Posted on 01/15/2006 8:22:56 PM PST by AZRepublican
I'll tackle this question since I have received three similar ones since the Alito hearing's began.
A woman can be said to have a right to abortion just as much as she would have a right to decide on a root canal. The problem though is, it isn't neither a constitutional or federal issue -- but an issue of the people through their own State legislative process to determine. The US Constitution did not invest any jurisdiction with the federal government or the Supreme Court over the life and liberties of the people.
When the Constitution was finally ratified, it had nothing to say about the federal government being the sole caretaker and protector of the peoples liberties for a very good reason according to James Madison: "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects, which concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people." The Fourteenth Amendment's primary author, John A. Bingham, reaffirmed James Madison's exact words during the debates and further declared that he has "always believed that the protection in time of peace within the States of all rights of person and citizen was of the powers reserved to the States. And so I still believe."
Bingham's initial Fourteenth Amendment proposal was soundly rejected because it was seen as giving the federal government jurisdiction over the lives and liberties of the people. James Madison's initial Bill of Rights was rejected for these same reasons because he originally attempted to make the Bill of Rights a limitation upon the States as well as with Congress. Not many in Congress in 1789 and 1866 were inclined to give both Congress and the federal courts such jurisdiction. Instead, the 14th Amendment imposed its limitation directly upon the States, thereby bypassing giving Congress direct jurisdiction over the deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people without due process for violation of law made criminal.
Justice O'Connor reiterates these above principles when she quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger:
Irrespective of what we may believe is wise or prudent policy in this difficult area, "the Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom,' or ‘common sense.'"
Bingham himself quoted Chief Justice John Marshall as affirming that any new expansive powers that are neither expressly granted, or enumerated in the Constitution, is forbidden: "The Constitution of the United States is one of limited and expressly delegated powers which can only be exercised as granted, or in cases enumerated."
So far I have highlighted the fact that the US Supreme Court was not given any jurisdiction to rule on anything like Roe v. Wade, and therefore, the ruling has no Constitutional basis for which obligates anyone to treat it with respect or dignity. There is an another troubling aspect to Roe v. Wade that has to do with justices’ vile and repugnant disregard for another US Constitution principle: Article VI. Article VI, requires: "...judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution."
What is very disturbing about Roe is how seven justices of the court could find it so easy to disregard their oaths. When a Supreme Court justice takes both of his/her oaths (justices take two oaths) he or she is not bounding themselves to upholding prior precedent -- but only the US Constitution itself. Justices who are unwilling to take their oaths seriously are justices unfit to sit on the US Supreme Court and render justice because there can never be justice with such justices.
The right to abortion is an important right that should be decided by those who do indeed have the right to decide it: the people themselves through their own local legislative representatives.
5th Amend.: No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law
Of course, that also tells you why nothing has happened ...
When the 5th speaks of "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process" it is speaking of punishment for a violation of law. The framers decided the Constitution was not going to be the source of peoples personal liberties and that's what they gave us!
gasp!
Are people too stupid to vote on the issue of abortion?
It all began with Griswold vs Connecticut.
There is another thread with comments on an article by Judge DeMoss. There is a very good ongoing debate as to whether the " right to privacy" is a Constitutional right.
I am not sure how to find the thread but it was posted today.
Yes, it's also fun to reply "Choose what?," as the term is such a vaguery.
So, the Bill of Rights amounts to, "deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people". This is rubbish, so is the rest of the article.
That is the extenct of it, hath no more.
I've read it. Apparently some people find the Bill of Rights repugnent. That's obvious, because the 14th Amendment was required to extend them to the States after more than a few States and their majorities violated the rights of their citizens.
I don't find the Bill of Rights rupugnent, or any threat whatsoever. They protect rights, never as the author claims do they violate rights. Whether, or not some judge cares to honor the plain English contained theirin, does not render the Bill of Rights the problem. The following is to the author and anyone that agrees with him, because their goal is to gut the Bill of Rights.
Hey, P.A. Madison! The Bill of Rights you hate so much protects the unborn. Capitol punishment requires a crime. Where's the crime and the due process to convict the kid of a crime? The Bill of Rights says that's forbidden!
Where in the Constitution are the States limited from outlawing this act? The right of privacy implied in the 4th Amendment? The 4th Amendment limits search and seizure. It does not prohibit legislating ANY law, unrelated to the express prohibitions! The 10th Amendment says the States have the right to make that law.
Plessy vs Ferguson comes to mind Madison. Is that what you want back? How 'bout we dispence with the right to trial by jury and counsel to cut costs? Why not ignore the 2nd Amend. like you have been? Just toss it altogether!
The right to privacy has been said to be covered (somewhat lamely) by the ninth amendment.
The court has the jurisdiction as I stated in my post. I also gave the clear Constitutional answer there. The Constitution forbids it. It forbids it, because of the Bill of Rights. They ignored the Constitution in it's Roe v Wade decision and concocted a completely illogical story in support of it. The Court did the same in Plessy v Ferguson.
"The prevention of the slaughter of unborns must come from us through our ballots and own State laws, not 5 liberals in black robes. That is what he is arguing."
Right... "Why is Roe v. Wade not considered constitutional law?". The Bill of Rights and the 14th makes it Constitutional law. That's what he's arguing against and that's why he selectively quotes Bingham. The 14th gave the feds the power to legislate the 18USC24x civil rights statutes(which apply to all) and the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Note he didn't attack the application and substance of the liberal BS, he attacked application of the BoRs itself.
