Proof of the Founding Fathers intent:

[Felicity]

When one rolls their eyes at someone's post and says 'whatever, do the research' when stating counties in England are the same as states, it screams 'answer this':roll:

didja note I said "I believe"--I was not stating it as fact that "counties are the same or equivalent to states"....:roll:

The Constitution was based on the Magna Carta, btw, not common English law. At any rate, when answering believing you are stating fact, it would be wise to double-check that you indeed, are. I love the little game of looking things up to see if what's said is correct-you weren't, but 5 points for tenacity..

How many points do you get for snottiness?

You are not wrong--and neither am I.

Here's a succinct explanation:
http://www.moneyinstructor.com/art/procedurallaw.asp


The legality of abortion is MOST DEFINATELY based in common law--AKA "case law."

 

[Felicity]

Quite frankly some of your posts are so long and repetitious that I have to self-edit or else my eyes would fall out.....

Whatever...:roll:
.
.
.
.
.:lol:

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Your pardon, gentlesouls, but I feel I must attempt to bring this thread back to the original, well, intent:

The thesis here is:
1.The Declaration of Independence represents the intent of the founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. Not to be flippant, but the DoI is a sort of mission statement, in that it represents the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
2.The Declaration states that all men are created equal.
3.The Declaration states that all men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, including the right to life.
4.The act of creation occurs at the moment of conception, when sperm and egg unite to create a zygote, an individual human being.
Therefore: the laws in the Constitution that apply to persons within the U.S., specifically the 4th Amendment's prohibition against a person being deprived of life, liberty, or property, also apply to a zygote, as a created being with inalienable rights.

The problem with this argument is at #4. This statement is not written in the Declaration, nor in the Constitution. The concept of "creation" depends on what is being "created." If we see the creation of a man as his appearance in our world as a separate individual, then conception is not creation; rather, birth is creation. If we see "creation" as the moment a person becomes human, then pehaps this occurs at ensoulment, which has a good argument for its occurrence at "quickening." This point, the issue of personhood, is still being debated today. Thanks to Saboteur's references to the history of abortion, it is clear that the issue was being debated during the time of the Founding Fathers, as well.
Thus, it is not a given that the founding Fathers believed that conception was the moment of creation; thus, it is not proven that their intent in the Declaration was to include a newly-conceived zygote as a "created man" with inalienable rights.
We may argue that the Declaration, and the Constitution, should apply to a newly conceived zygote; but we have no proof that the Founding Fathers' original intent confirms this. Trajan, your own opposition to reinterpreting the Constitution should have ended this debate before it started.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Your pardon, gentlesouls, but I feel I must attempt to bring this thread back to the original, well, intent:

The thesis here is:
1.The Declaration of Independence represents the intent of the founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. Not to be flippant, but the DoI is a sort of mission statement, in that it represents the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
2.The Declaration states that all men are created equal.
3.The Declaration states that all men are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, including the right to life.
4.The act of creation occurs at the moment of conception, when sperm and egg unite to create a zygote, an individual human being.
Therefore: the laws in the Constitution that apply to persons within the U.S., specifically the 4th Amendment's prohibition against a person being deprived of life, liberty, or property, also apply to a zygote, as a created being with inalienable rights.

The problem with this argument is at #4. This statement is not written in the Declaration, nor in the Constitution. The concept of "creation" depends on what is being "created." If we see the creation of a man as his appearance in our world as a separate individual, then conception is not creation; rather, birth is creation. If we see "creation" as the moment a person becomes human, then pehaps this occurs at ensoulment, which has a good argument for its occurrence at "quickening." This point, the issue of personhood, is still being debated today. Thanks to Saboteur's references to the history of abortion, it is clear that the issue was being debated during the time of the Founding Fathers, as well.
Thus, it is not a given that the founding Fathers believed that conception was the moment of creation; thus, it is not proven that their intent in the Declaration was to include a newly-conceived zygote as a "created man" with inalienable rights.
We may argue that the Declaration, and the Constitution, should apply to a newly conceived zygote; but we have no proof that the Founding Fathers' original intent confirms this. Trajan, your own opposition to reinterpreting the Constitution should have ended this debate before it started.

