Constitutional Persons:An Exchange on Abortion

FIRST THINGS ^ | JAN 2003 | Robert H. Bork & Nathan Schlueter

[tpaine]

You deplore the 'penumbras' seen to justify Roe, [as do I], -- yet now you want to let congress find some to federalize murder.

The mind spins with the dichotomy of that position.

[ALS]

I can think of a few more million "wrongful deaths" that need attention as well!

[nickcarraway]

Am I right to understand that Judge Bork would have no problem with a state legalizing armed robbery?

[H.Akston]

Conservatives must come to grips with a fact. "Dependent life" is not totally "innocent", as the unborn are made out to be by the radical anti-abortionists. Life begins at independence. The rapists' spawn MUST be allowed to be ejected from its wrongful abode. Therefore, abortion in some cases CAN NOT be considered murder. DEPENDENT LIFE IS NOT INNOCENT LIFE - that's a conservative principle. We believe in liberty from the dependent. That was the whole principle behind welfare reform. There is a virtual umbilical cord that leads from the producer to the welfare recipient. If it can be cut, then other umbilical cords that provide sustenance from an unwilling producer must be able to be cut. Women have a right to be secure in their persons - no unwanted attachments. However, Doctors must try to save the baby if it is viable, because it has a right to independent life as well. Independence my friends. That is the key.

[Remedy]

>>>>Conservatives must come to grips with a fact. "Dependent life" is not totally "innocent", as the unborn are made out to be by the radical anti-abortionists. Life begins at independence. The rapists' spawn MUST be allowed to be ejected from its wrongful abode. Therefore, abortion in some cases CAN NOT be considered murder. DEPENDENT LIFE IS NOT INNOCENT LIFE - that's a conservative principle.<<<

Everything Personal:Children Born of Rape or Incest

[Remedy]

Scalia sees no abortion right in Constitution re-emphasized his view that women don't have a constitutional right to an abortion. His belief flies against the court's majority decision in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, which found a constitutionally protected right of privacy that covers abortion.

"My votes in abortion cases have nothing to do with my pro-life views," Scalia said after his speech at the Hyatt Regency Buffalo. "They have to do with the text of the Constitution. And there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion."

"It says what it says, and it ought not to be twisted," he said.

Judicial rulings on those clauses - and the entire Constitution - must be based on their text, the authors' original intent or historical practice, he said.

The appropriate way to deal with an issue that demands updating judicial precedent or the Constitution is by legislative action or, where appropriate, a constitutional amendment.

He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment.

[Remedy]

>>>Am I right to understand that Judge Bork would have no problem with a state legalizing armed robbery?<<<

If the Constitution/Court interpretation failed to address armed robbery, Bork, as member of S.C.O.T.U.S., would have no problem. As a citizen/resident of that state, he would probably seek residence elsewhere.

"A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means." This principle excludes both "living Constitution" jurisprudence as well as "natural law" jurisprudence.

Best statement I've read on textual adherence.

W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion....Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

It is hard to imagine that the issue of abortion was even remotely considered by the framers of the fifth and fourteenth. How could they anticipate that they or their progeny would need Constitutional protection for the unborn. And if it was anticipated, they must have concluded that a society dedicated to exterminating the young would neither be worthy of their efforts in erecting and maintaining a Constitutional Republic, nor be constrained by such.

[tpaine]

"My votes in abortion cases have nothing to do with my pro-life views," Scalia said after his speech at the Hyatt Regency Buffalo. "They have to do with the text of the Constitution. And there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion."

"It says what it says, and it ought not to be twisted," he said.

Judicial rulings on those clauses - and the entire Constitution - must be based on their text, the authors' original intent or historical practice, he said.
The appropriate way to deal with an issue that demands updating judicial precedent or the Constitution is by legislative action or, where appropriate, a constitutional amendment.

He dismissed the idea that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, --

-- but he also said the Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit abortions, either. He indicated the issue ultimately should be decided by a constitutional amendment.
46 po

No, he said:

-- "there is nothing, nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to an abortion." -- Just as there is there is nothing in the Constitution that can ~prohibit~ the right to an abortion.

~If~, big if, -- an abortion prohibition amendment were rarified, - it would be about as effective as alcohol prohibition. I realise you people don't care about whether the constitution is honored, but how many prohibitory 'wars' -- [guns/drugs/porn/smoking/seatbelts/etc] -- can be fought against scofflaws before this country is torn apart?

[Remedy]

>>>country is torn apart<<<

42 MILLION ABORTED DEAD. ALREADY TORN.

[tpaine]

Whatever.

[Mark Bahner]

"The most important point made, as I remember, is that the idea of what a person is evolves over time."

The idea of what a "person" is, according to the Constitution, is fixed by the Constitution itself.

The Constitution *demands* that every "person" be counted, every decade, by a Census. The unborn have NEVER been counted in any Census. And even if that changed, that wouldn't change the meaning of the Constitution. The meaning of the Constitution was fixed when the Constitution was written.

The question of whether slaves were "persons," according to the Constitution, was addressed in the Dred Scott case. The Supreme Court back then correctly ruled that, under the Constitution, slaves weren't persons. It took the 13th and 14ht amendments to change slaves into persons.

It will take a Constitutional amendment to do the same thing for the unborn. If the federal government followed the Constitution, that is. It obviously does not!

