Posted on 03/15/2005 6:46:01 AM PST by Logos124
The fact that people differ on whether or not an unborn child is a person is at issue. (Of course some thought slaves not fully human, but still...and the court was on the WRONG side of that one. In the end, without the consent of the governed you will always reap tension and strife.) I can live with the persuasion rule. That's what our whole system of government was supposed to be based on. That way everything gets thoroughly debated and debated and debated. We vote. Debate. Vote. Debate. Etc. We can change our minds back and forth, tweak it this way and that, and in the end we have a pretty decent standard that most of the people respect. When the judges legislate it is final, and there is nothing left for the losers but anger and passion. The plantiff side has an advantage because they can keep suing. Once something is overturned -- the right to decide taken away from the people -- then it is pretty final.
Not in general. Only if the victim has some official connection to the federal government (murder of a federal agent, judge, the President, etc) or if the crime occurs within federal jurisdiction, such a military installation, federal courthouse, national park, etc, etc. Or, IIRC, if the murder occurs in conjunction with another federal crime, such as robbing a bank or a mail carrier.
Please don't change headlines.
Please change the headline to the original one above. No wonder the phoney headline did not match the story. Freeper changed it for their own agenda it looks like.
That would be my preference. But I am always against new laws prohibiting or regulating things unless absolutely necessary, and would oppose a law against abortion because it is unneeded. All a government has to do is define a fetus as a person protected under the law, and we already have laws to handle murder, plus a couple other definitions and we're set.
For this same reason I oppose laws against cell phones in cars. We already have punishments for inattentive driving.
And that would be how many, five, ten, judges throughout this land?
Supposedly the "right to privacy," which in convoluted reasoning is found in the Fourth Amendment. Blackman twisted, turned and bent that "right" until it resembled a "Krazy Straw" when he was done. That opinion in so full of descriptions of medical procedures, etc., etc., that I guess even his clerks were loathe at the time to remind the Justice that the regulation of professions such as medicine and law were the province of the individual states.
At least that is my understanding from my old Con Law professor, because I'll be honest - even after reading Roe, I was at a loss to explain where he found a U.S. Constitutional question that warranted the granting of cert in the matter.
concise
you do understand
I watched his talk on CSPAN last night.
Scalia's right as usual. While I abhor abortion, it IS a state issue...re-read the Constitution if necessary.
Murder (aside from abortion) is a state crime. Why should abortion be any different?
Yep. That's what that bastard McVeigh was tried for, the murder of the federal employees at the Alfred Murrah building, not the "civilians." Their survivors didn't have their day in court until that OTHER bastard, Terry Nichols went on trial.
Justice Scalia is even more impressive when you get to hear him speek. I was able to listen to the oral arguments of the Texas sodomy case, I forget the actual case name, the lawyer for Texas was not up to the task of arguing before the SJC. Justice Scalia ended up basically making his arguments for him. It was very interesting and made me realize how intelligent all the justices are. The problem is that sometimes the Justices rely to heavily on their owm opinions, and not on the constitution.
I dunno, but there are a whole boatload of citizens who get it.
When I hit "post", I knew I had asked a dumb question.
actually, in biological terms, the new member of the species if formed at the moment of fertilization. From that point on, it's just a question of the human being's stage of development.
The abortion argument is simply a group of people saying that human beings do not deserve life until they are at a certain point in their growth. It's a very, very dangerous position to take because the point is completely aribtrary.
Amendment V: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Didn't all the inmates have due process?
I do not believe that states can legalize abortion. The constitutional guarantees of the 14th amendment apply to all persons. I think persons include persons who have not emerged from their mother yet. At the very least, the court needs to define person, and only if it does not include unborn people, then may states legalize abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.