No no you almost had it there, then you decided to reinterpret what a creation is, the 9 month old child is not created at the moment of conception the Zygote is created thus IT is the creation and bestowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, conception IS creation the Zygote IS the created, how can there be any other interpretation of what it is to be created??? The baby is not created at birth the baby is created at conception.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

No no you almost had it there, then you decided to reinterpret what a creation is, the 9 month old child is not created at the moment of conception the Zygote is created thus IT is the creation and bestowed with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, conception IS creation the Zygote IS the created, how can there be any other interpretation of what it is to be created??? The baby is not created at birth the baby is created at conception.

That is your belief. There is no evidence that your definition is the same that the Founding Fathers had. I simply presented some other possible beliefs; unless you can show, in their own writing, that the Founding Fathers shared your belief, it is entirely possible that they held one of the other beliefs, and therefore, you have no proof of their intent. You are interpreting.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

That is your belief. There is no evidence that your definition is the same that the Founding Fathers had. I simply presented some other possible beliefs; unless you can show, in their own writing, that the Founding Fathers shared your belief, it is entirely possible that they held one of the other beliefs, and therefore, you have no proof of their intent. You are interpreting.

It is not an interpretation it's called a literal translation conception IS the act of creation how is there any interpretation in that statement it simply is because if birth was creation then who is the creator the woman and if so what is she the Virgin Mary?

As for the debate within the Catholic Church as to when life begins, I seriously doubt that the mainly Protestant Founding Fathers really gave a hoot in hell as to the debate of the Catholic Church.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

It is not an interpretation it's called a literal translation conception IS the act of creation how is there any interpretation in that statement it simply is because if birth was creation then who is the creator the woman and if so what is she the Virgin Mary?

As for the debate within the Catholic Church as to when life begins, I seriously doubt that the mainly Protestant Founding Fathers really gave a hoot in hell as to the debate of the Catholic Church.

Are you being obtuse? I mentioned two other possible ways one could view "creation," as the word is used in the Declaration: the creation of an individual, which can be seen to occur when the child is separated from its mother, i.e., birth; or the creation of a "true" human with a soul, which is often seen as happening at the quickening in or around the fourth month of gestation. I have no idea if the founding Fathers might have believed these, or if they believed yours; my point is that YOU have no idea, either, and therefore no proof. They did not say what they meant by "created." Therefore, you are interpreting which of the many possible definitions they used.
If you want to interpret what they said, fine, but don't claim that you are using a constructionist viewpoint; this issue is not addressed in the Constitution nor the Declaration.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Are you being obtuse? I mentioned two other possible ways one could view "creation," as the word is used in the Declaration: the creation of an individual, which can be seen to occur when the child is separated from its mother, i.e., birth;

Then how was that child created and who was its creator?

or the creation of a "true" human with a soul, which is often seen as happening at the quickening in or around the fourth month of gestation.

Jefferson was an agnostic.

I have no idea if the founding Fathers might have believed these, or if they believed yours; my point is that YOU have no idea, either, and therefore no proof. They did not say what they meant by "created." Therefore, you are interpreting which of the many possible definitions they used.
If you want to interpret what they said, fine, but don't claim that you are using a constructionist viewpoint; this issue is not addressed in the Constitution nor the Declaration.

You are the one who is trying to reinterpret what the word creation means to suit your own argument, creation is not the act of giving birth it is the act of conception, you can twist the word all you want to suit your argument but the fact remains that creation has a concrete definition and one which would be synonomous with conception not with birth a child is not created at birth if that were the case sex would be unnecessary and women wouldn't have to carry the child for 9 months in their womb they could simply wake up one day and say I feel like creating a kid: *plop* *cry*

But I seriously doubt we're going to change eachothers mind on that issue so let's bring up another issue as to why the Supreme Court violated the constitution in the RVW decision, if as you claim the Founding Fathers didn't specify what they meant by creation then that decision was not in the constitution and as specified by amendment ten of the Bill of Rights all powers not specifically granted or denied by the constitution to the Federal Government shall be left up to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Then how was that child created and who was its creator?

Jefferson was an agnostic.


