I'm not the one changing definitions. As that great philospher Dr. Suess said:
Some things are simply self-evident.
Posted on 05/18/2010 5:57:46 PM PDT by tcg
THIS is why an Amendment would be needed to extend legal protections to the unborn. This is the RIGHT way to do this.
Your way is how the Commerce Clause is being used to give us the new Healthcare Bill. This is the WRONG way to accomplish this but you are too stuck on your own selfish ideology, and because of your ownership of your political Party, to give it up.
And so, again, you prove fundamentally that you agree with the Roe vs. Wade judges that the child in the womb is not a person.
Give us a working link to your source.
Well... No. Which is why I’ve repeatedly stated that Roe needs to be over turned. Or did you miss the last 30-40 times I’ve posted that to you?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000008----000-.html
Does that work for you?
How about Findlaw instead?
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/1/1/8
And from the US House.
http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+10556+34++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%281%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281%29%29%3ACITE
And from the GPO.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/usc.cgi?ACTION=RETRIEVE&FILE=$$xa$$busc1.wais&start=18557&SIZE=1631&TYPE=TEXT
Is that enough for you?
If you agree that the fetus is a person why do you need to “overturn Roe”? It was a court opinion in a particular case. Court opinions are not law.
If a court makes an unconstitutional ruling does that then free other officers of government from interpreting the Constitution for the purpose of fulfilling their own oaths?
If a legislature passes a clearly unconstitutional law does that free other officers of government from fulfilling their own sworn duty to uphold the Supreme Law of the Land?
If an executive performs an unlawful act, does that free other officers of government in other branches from the responsibility to check them?
If an executive issues an unlawful order to officers in the military are they bound to follow his edict, or to obey their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?
The judicial supremacist disease is just as bad as the Ron Paul states’ rights trump unalienable rights disease.
The section you reference:
Title 1 of the US Code as currently published by the US Government reflects the laws passed by Congress as of Feb.1, 2010, and it is this version that is published here.
So, it would appear that the death lovers who are now in charge of our government are codifying the Blackmun dehumanization of the child in utero.
Does that make it “lawful,” in your opinion?
Look, if you are going to argue this line of reasoning all over again, at least take a basic Law course before you post one more word about it.
Are you even FROM this Country? How did you make it this far, and head up the AIP, without knowing any of this?
Which is why we need the Amendment to protect the existence of those who aren't born yet. There is currently nothing in the Constitution that gives any protection to the unborn.
Period.
Your heart may be in the right place, but your head is out to lunch on trying to redefine "person".
"Stare decisis" is the position of the judicial supremacist. You're showing yourself to be one.
Judicial supremacists begin their arguments from Marbury v Madison, in which Justice Marshall argued for the Court's right and obligation to interpret the Constitution and rule accordingly. Seemingly few judicial supremacists have ever actually read the ruling and understood the plain sense of his words. In it he not only pointed out the Court's need to interpret the Constitution, but the need for the officers of the other branches to do the same.
You can only say that if you do what Blackmun did: refuse to recognize the personhood of the child in the womb.
Conversely, if you admit the obvious, that the child in the womb is a human person, the Constitution's clear words protect them. Even Blackmun admitted this.
Of course they do. Your claim is that for some reason we need a Constitutional Amendment to stop abortion. But in the case of bad law all you have to do is legislatively strike down the law.
The forces of death and their accomplices are constantly trying to set the highest bars for us, ones that we in no way need to cross to do what the Founders said is the primary reason for being of government.
Again, wrong. Look at my posting history. I think it's judicial laziness at its worst. All the way back to Marbury V Madison which, IMO, was wrongly decided and lies at the heart of a lot of the out of control asshattery we see in Congress today.
Further, judges are not above Art 6 Para 2. "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby". Which is where an Amendment is more effective than trying to argue a definition.
I don't. The Law makes a distinction.
An Amendment takes making this decision away from both law-maker and judge alike.
So why are you trying to crawl under the bar? Why not just set a different bar for THEM to have to jump over?
I do. If they want to have some "right" to kill babies let them pass a Constitutional Amendment to overturn the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eight Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment, and the Preamble, and the Declaration of Independence and the Natural Law, and God's Law. Good luck with that.
