Rick Santorum predicts a convention fight with Ron Paul delegates over party platform

Yahoo ^ | 06/08/2012 | Chris Moody

[EternalVigilance]

Again, if you’re an originalist, show me some evidence that the framers of the Amendment intended to exclude certain classes of persons, even though the explicit words of the Amendment absolutely preclude such a possibility.

[EternalVigilance]

That means we're going to sit here and decide what the Constitution means between us, according to what we understand the words to mean to us right now. That's "living document" textualism.

Actually, it is the ignoring of the simple meaning of words, and the clear requirements of those words, that leads to that.

[tacticalogic]

Again, if you’re an originalist, show me some evidence that the framers of the Amendment intended to exclude certain classes of persons, even though the explicit words of the Amendment absolutely preclude such a possibility.

The evidence is there in the Constitutoin that they considered personhood to begin at birth. A person's age is calculated from birth, not conception. A person's citizenship is determined by his place of birth, not his place of conception. When they conducted the very first census, they counted all persons and did not include unborn babies.

If the original intent was as you claim, then abortion would have been outlawed in all the States and enforced by the federal government from the very beginning, and unborn babies would have been counted as persons in the census.

[EternalVigilance]

You want me to tell you I believe a baby in the womb is a person, so that you can then tell me I must support your interpretation of the Constitution.

If they are a person, it isn't a matter of private interpretation. It is a simple matter of whether you give one whit about following the most straightforward and self-evident requirements of the supreme law of the land or not.

If you are willing to ignore or redefine such words as "person," or "any," or "no," or "equal," or "protection," how in the world can we trust you with any other word in the Constitution?

Why would we look to someone who avoids the simple meanings of words, and the self-evident facts of nature, as an honest judge of the intent of the framers?

[EternalVigilance]

The evidence is there in the Constitutoin that they considered personhood to begin at birth. A person's age is calculated from birth, not conception. A person's citizenship is determined by his place of birth, not his place of conception. When they conducted the very first census, they counted all persons and did not include unborn babies.

Finally it's coming out. You agree with Blackmun and the Roe court majority that the child in the womb is not a person, constitutionally-speaking.

In spite of the Constitution's self-stated ultimate purpose, which is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."

[tacticalogic]

If they are a person, it isn't a matter of private interpretation.

Slaves were not considered "persons" under the original intent of the Constitution. Obviously there was some disagreement about that, but the fact that some people did consider them "persons" did not change federal law, or the original intent of the Constitution. It took an amendment, ratified by the States to do that, and the original intent of that amendment is now in effect.

Whether or not someone is a person (as a legal entity) is and always has been a matter of interpretation.

[EternalVigilance]

Whether or not someone is a person (as a legal entity) is and always has been a matter of interpretation.

Well, if folks refuse to see or admit to what the founders asserted to be self-evident, what's a guy gonna do?

[tacticalogic]

Finally it's coming out. You agree with Blackmun and the Roe court majority that the child in the womb is not a person, constitutionally-speaking.

I disagree with Roe v Wade. There is no constituional "right to privacy" that prevents a state from outlawing the practice of abortion if they so choose. No such "right" is defined in the Constitution, and no enumerated power was granted to the federal government to assume control of it. The Tenth Amendment unequivocally leaves the matter to the States.

If you're going to tell lies about me, you'll have to do better than that for anyone to believe you.

[tacticalogic]

Well, if folks refuse to see or admit to what the founders asserted to be self-evident, what's a guy gonna do?

If what's self-evident to you doesn't appear to be self-evident to anyone else, you might need to investigate your grasp on reality.

[EternalVigilance]

The Tenth Amendment does no such thing. It speaks only of legitimate powers, of the general government, of the states, and of the people. There is no legitimate power to alienate unalienable rights. Never has been, never will be. You should stop listening to Ron Paul.

[tacticalogic]

The Tenth Amendment does no such thing. It speaks only of legitimate powers, of the general government, of the states, and of the people.

"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."

Where does it specify only "legitimate powers of the general government", or define what is and isn't a "legitimate power"?

[EternalVigilance]

I disagree with Roe v Wade...If you're going to tell lies about me...

The idea that Roe turned on privacy is laughable. In fact, it turned on the personhood of the child. Blackmun and his colleagues chose to dehumanize the child, and assert that constitutionally, they are not persons. Which is exactly what you just did. Where's the "lie"?

[tacticalogic]

Blackmun and his colleagues chose to dehumanize the child, and assert that constitutionally, they are not persons.

Blackmun and his collegues didn't conduct the first census. Who chose not to count them as "persons" then?

[EternalVigilance]

It’s a simple rule that you can’t give what you don’t possess. So, there is no way that the Tenth Amendment could be asserting illegitimate powers.

[tacticalogic]

It’s a simple rule that you can’t give what you don’t possess. So, there is no way that the Tenth Amendment could be asserting illegitimate powers.

If the States have no authority to define "personhood", on what authority did they ratiy the 14th Amendment?

[EternalVigilance]

Blackmun and his collegues didn't conduct the first census. Who chose not to count them as "persons" then?

All citizens are persons. All persons are not citizens.

I'm surprised you can't see this simple distinction.

The Fourteenth Amendment explicitly recognizes it.

[tacticalogic]

Then on what authority did they ratify a Constitution that counts a slave as three-fifths of a person?

[EternalVigilance]

If the States have no authority to define "personhood", on what authority did they ratiy the 14th Amendment?

The States have a perfect right, and in fact an obligation, to protect the unalienable rights of the people. They don't have a right to deny those rights, or to redefine nature or the meanings of the simple words of the Constitution and thereby destroy the basis of the rule of law.

[tacticalogic]

They don't have a right to deny those rights, or to redefine nature or the meanings of the simple words of the Constitution and thereby destroy the basis of the rule of law.

Words are frequently ambiguous, having multiple meanings. Do you believe the meaning of the Constituion is fixed at the time it was ratified, according to the meaning attributed to the words by the authors and understood by those who debated and ratified it, or do you belive the meaning can be changed by applying different meanings to the words according to what it is you want it to say?

[EternalVigilance]

Then on what authority did they ratify a Constitution that counts a slave as three-fifths of a person?

Illicit authority. For which the nation paid a horrible price.

That's what happens when you violate the natural law and natural right.

From the beginning of the creation, we have always reaped what we sow.