You are the one who is trying to reinterpret what the word creation means to suit your own argument, creation is not the act of giving birth it is the act of conception, you can twist the word all you want to suit your argument but the fact remains that creation has a concrete definition and one which would be synonomous with conception not with birth a child is not created at birth if that were the case sex would be unnecessary and women wouldn't have to carry the child for 9 months in their womb they could simply wake up one day and say I feel like creating a kid: *plop* *cry*

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I do not have an opinion on this. I have no idea what the Founding Fathers meant by their statement that all men are created equal. I am interpreting nothing. You began this thread, titled "Proof of the Founding Fathers intent," which means that you do know for sure exactly what they meant by "created." How do you know this? Because, as you say, there is no other possiblity for the definition of Created. here, I'll give you another definition of created:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27
Now: this is another possible meaning of "created." Is it the one they meant? Maybe not; Jefferson was an agnostic, as you have said. But the other Founding Fathers were largely Protestant, as you also said; since they had some editorial control over what Jefferson wrote, having debated and voted on it, maybe they made him use the word "created" meaning God. I don't know if they did. Do you know if they did?
A zygote is created at conception. A human is created at ensoulment. a person is created at birth.
Or, for another example: when is an arts & crafts ashtray created? When the clay was formed? When the child molded it into the right shape? When it was fired in a kiln? When it was first used to hold ashes? Created has more than one possible application. You are interpreting which one was meant to suit your needs.

 

[Saboteur]

You are not a moral absolutest and as such you do not follow the natural law you believe in positive law in that you believe laws should center around ones own values and morals according to the circumstance and not the underlying morality that is inherent to all man kind you are a moral relativist as your comment: "Therefore morals are not a product of nature they have been created by man," clearly demonstrates. The fact of the matter that if we are to follow the constiution as it was intended then we must follow the philosophy to which the Founding Fathers prescribed to which is that of the, that of the natural law, not the laws of man. The job of the Supreme Court is not to reinterpret the Constitution but only to interpret the Original intent of the Founding Fathers which is not what the Supreme Court did in the RVW decision.

As for your comparison of Natural Law to natural selection, lions do not have the capacity for morality so it is a fallacious analogy.

Well how can you say Nature itself has a set of absolute morals and that that is not a fallacious analogoy?

In fact, let's back up. I would like you to quantify your position by defining Nature, Natural Law and Morality. I also ask that you explain their correlation in regard to each other, the Declaration of Independance and the issue of abortion please.

Also, dispute this;

"Jefferson was raised in the Church of England at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the American Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." (Letter to Joseph Priestley, April 9, 1803.)"


Source;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Obviously he was influenced by christian morals agnostic or not. In fact the only thing that qualifies him being agnostic is that he believed that Jesus was not a deity. But clearly it is explained that he believd in the moral teachings of Jesus. Who to other founding fathers was a deity.

However I do agree that since the Declaration of Independance is Jefferson's work. Perhaps it was his intention to express absolute morality.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Well how can you say Nature itself has a set of absolute morals and that that is not a fallacious analogoy?

In fact, let's back up. I would like you to quantify your position by defining Nature, Natural Law and Morality. I also ask that you explain their correlation in regard to each other, the Declaration of Independance and the issue of abortion please.

Natural Law is a law based on the philosophy of absolute morality look up absolute and relative morality on wikipedia it explains it in depth.

Also, dispute this;

"Jefferson was raised in the Church of England at a time when it was the established church in Virginia and only denomination funded by Virginia tax money. Before the American Revolution, Jefferson was a vestryman in his local church, a lay position that was part of political office at the time. Jefferson later expressed general agreement with his friend Joseph Priestley's Unitarianism.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he had high esteem for Jesus' moral teachings, which he viewed as the "principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform [prior Jewish] moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice & philanthropy, and to inculcate the belief of a future state." (Letter to Joseph Priestley, April 9, 1803.)"

Jefferson's use of the term 'god,' was an attempt to put a face on something without a form and something which is imperceptable, he was trying to explain it in such a way so as the people who read the document would understand it without first having to read a hundred philosophy books. It's like if you were trying to explain to a person in ancient Egypt what an airplane is you would have to say something along the lines of it's a metal bird, something that is relative to their own experiences.

Source;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Obviously he was influenced by christian morals agnostic or not. In fact the only thing that qualifies him being agnostic is that he believed that Jesus was not a deity. But clearly it is explained that he believd in the moral teachings of Jesus. Who to other founding fathers was a deity.

However I do agree that since the Declaration of Independance is Jefferson's work. Perhaps it was his intention to express absolute morality.

