Posted on 11/16/2007 9:07:47 AM PST by dschapin
Ouch, bad reading on my part. Thanks.
Nevermind!
Not saying that I agree with this... However, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Republican Form of Government Clause inherantly involving political questions and therefore nonjusticiable. In other words- they have for all intents and purposes written it out of the Constitution.
No problem - that sort of stuff happens to me all the time
>>>>>Our basic unalienable rights are not defined by the constitution. The founders clearly understood that.
And so I:
.... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
>>>>>I have ALWAYS believed in the personhood of the fetus, from the time of conception.
I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of a human life. Problem. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention anything about the fetus being a person, or about abortion, the unborn human or life beginning at conception. And I seriously doubt the SCOTUS will ever grant personhood to the fetus based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment that no justice holds.
However, when "We the people" are ready to give our consent to our elected officials and through majority rule, demand a HLA be added to the Constitution. Then and only then, will we have true protection for the unborn.
>>>>>As to your argument, The 10th amendment clearly reserves rights both to the states and the people, so not everything that isn’t a federal responsibility is a state responsibility.
When it comes to the issue of abortion, the 10th Amendment is crystal clear. There is no ambiguity whatsoever.
>>>>>I think I understand the basis for the disagreement here. You and I have opposing views on the unalienable, God-given right of a pre-born to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Wrong. The basis for our disagreement is simple. I understand and respect the Constitution. You do not.
Then again, about a week or so ago, I thought you did understand and respect the Constitution. In an article thread I posted by John Hawkins, you agreed with Fred Thompson --- and by default many others, myself included --- on his federalist viewpoint concerning abortion and RvW.
Remember, in Fred Thompson, Tim Russert, Federalism, and Abortion, you said, "I agree with this analysis. That analysis was in support of Fred`s federalist approach.
I don’t know why you keep confusing the constitution and rights. But since you do, I don’t see how a rational discussion is possible.
...Republicans can't ban abortion outright because of Roe v. Wade. We could try for a constitutional amendment to get around that, but it would be futile, because they couldn't get enough support for it. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned (and we'd need to replace at least one more judge after Alito gets on the court to do it), we're stuck.
In other words, that whether Fred was right or not made no real difference at this time, because HLA can't be passed.
I was not (and should have made it clearer, although then I would have typed more words and been "bloviating") that I was agreeing that Fred's position should not be a danger to the pro-life cause.
Of course, now I'm confused as to what Fred's position is. Some still claim he is opposed to HLA on federalist grounds, while other supporters claim he is NOT opposed to HLA but simply understood it had no chance of passing.
I haven't seen any pro-fred person try to discuss with another pro-fred person the differences in these two interpretations, so I don't know what the consensus opinion of the supporters are.
So I've taken to noting whenever I discuss this that I don't know what Fred's position is, lest I be attacked by one side or another for "misrepresenting" it.
That is incorrect. I understand and respect the Constitution. Our disagreement is on whether the preborn is a person.
You want to argue about whether the constitution explicitly defines pre-born as human. That isn't the point. Humans do not get their inalienable rights ONLY if the Constitution grants them.
The Slaves had the unalienable God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, even when the constitution explicitly took it from them.
This is an argument about what is right, not about what the constitution says. I COULD argue your constitutional position, as it seems clear that when they wanted to restrict personhood to born humans they were able to do so explicitly. But I don't need to get into that argument, because this was not a discussion about the constitution.
The HLA is a way to fix what is either a correct or incorrect interpretation of the constitution as it relates to personhood. As such, arguments about whether HLA is right or wrong are NOT constitutional arguments, as the goal is to CHANGE the constitution.
I know I said I wouldn't discuss further, but I really do think you understand this stuff enough that if you stop trying to filter everything through your pro-fred glasses you will at least be able to respond to my actual argument, and if not at least others who are reading can benefit.
It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group, voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn. ...
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
As for me, personally I have NOT made up my mind but I do again state that there ARE consistent pro-life conservatives who haven't waffled on those issues.
Search them out yourself, please.
“Which raises a different question, do people have the RIGHT to have their rights vindicated by government?”
Much of the law is aimed at the vindication of individual rights. That’s why we have laws against murder, theft, fraud, etc. In fact, libertarians (I’m not one) would say that’s one of the few legitimate areas of action of government - protecting folks’ rights through the enforcement of laws against the violation of and interference with rights.
What conservatives, at least, don’t generally believe though is that the government is required to pay for folks to utilize their rights. So, the government will arrest the fella who burns down your printing press, but the government won’t buy you a printing press to express your First Amendment rights.
“The HLA would not make law.”
No, but it’s unlikely that a 2/3 majority of each House of Congress would pass such an amendment and then not pass enforcing legislation.
“Some suggest it would REQUIRE states to then make laws, but can any action really REQUIRE a body to pass a law?”
I think that all the states would pass laws implementing the Human Life Amendment.
