Posted on 01/23/2012 3:04:00 PM PST by NYer
I’m not claiming to be smart. I’m claiming to have spent a lot of time reading about the Constitution. Your Pa ever tell you when a man tells you something from experience you might want to listen?
-Thomas Jefferson
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
You've tried to dismiss what I have to say as simply "claiming to be smart". The Constitution is the bedrock foundation of our political system, and the legacy left to us by the Founders. I only claim to believe that if we are to conserve that legacy we need to understand it, and apply it as it was intended. I have tried to do that, and the result is that it brought me to a different understanding of the Constitution than you have.
If you've done that same research and come to a different conclusion, the I'd be happy to discuss where we found different citations that lead to those differences.
If you didn't then you seem to think my having done it was a waste of time, and something to be dismissed and derided.
Is there any evidence the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment intended for it to outlaw murder?
I don't remember seeing any, but I wouldn't expect to. All the states already had laws against murder, and the term "murder" itself implies a criminal act, making it implicitly outlawed by definition.
I don't remember seeing any, but I wouldn't expect to. All the states already had laws against murder, and the term "murder" itself implies a criminal act, making it implicitly outlawed by definition.
14th:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
**All the states already had laws against murder**
If all states already had and/or have laws against murder, why write the 14th to include the word “life”?
**term “murder” itself implies a criminal act, making it implicitly outlawed by definition**
How do we know the term murder implies a criminal act, and consequently, how do we know it is implicitly outlawed?
Try a dictionary. Killing another person is homicide, and is not always a crime (eg self defense). Killing another person illegally is classified as either manslaughter or murder depending on the circumstances, but it must be considered a criminal act to fall within the definition of murder.
The 14th Amendment did not prevent the State from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property. They could still take your property, put you in prison, and execute you. They just couldn't do it without a trial and conviction.
**Try a dictionary.**
Perhaps I didn’t phrase my question correctly. When in History did humankind come to classify the taking of someone’s life maliciously as murder?
**They just couldn’t do it without a trial and conviction.**
So the 14th was necessary to make the states accountable for decisions related to life, liberty and property? Does it speak to anything related to standards of our United States?
A quick search shows the term originated in the mid-14th century.
So the 14th was necessary to make the states accountable for decisions related to life, liberty and property? Does it speak to anything related to standards of our United States?
I believe the 5th Amendment puts that restirction on actions of the federal government. The 14th amendment placed that restriction on the actions of the state governments. The term "states" means the government and officials of the the states.
I am an “originalist”. That means I believe the Constitution should be interpreted, as nearly as possible, as it was understood by the people who wrote and ratified it. In the case of the question of abortion and the 14th Amendment, it seems intuitive that if they had intended and undertstood that amendment to outlaw the practice of abortion then upon it’s ratification any state that did not already have laws outlawing abortion would have been required to enact them. They did not.
That is a very convenient way to “interpret” the constitution. There are many things that were not widely practiced or even known about relating to the subject of life when the framers put our founding documents together. Your way of looking at things makes all things possible, like cloning humans. Denying that there is an absolute truth related to life is foolish and will ultimately lead to societal suicide.
Science has identified 7 factors required to determine if something is “living”. A human at conception meets all seven requirements. An egg or a sperm does not. From conception and beyond, it is murder for another to take that life willfully.
Abortion advocates now say science is not relevant when discussing the matter of abortion. That’s convenient, isn’t it? These are dangerous times to live because respect of life no longer exists.
NO, IT IS NOT "CONVENIENT" AT ALL. It's a lot of work, and it means putting aside your own pre-conceptions and desires about what you thought it meant, or would like it to mean, and focusing only on what it meant to someone else, an finding and studying what they've writting about it so you can figure that out. If you think that's "convenient", I invite you to try it some time.
I agree with you completely that having to dig into the depths of history through the gillions of court cases and personal memoirs and speeches and pamphlets to somehow ferret out the correct intent for each individual issue that comes forward is indeed a lot of work!
Especially when the Declaration of Independence states clearly, plainly, and concisely for the record into perpetuity that rights are from God. People have a right to live. Science has identified seven characters of living organisms. Humans at conception possess all these components. Sperms and eggs do not. A human, at conception, has been given by God a right to live. A host of that human does not have the right to take that life away.
Done. No digging or hard work involved! And when the argument gets expanded to include cloned humans, the answer is clear.
Absolute truth is your friend. You might try embracing it. You won’t have to work quite as hard.
When I said your approach was convenient, I am sure you understood, in the context of my post, that I meant that it was convenient for “crafting” responses to suit the needs of any given situation. Other words come to mind...”tacking to the left or right”, “walking back”, “adjusting to include”.... “slippery slope”.... :-)
That's exactly what "original intent" is designed to prevent. It makes you set your own personal agenda aside while you determine if the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution intended for it to do what you want.
What's "convenient" is to read what you want into something like the Declaration of Independence that is not part of the Constitution, and then declare that you don't have to be bothered with having to actually read the Constitution itself and make any attempt to determine how that document was understood and intended to be applied by the people who actually agreed to it by ratification. Now THAT is a mighty convenience, indeed.
I’m understanding you to say that you are okay with abortion and think it is constitutionally justified. Have I understood you correctly?
No, you have not. Go back and read a little more carefully. It’s not the ends I take exception to, it is the means.
Is abortion constitutional? Please explain.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That can be changed.
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.