There's no perhaps about it natural law is based on absolutist morality they are the same things.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Maybe I'm not being clear enough. I do not have an opinion on this. I have no idea what the Founding Fathers meant by their statement that all men are created equal. I am interpreting nothing. You began this thread, titled "Proof of the Founding Fathers intent," which means that you do know for sure exactly what they meant by "created." How do you know this? Because, as you say, there is no other possiblity for the definition of Created. here, I'll give you another definition of created:
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them." Genesis 1:27
Now: this is another possible meaning of "created." Is it the one they meant? Maybe not; Jefferson was an agnostic, as you have said. But the other Founding Fathers were largely Protestant, as you also said; since they had some editorial control over what Jefferson wrote, having debated and voted on it, maybe they made him use the word "created" meaning God. I don't know if they did. Do you know if they did?
A zygote is created at conception. A human is created at ensoulment. a person is created at birth.
Or, for another example: when is an arts & crafts ashtray created? When the clay was formed? When the child molded it into the right shape? When it was fired in a kiln? When it was first used to hold ashes? Created has more than one possible application. You are interpreting which one was meant to suit your needs.

I understand what you're trying to say clever but none the less wrong. :mrgreen:

I seriously doubt we're going to change eachothers mind on that issue so let's bring up another issue as to why the Supreme Court violated the constitution in the RVW decision, if as you claim the Founding Fathers didn't specify what they meant by creation then that decision was not in the constitution and as specified by amendment ten of the Bill of Rights all powers not specifically granted or denied by the constitution to the Federal Government shall be left up to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

I understand what you're trying to say clever but none the less wrong. :mrgreen:

I seriously doubt we're going to change eachothers mind on that issue so let's bring up another issue as to why the Supreme Court violated the constitution in the RVW decision, if as you claim the Founding Fathers didn't specify what they meant by creation then that decision was not in the constitution and as specified by amendment ten of the Bill of Rights all powers not specifically granted or denied by the constitution to the Federal Government shall be left up to the states respectively, or to the people.

At least you seem willing to admit you are holding to your own opinion, even in the face of my objections.:mrgreen: And Titus? I'm never going to change your mind on any idea, and you know it. We can move to your second conversation, but please don't dodge any other posts by Saboteur in the process.
The Founding Fathers did not specify what was meant by creation; therefore, their definition of fetal personhood, or the moment at which a "person" gains the inalienable rights, however you want to put it, is not expressly stated in the Constitution. Therefore, it should be left up to the individual states to determine when that moment is. However, the right to privacy is specifically delineated in the Constitution; as the inalienable right to liberty is stated in the Declaration, the "mission statement" as it were. I would see the two rights as equivalent. Therefore, I would agree with the SC's ruling that the states cannot infringe upon a woman's right to control her own body, as part of her explicit right to privacy and her implied right to liberty. The day that the fetus can be kept alive outside of the mother's womb at any age, is the day that the states can pass laws outlawing abortion. Until then, they cannot make a law infringing unjustly on the woman's right, as repugnant as one might find the practice of abortion personally. What does infringing unjustly mean? That's more open to interpretation, as in when a woman's right to abortion should be limited; that I'm willing to debate. But no state has the right to unilaterally ban abortion.

 

[Saboteur]

Natural Law is a law based on the philosophy of absolute morality look up absolute and relative morality on wikipedia it explains it in depth.

I did, thank you for the suggestion.

Jefferson's use of the term 'god,' was an attempt to put a face on something without a form and something which is imperceptable, he was trying to explain it in such a way so as the people who read the document would understand it without first having to read a hundred philosophy books. It's like if you were trying to explain to a person in ancient Egypt what an airplane is you would have to say something along the lines of it's a metal bird, something that is relative to their own experiences.

Exactly, this is why I think that mentioning Nature's God and Man's Creator in the Declaration of Independance was meant to be perceived as a higher power or authority beyond man. Obviously, it has triggered my belief in the spiritual and in many others, over the centuries, the christian god.

There's no perhaps about it natural law is based on absolutist morality they are the same things.

Yes, but it is defined as a position based on philisophical beliefs. It is not an absolute law of the universe. So while Thomas Jefferson may have believed in what he wrote he still found a way to own slaves and have illegitimate children by them. Though he spoke out against it he had to bow to what others wanted.

He ommited this part of the Declaration of Indpendance;

Jefferson's personal records show he owned 187 slaves, some of whom were inherited at the death of his wife. Some find it hypocritical that he both owned slaves and yet was publicly outspoken in his belief that slavery was immoral. Many of his slaves were considered property that was held as a lien for his many accumulated debts.

