Posted on 04/22/2002 7:28:24 AM PDT by humbletheFiend
Actually, I do think that protecting innocent life is one of the highest duties of government, but that goes into a miriad of issues I don't have the energy to discuss right now on this forum, since I'm in the midst of quite an exhaustive discussion of the topic on another forum right now. You may need to be a member to participate, but you are more than welcome to any time you wish.
So, using the same argument, could a state can write law protecting the killing of Mexican immigrants from being considered as murder?
"Abortion of a viable fetus has always been, and is now, chargeable as murder. R-v-W did not change that."
We are back to square one because now we have to define "viable." Some could make the argument that a child or a fetus isn't viable until 18 years of age. I know that sounds ridiculous but where do we draw the line? Everyone knows that even a three-month-old child cannot survive on its own outside the womb. That child requires constant care.
The point in all of this is that if issues like "viability" and "personhood" are left to individual states to decide, how could there be any uniform enforcement of the Constitution?
So, using the same argument, could a state can write law protecting the killing of Mexican immigrants from being considered as murder?
'So' does making ridiculous arguments make you look clever? - Nope.
----------------------------------
"Abortion of a viable fetus has always been, and is now, chargeable as murder. R-v-W did not change that."
We are back to square one because now we have to define "viable." Some could make the argument that a child or a fetus isn't viable until 18 years of age. I know that sounds ridiculous but where do we draw the line? Everyone knows that even a three-month-old child cannot survive on its own outside the womb. That child requires constant care.
The point in all of this is that if issues like "viability" and "personhood" are left to individual states to decide, how could there be any uniform enforcement of the Constitution?
You made the ridiculous arguments. - I'll not dignify them with an answer.
But your last point is exactly what R-v-W addressed. -- The USSC said that such moral issues can NOT be decided by states to be presumptive murder, not in the first trimester.
- Just as I said in post #190. - Indeed, you are back to square one because you don't really want to understand the legal, constitutional issue. -- You want everyone to comply to your moral code regarding abortion or suicide.
---------------------------------
The 14th says -- 'All persons born ----- are citizens ----' thus, you have to be born, [or be capable of being born, - ie - viable] before you can have legal standing as a citizen. -- I'm sure there are other quotable legal precedents, - but that one came to mind first.
In any case, this is nitpicking, as obviously, NO one has established a definite point at which a fetus becomes a person. -- That is a moral dillemma that law can't solve.
State murder juries are welcome to try, after the first trimester , as per R-v-W.
The first point I wish to discuss is whether the commerce clause can be stretched to allow the Federal government to control how a drug is used. The second point I would like to discuss is your unique, as far as I can tell, interpretation of the Fifth Amendment as giving the Federal Government authority to create and enforce laws against murder.
It sounds like you might agree with me on the commerce clause. It was originally intended to prevent the States form setting up trade barriers amongst themselves or for a State such as New York form stopping or taxing all goods shipped by land from the Northern States to the Southern States. After the goods arrived in the State where they are to be used they are no longer of concern to the Federal Government under its commerce clause authority. If I am correct that is not a position that you will argue but feel free if your understanding is different.
... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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,"This is the part of Jefferson Quote I found relevant but included the rest to give a little context. Jefferson spells out the crimes explicitly mentioned in the Constitution and indicates that they are the only crimes over which the Federal Government has authority.
Article I Section 8Since Article One Section Eight prescribes all of the Federal authority to create criminal law and the limits there of. All Federal Crimes are specifically enumerated and the power to pass legislation making certain acts committed on Federally owned or in the Case of the Capital City controlled property is also given
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Fifth AmendmentIt seems to me that the fifth specifically and in each circumstances deals with Government power over all persons residing or Subject to US Jurisdiction. Why is the one section dealing with life, liberty or property different? Article One Section Eight already gives the Federal Government Authority to deal with crime on Federal property so the Fifth is not needed to accomplish that goal.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
There are a couple of things I feel compelled to discuss. One of them is the power and ability of the Constitution to enforce its provisions, and the other is to the purpose and effect of the Bill of Rights on the rest of the Constitution.
Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase aside, was a federal government minimalist. Paridoxically, he was only this way when it suited him (See Callender and Jefferson's view of the Alien and Sedition Act), and although in many ways I salute his efforts to combat a meddling and unaccountable judiciary, if Jefferson had gotten his exact way with the Judiciary Act and so forth, it's very possible we'd be worse off today than what we already are. His views in this principle are what led others to label him as anti-federalist. He was also seen to be hostile to the merchant and manufacturing class, instead preferring the virtues and lifestyle of the farmer, while he actively fought against such things he thought was bad for one, but good for merchants and speculators--investors. The policies he pursued in this regard, as well as his demand for a dependent and responsive judiciary, earned him the label meant as a ridicule rather than a compliment--Democrat. His friends preferred Republican. In any case, as brilliant a political theorist as Jefferson was, and as important as his words still are today, he was not present for the ratifying convention, and it's a point that cannot be understated when discussing his actions as President. We can and should respect him and his views, but we should realize the foregoing conditions when trying to determine original intent. It goes far beyond Jefferson, and the other views of the day, both for and against an energetic federal government, should be acknowledged, analyzed, and scrutinized equally.
That being said, the Constitution has a list of things in it that the federal government should and should not do. Of the things it should do, it stands to reason that the states should not--like setting the value of money. If a state were to attempt it (for who knows why), the federal government could conceivably step in and stop it. So the criminal and enforcement powers go beyond merely piracy and treason and such. In fact, without the ability to create enforcement agencies for its provisions, the Constitution is a dead letter, and we are left with anarchy or warlordism.
To your statement, "Article One Section Eight already gives the Federal Government Authority to deal with crime on Federal property so the Fifth is not needed to accomplish that goal."
This is part of the reason Hamilton, Jay, and for a time Madison, thought adding a Bill of Rights was not only unnecessary, but dangerous. In the end, the Bill of Rights was adopted because some states would not ratify without one, and Hamilton, Madison, et al, decided that it really did not change anything that was previously written, anyway, but rather an acknowledgement of what was already in the Constitution.
While that may be the case they made, Madison did actually fight to include in the BoR language that would, through the federal Constitution, specifically restrict the states, so I find it difficult to justify the argument that no one wanted to restrict the states through the Constitution. In the case where Madison thought fitting and proper to restrict the states, the rest of the states disagreed with him, and specifically limited the powers of Congress in the first amendment. The others amendments glaringly do not include the essential subject that would indicate a target only the federal government, but rather the object they were attempting to protect. It's an essential distinction.
Now, again, I apologize for waiting so long to reply, and given the length of time that has passed, I would not blame you if you chose not to, as the argument is not fresh in my mind any more than I'm sure it is in yours. In any case, thank you for the discussion and I hope for you all the best.
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.