Posted on 01/15/2006 8:22:56 PM PST by AZRepublican
I'm afraid we've never going to get the abortion genie back into the bottle. There will always be states that will allow it, if their citizens vote to do so.
The biggest difference today is that with the issue so much in the news for the last 30 years, that opinions were formed early on, then changed, as information trickled in. At first, the abortion thing was argued as a 'woman's right to choose' and was all bound up in the zeitgeist of equal rights for women, and new choices for women. At the time, all the media outlets were behind the 'right to choose' and filled the airwaves with the idea, all the time portraying anyone who was pro-life as a religious zealot, or a man who was trying to keep women from 'fulfilling' themselves in their careers, etc.
I think the tipping point came with actions of Operation Rescue. The Rescues made the national news, and suddenly people in this country began to see the face of the pro-life movement, and realized that they had been lied to by the media. The people being hauled into paddy wagons didn't have horns, and most were NOT men! There were young people and old people, male and female. When folks saw someone who looked like their Granny being carried by her feet and legs by police to remove her from a protest, it got them to pay attention to what Granny was saying. The polls began to move more to the pro-life side, and have continued to do so.
Most folks nowadays seem to be of the opinion that abortion should only be done early in the first trimester, and should only be used in severe cases, like rape, incest, and in the event the LIFE of the mother is threatened. They are heavily AGAINST abortion for birth-control purposes, and abortions of babies after 20 weeks or so. They've seen too many 24 week preemies, not only surviving, but thriving, with the help of modern medicine.
What people have to be made to understand is that when Roe-v-Wade is overturned, it will not automatically make abortion illegal all through the country. It will simply return to the status quo ante 1973, and the states that allowed abortion will continue to do so, and the citizens of the other states will have the right to determine for their own populace, the status of abortion in their states.
My bad!
It's not been a good monday.
Thanks, I was unaware of the detail.
... That it was a class action.
It was a manufactured 'right', and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts followed the same route to manufacture the 'right' of homosexual 'marriage'. Some of the same participants in the Roe-v-Wade scam took part in the Massachusetts debacle as well, notably, members of the mainstream media.
Yes, I explained the real right to privacy impied and protected by the 4th above. It does not prevent the passagge of any law, other than the limits and scope of the 4th. The right they created is an etherial catch all that arbitrarily prohibits legislation on liberal policy grounds. From above...
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.
A republican is someone that allows you to fix your own toilet and prohibits you from robbing a gas station.
A democrat is someone that allows you to rob a gas station, but not fix your own toilet.
Where in the 14th does Congress receive this jurisdiction? Section 5 is pretty clear: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." It only gives Congress enforcement of the "provisions" through "legislation." It doesn't give Congress any direct jurisdiction to make penal laws or empower Congress to make laws above and beyond the stated provisions of the 14th. This is because the amendment was rejected when it was seen giving congress this power! The 14th took away no reserved rights that belonged to the States...it only ensures that when a person stands to be derived of his life, liberty or property made criminal by law that they be given equal punishment for the crime and that they receive a fair trial before the State punishes them. The 14th is not a grant of power to take away the rights of persons from the States. Only the States are empowered to enact laws for the protections of persons and citizens, not the federal govt. The feds laws on civil rights are not supported by the 14th. Look at the first civil rights bill passed by the same congress whom had adopted the 14th. It is nothing like the 1965 civil rights bill....the difference is between night and day!
Amend 14 sec1:
No State shall make, or enforce any law which shall abridge the privaleges and immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 1 is one of those proviisons. Some of the immunities of US citizens are contained in the Bill of Rights. Also, it says, "deprive ANY PERSON of life...w/o due process of law." Congress has the power to define "person". Then, where is the due process for each an every one of the unborn killed?
"The 14th is not a grant of power to take away the rights of persons from the States. Only the States are empowered to enact laws for the protections of persons and citizens, not the federal govt."
Their is no right for a State to violate the rights of it's citizens, nor do they have the power. "No State shall make, or enforce any law which shall abridge the privaleges and immunities of citizens of the US." The States failed to protect their citizens rights, hence the 14th Amend.