His ambivalence can be seen for example, in the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, which Jefferson wrote, in which he condemned the British crown for sponsoring the importation of slavery to the colonies, charging that the crown "has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere..." This language was dropped from the Declaration at the request of delegates from South Carolina and Georgia. In 1769, as a member of the state legislature, Jefferson proposed for that body to emancipate slaves in Virginia, but he was unsuccessful. In 1778, the legislature passed a bill he proposed to ban further importation of slaves into Virginia; although this did not bring complete emancipation, in his words, it "stopped the increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts its final eradication."

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

At least you seem willing to admit you are holding to your own opinion, even in the face of my objections.:mrgreen: And Titus? I'm never going to change your mind on any idea, and you know it. We can move to your second conversation, but please don't dodge any other posts by Saboteur in the process.
The Founding Fathers did not specify what was meant by creation; therefore, their definition of fetal personhood, or the moment at which a "person" gains the inalienable rights, however you want to put it, is not expressly stated in the Constitution. Therefore, it should be left up to the individual states to determine when that moment is. However, the right to privacy is specifically delineated in the Constitution; as the inalienable right to liberty is stated in the Declaration, the "mission statement" as it were. I would see the two rights as equivalent. Therefore, I would agree with the SC's ruling that the states cannot infringe upon a woman's right to control her own body, as part of her explicit right to privacy and her implied right to liberty. The day that the fetus can be kept alive outside of the mother's womb at any age, is the day that the states can pass laws outlawing abortion. Until then, they cannot make a law infringing unjustly on the woman's right, as repugnant as one might find the practice of abortion personally. What does infringing unjustly mean? That's more open to interpretation, as in when a woman's right to abortion should be limited; that I'm willing to debate. But no state has the right to unilaterally ban abortion.

But now you're being hypocritical because if the power to grant or deny the the right to life to an unborn child is not specifically in the Constitution than that decision in and of itself should be left up to the individual states respectively or to the people and not to the Supreme Court the mere fact that the Supreme Court took away that right to choose through the RVW descision IS a violation of the Constitution.

 

[vergiss]

Vergiss--I gave you this link already. Did you look at it?

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/RP/1998-99/99rp01.htm#changing

(1) Laws that create the crime of 'unlawful abortion'

Statutory provisions in every State and Territory-except now Western Australia-make it a crime 'unlawfully' to administer any poison or noxious thing, or use any instrument or other means, with intent to procure miscarriage. The wording of these statutory provisions is based directly on legislation enacted in England in the nineteenth century. The crime of 'unlawful abortion' may be committed by the pregnant woman herself (except in the Northern Territory), by the person performing the abortion, or by anyone else who assists.

In Western Australia, the recent changes to the law repealed the old statutory provisions establishing the crime of 'unlawful abortion' and replaced them with a differently worded provision. This new provision makes it unlawful to perform an abortion unless it is justified under Western Australia's health legislation. This new offence of 'unlawful abortion' may only be committed by the person(s) involved in performing the abortion.

In any State and Territory, the statutory provisions that prohibit 'unlawful abortion' can apply to an abortion performed at any stage of pregnancy. The legal test for when an abortion is not unlawful-and therefore permitted-is different in each State and Territory of Australia.

I wasn't denying that it's based upon the British system. However, that's only regarding how far along the foetus may be, and other such small details - not absoloute restriction. Whether abortion is or isn't legal, full stop, and the methods of exactly how an abortion is performed, is up to the federal government.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

But now you're being hypocritical because if the power to grant or deny the the right to life to an unborn child is not specifically in the Constitution than that decision in and of itself should be left up to the individual states respectively or to the people and not to the Supreme Court the mere fact that the Supreme Court took away that right to choose through the RVW descision IS a violation of the Constitution.

Not at all; first, I didn't make the decision, so if there is any hypocrisy, it isn't mine. Secondly, as I said, the decision in Roe v. Wade follows the Constitution, in that it prevents the states form illegally infringing on the rights of the mother. If the states can find a way to protect the rights of the fetus without infringing on the rights of the mother, all well and good, and the SC would not be able to remove those laws. This is why a ban on partial birth abortion is constitutional if it allows for emergencies concerning the mother's health, and unconstitutional if it doesn't allow for emergency procedures. The people do not have the right to choose to infringe on the mother's rights, simply to rpotect the fetus's rights; the fetus's rights may not be specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but the mother's rights are, and they are therefore within the purview of the Supreme Court.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Not at all; first, I didn't make the decision, so if there is any hypocrisy, it isn't mine. Secondly, as I said, the decision in Roe v. Wade follows the Constitution, in that it prevents the states form illegally infringing on the rights of the mother. If the states can find a way to protect the rights of the fetus without infringing on the rights of the mother, all well and good, and the SC would not be able to remove those laws. This is why a ban on partial birth abortion is constitutional if it allows for emergencies concerning the mother's health, and unconstitutional if it doesn't allow for emergency procedures. The people do not have the right to choose to infringe on the mother's rights, simply to rpotect the fetus's rights; the fetus's rights may not be specifically enumerated in the Constitution, but the mother's rights are, and they are therefore within the purview of the Supreme Court.