"the US Supreme Court was not given any jurisdiction to rule on anything like Roe v. Wade, and therefore, the ruling has no Constitutional basis for which obligates anyone to treat it with respect or dignity."
The BoRs is the Constitution. Article III Section 2 "The judicial power shall extend to ALL Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." So, the BoRs contained within the Constitution applies. Madison's attack is on the BoRs!
The Court took it upon itself to ignore the BoRs and legislate a perversion, justified by irraitonal rubbish. Instead of focusing on that, Madison did the same thing the liberals did and ignored the Constitution. He says it doesn't apply, but as I have shown, it does apply.
As I said in the prior post, the 10th gives the States the right to legislate on abortion. However, the Bill of Rights under the 14th gives the feds the right to make the rules stricter, not less!
The court has the jurisdiction as I stated in my post. I also gave the clear Constitutional answer there. The Constitution forbids it. It forbids it, because of the Bill of Rights. They ignored the Constitution in it's Roe v Wade decision and concocted a completely illogical story in support of it. The Court did the same in Plessy v Ferguson.
How does the Bill of Rights get into this since all the Bill of Rights addressees is due process of law before one can be deprived of their life, liberty or property for a violation of law? That was James Madison's purpose of the articles as well as the Steven's and Bingham's adoption of the BoR's in the 14th. See: A dummies guide to understand the 14th amendment
Quote from the above:
A presumed right to abortion won't make the burden under the Fourteenth primarily because it is neither an enumerated guarantee nor is it something that stands to be lost before a tribunal. Since the Supreme Court has no enumerated right under the Constitution to create new constitutional rights -- the right to abortion falls squarely under State jurisdiction and its citizens.
SCOTUS got involved, because the State had anti abortion laws. Roe got an abortion and was convicted of breaking the law. Her atty's essentially claimed it was a violation of her right to privacy with her hitman(doc). SCOTUS agreed. Logically, this means I can hire a hitman and as long as he's my doc and this effects my mental health, it's a private medical affair and the State can't get involved. As I said, the right to privacy exists, but it does not negate legislated law.
The SCOTUS created a perverted right to privacy, which is essentially a right to do certain unspecified acts behind closed doors. This arbitrary right is plastic and is used by the liberals and their allies, to promote social policy. It is a catch all right extended whenever they see fit. They will not extend it if I choose to fix my own plumbing, or electrical work though. Social policy requires I pay one of their base supporters to do that job. It would also violate their claim that my plumbing and electrical work is community asset.
Thanks for the link, I'll read it later. After skimming I bit to scroll up and see if Levin(Men in Black) wrote it. The author is PA Madison. Both of them are out to gut the 14th. Guess what, they both ignore Bingham's intent and Congress's intent. The intent was to give Congress the power to protect the rights of the citizens in the various States that were being violated at the time. See the 18USC24x statutes.
What rights contained in those statutes do you think they refer to? They are the rights contained in the BoRs and the rights enjoyed by every other citizen. It was Bingham's intent to be able to protect them. Bingham compromised in wording to get the last few holdouts in Congress to go along. The feared, not a loss of the peole's rights, but a loss of the people's ability to run roughshod over a minority.
Check and see if those 2 clowns give a rats behind about the minorities rights. They claim the States had a right to impose and infringe on minority rights as they saw fit and Congress should have no right to interfere. The people will protect them they say. BS. Both the States and Congress screwed them, then the SCOTUS in Plessy v Ferguson put on the final touch.
"they know the pendulum always swings back to the other side when things become unbalanced."
The SCOTUS has the ability to recognize them. In fact it has the duty to recognize them and acknowledge that they exist.
"the right to abortion falls squarely under State jurisdiction and its citizens."
Sorry Madison, there is no right to abortion. Abortion is the taking of a life. The taking of a life is covered in the BoRs under the 14th. The States have the power to determine when it will recognize the infant as a person, as does Congress under the 14th.
SCOTUS got involved, because the State had anti abortion laws. Roe got an abortion and was convicted of breaking the law. Her atty's essentially claimed it was a violation of her right to privacy with her hitman(doc). SCOTUS agreed. Logically, this means I can hire a hitman and as long as he's my doc and this effects my mental health, it's a private medical affair and the State can't get involved. As I said, the right to privacy exists, but it does not negate legislated law.
An anti-abortion law does not come under the 14th. The 14th amendment gives neither congress or the courts any jurisdiction over private conduct or anything remotely plenary over the liberties of the people. A anti-abortion law has nothing to do with a state depriving anyone of due process for a act made a criminal....there has to be a denial of some specific procedure of law found in the Bill of Rights before this can be considered a federal issue. A anti-abortion law is not depriving a fetus or a mother of any due process for any law made criminal by the State. The fetus has not committed any crimes or stands trials accused. Now you can argue the mother is committing a crime if there is a State anti-abortion law, but this isn't a 14th amendment issue by any stretch of the imagination. A anti-abortion law is just like a law against murder, it is a protective law. Only way a woman would have a 14th issue is if she violates some anti-abortion law and the State throws her in jail without a trial...otherwise this issue is void of any 14th jurisdiction because the mother does not stand to be deprived of due process or equal protection of the laws by State action for a act made a crime.
And the 14th gave congress no authority to legislate over the life, liberty or property of the people...this why they had to add amendments to the constitution for voting rights after the 14th was adopted.
Sadly, a State is perfectly empowered to legalize abortion just as they are perfectly capable of abolishing it. But in either case the SCOTUS is powerless to intervene through the 14th and this is by design and intent, not interpretation.
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.