since you were a part of that thread, post 20 and others.
again the problem, to wage an effective fight against abortion, we need to have at least a passing knowledge of constitutional law and stop fooling ourself with pathetic plays like LifeNews’ antics and the reliance on strawman tactics.
R
royal_archer
Guest
Well it is good I am not the sole advocate against murder.
R
royal_archer
Guest
The way we discuss issues on this forum are different than we would in secular society.
W
Wirraway
Guest
I see. I don’t. so that explains it.
M
MoBeck
Guest
If you wonder how judges get from the text of the Fourth Amendment to Roe v. Wade, check this out, you’ll need to click on the download button.
It’s a legal parody – the Supreme Lawmaker (Mom) forbids any eating except in the kitchen. After rulings by Justices Dad, Babysitter, Aunt, and most liberal of all, Grandma, everyone is eating all over the house again
F
fix
Guest
How how would you address it?
F
fix
Guest
I agree
N
Newbie2
Guest
Wasn’t the gist of Roe v. Wade that the individual states had the right to regulate abortions?
I know that in practice, it makes little difference since the states allow it, but it seems to me as a non-lawyer that if abortion was protected by the constitution that it wouldn’t matter if individual states allowed it or not.
I know that in practice, it makes little difference since the states allow it, but it seems to me as a non-lawyer that if abortion was protected by the constitution that it wouldn’t matter if individual states allowed it or not.
V
Verisimilitude
Guest
That is not true. Abortion is unconstitutional by nature of the act of killing a human being without judicial review. Before SCOTUS could rule as they did Congress had the duty to define the human person and who’s privacy was being violated, and/or when human life begins. I think it more than reasonable to conclude the Founders and any rational thinking person before Roe was unjustly made law knew instinctively that the fetus is a fully independent living human being even though the Founders did not understand science and biology as we do today.
W
Wirraway
Guest
what a nice argument. so what? its just your opinion. and while I may not disagree with you, the opinion, as such, is worthless on an internet bulletin board. it would have merit, on the other hand, if you filed a lawsuit to challenge the current state of the law and force someone to respond substantively in a forum where winning and losing have real world consequences.
on the other hand, I do disagree about what congress need must do as a precursor for the USSC to rule, but that’s just my opinion.
M
manualman
Guest
Wirriway,
Ginsburg’s recent comments are not her first on the matter. I recall at her confirmation hearing that some pro-abortion groups were highly concerned about her past statements on the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. All of history is not linkable, I’m afraid.
You are correct, that the current legal status of abortion is that of “constitutionally protected.” But that protection stems from a fallacious interpretation of the Constitution, not what the Constitution says.
Ginsburg’s recent comments are not her first on the matter. I recall at her confirmation hearing that some pro-abortion groups were highly concerned about her past statements on the legitimacy of Roe v. Wade. All of history is not linkable, I’m afraid.
You are correct, that the current legal status of abortion is that of “constitutionally protected.” But that protection stems from a fallacious interpretation of the Constitution, not what the Constitution says.
W
Wirraway
Guest
I can accept that, but the claim cannot be evaluated. anyway, as you know, the constitutional grounds for abortion have shifted away from the* Roe* articulation.
I agree with you in a goal-oriented sense. while the USSC can revisit the constitutional basis for abortion and overrule itself, what is or is not a fallacious interprettion is what the USSC says.
I’m not trying to be hypertechnical here, but a more complete understanding of how the USSC interprets the constitution and how constitutional law is challenged is really important for a realistic attack on abortion.
M
manualman
Guest
Presumably you mean Doe vs Bolton (sp?). Important differences came out, but the basis still lies on the presumption that “privacy” guarantees legality of abortion.
In lawyer world, you are correct that the Constitution says what the SC says it does.
But as free Americans, we are still entitled to disagree, protest and work to overturn it when the SC says that black is white.
In lawyer world, you are correct that the Constitution says what the SC says it does.
But as free Americans, we are still entitled to disagree, protest and work to overturn it when the SC says that black is white.
W
Wirraway
Guest
I agree with you, its our moral duty to fight the good fight.
- Status