No because it's not the decision of the courts to decide when life begins that decision should be left up to the states or to the people the RVW decision effectively took away that right specified by amendment X of the bill of rights and for that reason alone it should be overturned. If the people want to decide that unborn fetuses should not be protected by the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then that's what they'll decide the Supreme Court has taken away that right and are therfor the RVW decision is in violation of the Xth amendment.

A) What constitutes a person is not mentioned in the Constitution.
B) By definition of the Xth amendment that decision should be left to the states or to the people.
C) RvW was in violation of that amendment because it took away the rights of the people to choose when life begins for themselves.
D) Because until there is an amendment to the constitution stating whether or not life begins at birth that decision is not for the Supreme Court to make.
E) Because the definition of a person is not specified in the consitution the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to decide that the fetus was not a person that doesn't have rights.
F) Because what makes a person a person is not specified in the Constitution the Supreme Court had no right to decide one way or the other on the subject of whether the Right to Privacy took precedence over the rights of the fetus.
G) For all the reasons stated above the Xth amendment has precedence over the the 4th.
H) For all those reasons stated above the RVW decision is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

No because it's not the decision of the courts to decide when life begins that decision should be left up to the states or to the people the RVW decision effectively took away that right specified by amendment X of the bill of rights and for that reason alone it should be overturned. If the people want to decide that unborn fetuses should not be protected by the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then that's what they'll decide the Supreme Court has taken away that right and are therfor the RVW decision is in violation of the Xth amendment.

A) What constitutes a person is not mentioned in the Constitution.
B) By definition of the Xth amendment that decision should be left to the states or to the people.
C) RvW was in violation of that amendment because it took away the rights of the people to choose when life begins for themselves.
D) Because until there is an amendment to the constitution stating whether or not life begins at birth that decision is not for the Supreme Court to make.
E) Because the definition of a person is not specified in the consitution the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to decide that the fetus was not a person that doesn't have rights.
F) Because what makes a person a person is not specified in the Constitution the Supreme Court had no right to decide one way or the other on the subject of whether the Right to Privacy took precedence over the rights of the fetus.
G) For all the reasons stated above the Xth amendment has precedence over the the 4th.
H) For all those reasons stated above the RVW decision is unconstitutional and should be overturned.

You don't even read what I write, do you?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Amendment X

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.

You see, what this second one says is that the powers NOT specifically delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are given to the states. Those powers delegated specifically to the federal gov. by the Constitution are NOT given to the states. This means that the Tenth Amendment NEVER overrides one of the other provisions of the Constitution; it is a catchall for anything NOT covered.

The 4th Amendment covers the right of a woman to be secure in her person, and that right can't be infringed upon by the states. A ban on abortion, by giving the control of a woman's body to the state, violates the 4th amendment, and thus is unconstitutional. Since the rights of the fetus are not specifically delineated in the Constitution, they lose to the woman's rights, which are. The Constitution is the final authority in the U.S., not the states. That's why we fought the Civil War. If the states want to pass a new amendment counteracting this argument, and overriding Roe v. Wade, they can do that. But the Supreme Court's decision was the correct one.

 

[ngdawg]

You don't even read what I write, do you?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Amendment X

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.

You see, what this second one says is that the powers NOT specifically delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are given to the states. Those powers delegated specifically to the federal gov. by the Constitution are NOT given to the states. This means that the Tenth Amendment NEVER overrides one of the other provisions of the Constitution; it is a catchall for anything NOT covered.

The 4th Amendment covers the right of a woman to be secure in her person, and that right can't be infringed upon by the states. A ban on abortion, by giving the control of a woman's body to the state, violates the 4th amendment, and thus is unconstitutional. Since the rights of the fetus are not specifically delineated in the Constitution, they lose to the woman's rights, which are. The Constitution is the final authority in the U.S., not the states. That's why we fought the Civil War. If the states want to pass a new amendment counteracting this argument, and overriding Roe v. Wade, they can do that. But the Supreme Court's decision was the correct one.