Pass an Amendment giving specific protections to those unborn Citizens and you decapitate all of their legal arguments via Art 6 Para 2.
And if they try anyway, then you can charge them with "criminal conspiracy to commit murder".
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
In any case, no positive law can lawfully alienate unalienable rights.
Martin Luther King, Jr., from his Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
"You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.
Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.
Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?
Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.
I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust. and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.
We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.
You are slipping off on a tangent again.
His main point is still valid, though. The same point made by St. Augustine, that “an unjust law is no law at all.” And this point is certainly applicable to this debate.
The Left, abetted by unprincipled politicians on the Right, are destroying the very basis for our laws, for our republic, and for our liberty: the assertion of the self-evident truth that: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
What is the basis of your political philosophy? On what is it founded? To what do you make reference to help determine the rightness of your public policy positions?
You'd change a definition to change a law rather than patch the hole in the law.
And I do not pretend to make public policy.
You are the one attempting to run a political party whose members will make policy.
That reveals more than you know.
The Founders of this free republic certainly didn't believe in "self-ownership." They believed in the sovereignty of the people, under the true sovereign, the One Who created them. {Hence their use of the word "unalienable" in regard to God-given rights. It was an explicit reference to European property law, in which ultimate ownership resided in, and remained with, the sovereign. While the property might be lent to you, you could not rightfully sell it, and no one could rightfully take it away from you.)
That's one of the reasons the battle cry of the American Revolution was "NO KING BUT JESUS!"
And I do not pretend to make public policy.
You're here advocating public policy, whether you will admit it or not, or whether you recognize it or not. And this exchange has received more than 1500 page views.
The rights to advocate for my beliefs and to organize to implement them in public policy are part of my inheritance as a free American. I don't understand why you might have any problem with that.
I'm not the one changing definitions. As that great philospher Dr. Suess said:
Some things are simply self-evident.
Another slogan popular during the time was "live free, or die". Not a very "Christian" sentiment. But then again, you digress the argument with yet another red herring.
Why do you insist on spitting on the Constitution to get your way? Seems pretty self evident. Use the process, don’t corrupt it.
Dr. Seuss had even less to do with the language in the USC than your Party does.
What are you talking about? You're the one who continues to pretend that the clear requirements of the Constitution, first and foremost the Fourteenth Amendment, do not exist. Just like your idols the Pauls.
And still, a person is a person. And the Constitution of the United States still demands that each and every person be protected.
Pass an Amendment. Respect the rule of law.
Just change the unconstitutional law. Duh.
Protecting the unborn is worth it isn't it?
Pass an Amendment if you want. But don’t pretend that the Constitution doesn’t already provide protection for every individual person’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property.
But make sure it’s an Amendment that protects all persons, and doesn’t create some lawless “right” for States to alienate what the Founders rightfully called unalienable.
An Amendment gives specific protection where changing a definition doesn't and can't.
It’s self-evident that the child in the womb is an individual human person. And so the law protects them. Lawless officers of government ignoring what is as plain as the nose on your face doesn’t change that fact.
Once it is viable outside the Mother's womb, I would agree. Prior to that, it cannot survive and cannot be considered wholly as an individual. It is certainly human and murdering it should certainly be a crime.
That is why the Amendment works better than a simple definition change.
Thank you Judge Blackmun.
You've completely outed yourself.
You're a perfect fit with Rand Paul.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
And no... Judge Blackmun exceeded his rightful authority in deciding Roe. There is nothing in the US Constitution that gave the FedGov the power to overturn that Texas Law.
Again, you are just holding on to your bitter little theory as you feel that admitting it is lacking in logic and legal standing would be cause for us to think less of you.
In fact, the opposite is true. I'd laud you for seeing reason rather than letting your personal agenda continue to make you look silly.
I see. You’d think well of me if I joined you in pretending that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t exist, and that little children aren’t persons. How nice.
I’d think better of you if I thought you could be honest about this. As it is, I don’t think you can.
I couldn’t care less what someone like you thinks of me.
You should. If someone like me can see through your blatant posturing, others can even more easily.
You’re projecting.
Maybe. I could be projecting reason and logic and expecting it in others where there is none.
Or not.
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.