" Look at the first civil rights bill passed by the same congress whom had adopted the 14th. It is nothing like the 1965 civil rights bill....the difference is between night and day!"
Here's a list:
CHAPTER 13—CIVIL RIGHTS
# § 241. Conspiracy against rights
# § 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
# § 243. Exclusion of jurors on account of race or color
# § 244. Discrimination against person wearing uniform of armed forces
# § 245. Federally protected activities
# § 246. Deprivation of relief benefits
# § 247. Damage to religious property; obstruction of persons in the free exercise of religious beliefs
# § 248. Freedom of access to clinic entrances
The first 3 date to the civil war. Note that they now apply to anyone, regardless of color, or other distinction. The others contain enumerations on the rights, privaleges and immunities of US citizens and persons. They have the same form as the Civil Rights Act. Violations of the civil rights act can be treated under one of the 1st 3 statutes listed here, whether it's conspiracy, or act, or under the color of law, or individual act.
Post in your own words why rights protection is not a desirable, or valid govm't function. Then explain the historical occurrances of trampling of rights by the majority in the face of claims made by some that those rights would be protected by the voters in the various States.
"The adoption of the 14th amendment changed nothing in respect to jurisdiction over life, liberty and property of the people; in no instance shall Congress consider it has been empowered to usurp the solemn rights of the States and citizens to legislate over matters of life, liberty and property."
--John A. Bingham, September 14, 1869.
Quoting Madison on Section 5 of the 14th:
The keywords here is "appropriate legislation" and "provisions of this article," neither giving Congress expansive plenary powers over the States, which of course is exactly what was intended. Because section 1 imposes its limitation's directly upon the States, there was no need to empower Congress with legislative power over the States. As you can see, this enforcement clause has all the hallmarks of a remedial power, and not plenary.
You posted Sec 5 above which says they do.
"Consider this statement from Bingham after the adoption of the 14th:"
The keyword is jurisdiction. Primary jurisdiction did not change. However, as Marshal said, laws repugnant to the US Constitution are invalid. Artcle VI of the Constituiton says it is the Supreme law of the land. The 14th says, "No State shall make, or enforce any law which shall abridge the privaleges and immunities of citizens of the US." Whether by statute, or judicial review. The feds have the power to ensure the rights of US citizens are not violated. The BoRs contains them, and Congress can expressly address any particular right a US citizen has.
"As you can see, this enforcement clause has all the hallmarks of a remedial power, and not plenary."
It's plenary. That means it gives full power to the feds to protect rights.
The remedial and preventive nature of Congress' enforcement power, and the limitation inherent in the power, were confirmed in our earliest cases on the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 (1883), the Court invalidated sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which prescribed criminal penalties for denying to any person "the full enjoyment of" public accommodations and conveyances, on the grounds that it exceeded Congress' power by seeking to regulate private conduct. The Enforcement Clause, the Court said, did not authorize Congress to pass "general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation; that is, such as may be necessary and proper for counteracting such laws as the States may adopt or enforce, and which, by the amendment, they are prohibited from making or enforcing . . . ." Id., at 1314.Congress has no jurisdiction to regulate private conduct, only the States can. If I kill someone it is a local responsibility to try me, not Congress. Taken together with Bingham's explicit language, intent and impossed limitations your contentions fall apart.
"The Enforcement Clause, the Court said, did not authorize Congress to pass "general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation; that is, such as may be necessary and proper for counteracting such laws as the States may adopt or enforce, and which, by the amendment, they are prohibited from making or enforcing . . ."
The Civil Rights laws of 1875 were Constitutional insofar as they addressed the matter of equal protection under the law. They were unconstitutional on the grounds that they were both overly broad, in that their scope extended well outside the bounds of rights protection. They denied free association, and usurped the right of property owners to make rules in general.
The feds don't have to wait for the State to legislate. The failure to take action to correct the problem is enough, because no State may "deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." a reasonable person would feel his rights were being violated if he was segregated on the grounds of color alone. Being a minority, access to legislative action essentially doesn't exist. Fed action under the amendment is his only remedy. That was proved here and in Plessy v Ferguson.
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.