:bravo: :clap:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You don't even read what I write, do you?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Amendment X

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.

You see, what this second one says is that the powers NOT specifically delegated or prohibited by the Constitution are given to the states. Those powers delegated specifically to the federal gov. by the Constitution are NOT given to the states. This means that the Tenth Amendment NEVER overrides one of the other provisions of the Constitution; it is a catchall for anything NOT covered.

The 4th Amendment covers the right of a woman to be secure in her person, and that right can't be infringed upon by the states. A ban on abortion, by giving the control of a woman's body to the state, violates the 4th amendment, and thus is unconstitutional. Since the rights of the fetus are not specifically delineated in the Constitution, they lose to the woman's rights, which are. The Constitution is the final authority in the U.S., not the states. That's why we fought the Civil War. If the states want to pass a new amendment counteracting this argument, and overriding Roe v. Wade, they can do that. But the Supreme Court's decision was the correct one.

Yes but it is the right of the states to decide when life begins not the Supreme Court that is the issue and that is why the RVW decision is unconstiutional because it took away the right of the people to decide for themselves that a zygote is indeed a person and thus subject to protection from the 4th and 14th amendments protection of the government not taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process.

The issue is not abortion the issue is the right of the people to decide when life begins and when that life should be protected by the bill of rights the RVW decision took away that choice and that is why it is unconstitutional.

And only the most liberal interpretation of the 4th amendment could possibly construe an amendment about illegal search and seizure to be applicable to abortion in the first place.

You are trying to skew the issue here, can you give me a single reason why the people should not be given the right to decide for themselves when a person becomes a person? You're grasping at straws here but you still haven't given me a real reason why the xth amendment is not applicable.

Here's why your logic is fallacious:

a) You believe that the Supreme Court's decision is legal because the constitution doesn't specify when a person should be granted the rights of life, liberty, and property.

b) Since it is not stated in the constitution when life begins you automatically jump to the conclusion that a zygote is not protected by the bill of rights.

c) Since it is not stated in the constitution that the zygote is protected by the constitution then it automatically is not and thus the 4th amendments right to privacy is applicable and the zygotes right to life is not.

Your logic is flawed in between a and b because if the right to life is not mentioned in the Constitution then that decision needed to be made by the people before the Supreme Court decided whether abortion falls under the right to privacy that is why the 10th amendment takes precedence over the 4th. Until there is an amendment to the constitution made concerning when a person becomes a person then the 10th amendment still applies and the 4th amendment is not applicable and the RVW decision is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned.

This is not a Supreme Court dictatorship this is a Democracy overturn RVW and give the people their vote if they vote for abortion then that is one thing but to not allow that vote to take place is quite another like I said this isn't a dictatorship, or a government of, by, and for the government, this is a government of, by, and for the people!!!

 

[doughgirl]

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, had this to say: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Self explanitory..........

And from what I have read over half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training, and while John Adams was the most overtly pious, even the non-believers among the founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, turned to God. During the Constitutional Convention, it was Franklin who not only offered a prayer but who added:

"Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance."


Who does he mean by HIS?

Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”


I realize he was not a signer but do you think he could have gotten away with saying something like this if the signers had not been Christian?
Would anyone have gotten away with it?

If our goal is to keep religion from dictating the moral principles and laws of our country, we are hundreds of years too late. Every significant document that defines the values of the United States-including the DEclaration, the Constitution and The Bill of Rights-leans heavily on a belief in God and the moral authority of the Bible. And the Bible recognizes a fetus as a creation of God. The Bible is against abortion and I am sure that the signers were against abortion as well. Let me elaborate further.........


CAring for human LIFE is why we have government in the first place. That is the first and only legitimate reason for our government. Our forefathers said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They're saying this is a no-brainer, its self evident, but just so nobody misses it, we'll write it down......"we are endowed by our Creator"-not by the Bush Administration, not by the courts-but by our creator with inalienable right to life." The freedoms in the Bill of Rights are NOT given to us by the Founding Fathers or by the Consititution. they are given by God. And if you would notice..........which right is listed first? The right that makes all others possible. And CoffeeSaint...it isn't Liberty, its the "inalienable right to LIFE". As I have said before.........without this first right......the others do not matter.

To secure these rights, governments are instituted. To protect human life-to secure our inalienable right to life is why government exists. We who are pro-life hold that truth to be self-evident. The problem is....not everyone does.

