Huckabee charmed his congregations, Baptist minister used TV to his advantage

There were laws against abortion at the time that the 14th amendment was ratified. Indeed, I suspect that abortion was illegal in every state and territory in the United States. So it could be assumed that the right to life of the unborn was a fundamental right which was protected in every state and territory at the time the 14th amendment was passed.

At the time, I think it was against the common law to abort a "quickened" fetus, but I don't think that state legislation came about for some time. In any event, if it WAS the Framers' intention to protect the unborn they sure chose poor words to begin the Amendment: "All persons born ...".

If congress passed legislation that protected the rights of the unborn in accordance with their duly authorized legislative power to do so, and then passed additional legislation denying the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear any case involving the constitutionality of this legislation, then the courts would lack constitutional authority to overturn the law.

I see two potential problems here. If the Congress tried an end run and limited the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, then how would that affect original jurisdiction? Why couldn't the Court still take the case on that basis? Second, if the SCOTUS was frozen out, then some other lower court would hear the case and be forced to follow Roe.

Undoubtedly they did not anticipate that a decision like Roe v. Wade or Dred Scott would turn the Supreme Court into a legislative body when they drafted it.

Maybe not a legislative body as we have today, however, the idea of judicial review was nothing new. "State" high courts were already overturning state laws at that time. Madison and Hamilton both fully anticipated judicial review in the Federalist Papers.

Obviously they didn't think that the Courts would become a legislative body independent of the checks and balances of the other branches of Government.

The executive has the check of nominating Justices, and the legislative branch can limit jurisdiction and amend the Constitution.

Perhaps if the court were stripped of some of its current jurisdiction for a decade or so, they might think twice about being a legislative body.

I doubt it. Liberals are liberals and with lifetime appointments will ALWAYS usurp as much power as possible in every situation.

The fact of the matter is that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis. We've been there since 1973. We will continue to be in this crisis until somebody brings the crisis home. An act of congress defining life for the purposes of the 14th amendment which protects the unborn is a good place to start.

And I certainly wouldn't stand in the way of anyone trying. :) My approach would be more toward winning the election, as Stevens and Ginsburg look primed to step down. An Amendment could come later, depending on how many states kept abortion.

At the time, I think it was against the common law to abort a "quickened" fetus

What is a "quickened" fetus? Was it not one in which life could be detected? Didn't that mean that once a doctor determined that the fetus was "alive" that to terminate the pregnancy would have been a crime?

We know can measure brain waves and hearbeats and we don't need to wait for evidence that the baby is kicking to determine that it is "quick"

In any event, if it WAS the Framers' intention to protect the unborn they sure chose poor words to begin the Amendment: "All persons born ...".

The phrase "persons born" relates only to the person's designation as a Citizen and not to their qualifications as a "person." The forteenth amendment is clear that it is intended to protect the rights of all persons (whether they are born or not) to life, liberty and property. If congress defined a person as a "quickened" fetus, then that might just end nearly all abortions. Clearly where a heartbeat and/or brain waves are detectable, the fetus would qualify as being "quickened".

Madison and Hamilton both fully anticipated judicial review in the Federalist Papers.

Right, but they did not anticipate the kind of judicial legislation which took place in Roe. Per the 14th amendment the right to define "person" is a legislative prerogative rather than a judicial. Clearly all persons born would be protected, but Congress could clearly pass laws to protect the rights of persons not yet born by simply defining them as "persons". In other words Congress clearly has the right to expand the definintion of person to include unborn children or quickened fetuses.

Yes, since there were no pregnancy tests at the time, it was considered the point of incontrovertible proof that the woman was pregnant, i.e. the baby kicked. And yes, it was a crime to terminate a pregnancy after this point. It was considered a misdemeanor, but as you probably know a "misdemeanor" back then was much more serious than we think of it today.

If congress defined a person as a "quickened" fetus, then that might just end nearly all abortions. Clearly where a heartbeat and/or brain waves are detectable, the fetus would qualify as being "quickened".

From your lips to God's ears if it would work.

Right, but [Hamilton and Madison] did not anticipate the kind of judicial legislation which took place in Roe.

That is certainly true.

In other words Congress clearly has the right to expand the definition of person to include unborn children or quickened fetuses.

Well, we're going to need 60 conservatives in the Senate like we've never seen before. May God deliver us. :)

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.