“What if we eliminate all laws that say abortion is legal, but don’t pass any laws that define criminal penalties for it?”
Many states have no laws making abortion legal. In fact, in many states, the only laws on the books concerning abortion are those that make abortion ILLEGAL. But Roe vitiated these laws, making them unenforceable (or so goes the cant). Thus, in the absence of any positive law concerning abortion, abortion is legal.
“I know the constitution ALLOWS government to pass such laws, but does it REQUIRE it?”
Well, if a Human Life Amendment were passed essentially marking unborn human beings as persons whose rights are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, and states didn’t pass laws to enforce it, I imagine that courts would interpret laws against killing persons as covering unborn persons. Thus, the intentional killing of such a person, with premeditation, would be prosecuted as first degree murder. Women who procured abortions could be prosecuted under laws concerning murder for hire. Husbands, fathers, mothers who assist a woman in procuring an abortion could be charged as accessories to murder.
This is why I think that all the states would pass separate laws to implement the Human Life Amendment. States have a significant amount of leeway in how to treat homicide.
As I posted previously, in some states, if someone breaks into your house and looks threatening, and you shoot that person dead, that’s justifiable homicide. Conversely, in my own state, if you don’t first attempt to flee if you have the opportunity to flee, you can be charged with murder.
Thus, I can see that states might consider a woman who procures or attempts to procure an abortion as someone who is suffering from diminished mental capacity, and might pass laws that specifically exclude these women from prosecution for murder for hire. As well, mothers, husbands, fathers who assist a woman in this crime could be treated differently by law, as well.
If a Human Life Amendment were passed recognizing the personhood of unborn human beings, statutes against murder and other forms of homicide would apply in the absence of special laws concerning homicide by abortion. It is likely that every state would then pass special statutes to deal with the question of homicide by abortion.
sitetest
“Fred is absolutely correct to turn away from the HLA. It can’t pass, and even if it could it shouldn’t. The HLA would only reinforce the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.”
I disagree strongly.
A Human Life Amendment couldn’t pass with a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress and in three-quarters of the state legislatures if it were going to reinforce “the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.”
Rather, passage of a Human Life Amendment will represent a final confirmation in American society that a consensus has been achieved in American society that unborn human beings are persons with inalienable rights worthy of protection in law.
Consenus must precede constitutional amendment. It’s tough to pass one without that consensus.
But clearly, that consensus doesn't currently exist, and it doesn't appear to be taking shape anytime soon. Thus, pro-lifers should never lose sight of the eventual goal - protection of ALL human persons in law - but should focus on what can be achieved now. And electing a pro-life president who will appoint justices who understand that there is no constitutional "right" to procure the killing of one's baby is something that we can currently achieve.
sitetest
>>>>>Of course, now I'm confused as to what Fred's position is.
You always seem somewhat confused. And you're perpetual rants lead me to believe, you're out to confuse the world. LOL
>>>>>That is incorrect. I understand and respect the Constitution. Our disagreement is on whether the preborn is a person.
Sorry. You haven't convinced me yet. Like you said. The Founders did not have the knowledge we have today. You can't read something into the Constitution that isn't there. That is called Constitutional activism and the reason why we have Roe v Wade today. In the days of the Founders, a fetus didn't have any rights and with few exceptions, the fetus still has little protection under law. The unborn fetus definitely doesn't have the rights accorded a born person.
Thats why like Reagan, I support a HLA added to the Constitution that would protect the unborn. Even though it remains a long shot.
>>>>>This is an argument about what is right, not about what the constitution says.
In your mind. That is why the Constitution has such little meaning to you. You don't have enough respect to even capitalize it. Freudian slip?
That's not what Ronald Reagan thought.
"Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing."
"We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child."
"Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
But, the question is, do you support the other important part of the Reagan pro-life platform, which remains in force to this day, which recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and calls for their protection therefore under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Its not what I think either. What's your point?
>>>>>"We have the duty to protect the life of an unborn child."
Thats why we need a HLA.
Sadly, there is nothing in the 14th amendment that protects the unborn as a person. One more time, that is why we need a HLA added to the Constitution!
That’s why everyone we elect to any office should first recognize the personhood of the babe in the womb, and understand that the first and foremost purpose of our government is to protect innocent human life. To even have any hope of keeping their sworn oath, they must understand what the Preamble and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments demand from them.
So, you agree with Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe, that a child in the womb is not a person.
Make the Left do a constitutional amendment to excise the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
“I disagree somewhat on the flag burning, in that the flag is a federal responsibility, and if there ARE going to be rules about it, they should apply equally, not be decided by states.
But since I also think abortion is a violation of a basic inalienable right of all people to life, I think that a federal prohibition would not violate what the founding fathers considered state’s perogatives.”
No, Murder is part of the State’s porfolio of powers, there is no federal law against murder. When the Supreme court ruled in the Roe vs. Wade case, it snatched what is clearly a State perogative and made it Federal, they violated their constitutional power.
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.