[Mark Bahner]

"S.C.O.T.U.S needs replacements such as Jay Sekulow, Matt Staver, Tom Jipping, that Coulter gal, and..."

Ann Coulter has made it very clear that the federal government has NO authority, under the Constitution, to legislate against (or for) abortion:

She asks, "Must Christian conservatives be fascists?"

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20001016.shtml

The answer, apparently, for many "Christian" "conservatives," is "yes."

[Remedy]

Either put conservatives on the Court or get the President and Congress to mitigate the damage done by the court.

You can't have a flaming renegade court striking down every law in the land/discovering every perverted right known to man and not expect conservatives to react with FEDERAL measures.

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution(first excerpt)

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution (2nd & 3rd excerpt)

Federalism: Reconciling National Values With States' Rights And Local Control In The 21st Century

[Mark Bahner]

"Either put conservatives on the Court..."

You do what you want. *I'll* be working to put libertarians on the court. (If they also happen to be conservatives, that's fine with me.)

"...or get the President and Congress to mitigate the damage done by the court."

The President and Congress have done more damage to the Constitution than the courts have. (Although all three branches have an absolutely miserable record.)

Just look at Congress and Bush's passage of unconstitutional: 1) campaign finance reform, 2) increased federal aid to education, 3) continued federal ownership of land (outside of Washington DC and military bases), 4) over-riding state laws on medical marijuana, and 5) literally hundreds of other things.

"You can't have a flaming renegade court striking down every law in the land..."

This is the difference between libertarians and most conservatives. The Supreme Court (and all the lesser courts) have judges who take an *oath* to follow the Constitution. Since virtually every federal law in the land is unconstitutional, as a libertarian, I *want* the courts to "strike down every law in the land." Social Security. Medicare. Federal funding of education. Federal ownership of forests, national parks, wilderness areas. The Food and Drug Administration. The Drug Enforcement Administration. The federal minimum wage. EVERYTHING that is unconstitutional, I want the courts to strike down. Virtually no conservatives want that. Virtually no conservatives want to return to Consitutional government. (In the federal government, the only one I know about is the honorable Ron Paul.)

"...discovering every perverted right known to man..."

The areas where the courts have invented "perverted rights" are dwarfed by areas where the courts have allowed the Congress and the President to trample on very legitimate rights. Most specifically, our right to be free from federal interference in areas that aren't specifically enumerated in the Constitution (i.e. our rights under the 10th Amendment).

"...and not expect conservatives to react with FEDERAL measures."

I expect conservatives like John Ashcroft and G.W. Bush to behave like fascists any time they see something going on in states that they don't approve of. They have both acted down to my expectations.

[cpforlife.org]

BTT

[Clump]

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life. (Introduced in House) HJ 20 IH

Oh how God would bless this nation if such an Amendment would succeed. Right now I wonder how many states would vote to ratify it. I suspect that part of the process would not be the most difficult hurdle. My guess is we could get 27 to 32 states. To get 2/3 of Congress and 38 states we will have to win the battle to change hearts and minds on the issue. We have to get graphic and vocal to win. The facts are on our side here. It is just a matter of strategy, and getting our leaders to stand up and not be afraid of the issue.

I am constantly amazed at how the msm has convinced so many conservatives to almost have to apologize for being pro life, pro family, and pro 2nd Amendment. It's like they have let all the perverts and homosexuals out of the closet, and shoved the good and decent Americans with Godly values right into the closet. We must demand that the people we elect to advocate our values stand up and fight. No more being scared to do what is right for fear of being labeled by the media as a right wing nut outside the mainstream.

I have to give the left some credit and criticism on this point. The credit due is that they are willing (e.g. Senator Boxer (D- CA)) to weep on the senate floor demanding more federal protection for whales and their offspring, and in the next breath shame us for demanding an end to partial birth abortion.

They have no shame whatsoever. They are blatantly wrong and evil, but they fight for what they believe in. They are two faced back stabbers when it comes to judicial confirmations, but they fight for the results they want. What did the GOP do when Clinton nominated Ginsburg? I don't think there were more than 4 votes against her. We don't fight like they do. It is like trying to set an example for the terrorists by treating their prisoners the way we want ours to be treated. They only see that as a weakness in us. They are not going to follow suit. We must wake up to the realities of life, and put on our helmets for full contact politics. I am tired of fighting my heart out to put people in office whose spines turn to jelly once elected.

Now for the criticism (of the left). They are evil and the msm allows them and helps them to spin it as good public service. In other words, the media has made it easy for the left to be as blatantly evil and hypocritical as they want to be. So does it really take courage to do the things they do? No, not really. So yes, it is more difficult for conservatives to stick to their guns on the issues. At best they get distorted, at worst they are hammered relentlessly 24/7 until the left gets what it wants (e.g. Senator Lott over the Strom Thurmond comment). I say we just need to make a decision, stick with it, hang together, and show that we will not be manipulated and pushed around any more. No more weakness.

[Clump]

(i.e. our rights under the 10th Amendment)

The 10th Amendment (while I am a major supporter of it) does not actually confer any rights on individuals. Except of course the right of the people to govern themselves through their state governments in areas where 1. the federal government has not been granted specific power and 2. states have not been specifically prohibited from exercising power under the Constitution.

If that is what you were talking about then fine, but otherwise the 10th Amendment is primarily a declaration of federalism.