 

[Caine]

James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution of the United States, had this to say: "We have staked the whole future of our new nation, not upon the power of government; far from it. We have staked the future of all our political constitutions upon the capacity of each of ourselves to govern ourselves according to the moral principles of the Ten Commandments."

Self explanitory..........

And from what I have read over half the Declaration’s signers had some sort of divinity school training, and while John Adams was the most overtly pious, even the non-believers among the founders, such as Benjamin Franklin, turned to God. During the Constitutional Convention, it was Franklin who not only offered a prayer but who added:

"Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance."


Who does he mean by HIS?

Patrick Henry, in 1776, stated, “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here.”


I realize he was not a signer but do you think he could have gotten away with saying something like this if the signers had not been Christian?
Would anyone have gotten away with it?

If our goal is to keep religion from dictating the moral principles and laws of our country, we are hundreds of years too late. Every significant document that defines the values of the United States-including the DEclaration, the Constitution and The Bill of Rights-leans heavily on a belief in God and the moral authority of the Bible. And the Bible recognizes a fetus as a creation of God. The Bible is against abortion and I am sure that the signers were against abortion as well. Let me elaborate further.........


CAring for human LIFE is why we have government in the first place. That is the first and only legitimate reason for our government. Our forefathers said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident." They're saying this is a no-brainer, its self evident, but just so nobody misses it, we'll write it down......"we are endowed by our Creator"-not by the Bush Administration, not by the courts-but by our creator with inalienable right to life." The freedoms in the Bill of Rights are NOT given to us by the Founding Fathers or by the Consititution. they are given by God. And if you would notice..........which right is listed first? The right that makes all others possible. And CoffeeSaint...it isn't Liberty, its the "inalienable right to LIFE". As I have said before.........without this first right......the others do not matter.

To secure these rights, governments are instituted. To protect human life-to secure our inalienable right to life is why government exists. We who are pro-life hold that truth to be self-evident. The problem is....not everyone does.

So.......What are you really trying to say?

 

[Felicity]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

I don't see where it says "privacy" there anywhere. I know it's been interpreted that way with regard to abortion because of the Casey case that was designed and executed by Planned Parenthood and supporters specifically to set up case law that may lead to such a thing as RVW--but there is no "right to privacy" stated in the constitution.

And second--since when is not allowing elective abortion "search and seizure?" If someone forcibly attacked you and took your fetus--that would be illegal seizure, a law that doesn't permit an action cannot be against the 4th amendment or else ALL laws that prohibit actions would be unconstitutional.

The 4th amendment only applies if you only pay attention to the first eleven words and IGNORE the rest of the sentence.

The 4th Amendment covers the right of a woman to be secure in her person, and that right can't be infringed upon by the states.

See....where's the rest of the 4th amendment in your argument? It was a complete sentence--and only ONE sentence--it specifically SAYS what she is secure against.....UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. Not EVERYTHING she can imagine. Why isn't recreational drug use legal then? Why isn't it legal to tote around concealed weapons? How can restaurants and schools have particular "dress codes" if I am secure in my person alone and no one can infringe upon that without violating my constitutional right? There is no “right” to security of “person” –it is a right for a person to be secure AGAINST unreasonable SEARCH and SIEZURE.

 

[CoffeeSaint]

All right; since I am by no means a Constitutional scholar, I don't know that I'm going to be able to handle all three of you piling into me at once, but I'll give it my best shot.

Yes but it is the right of the states to decide when life begins not the Supreme Court that is the issue and that is why the RVW decision is unconstiutional because it took away the right of the people to decide for themselves that a zygote is indeed a person and thus subject to protection from the 4th and 14th amendments protection of the government not taking away your life, liberty, or property without due process.

And had they made that decision, they might have had a case against the protection of privacy that is the basis of the RvW case. However, to my knowledge, there has been no law passed that states specifically that life begins at conception, by ANY state. Am I wrong on that? Since there is no legal precedent for the zygote's personhood or protection under the Constitution, the Supreme Court could not rule against a right that is protected by the Constitution, in favor of a law that might be created at some point in the future. The court may have gone too far morally, but legally they had no alternative; they had to uphold the Constitution as it was written. Tell me, in the 30+ years since RvW, why have the states not used their specifically enumerated power to amend the Constitution to create a legal precedent that specifically grants the status of person to a zygote?

The issue is not abortion the issue is the right of the people to decide when life begins and when that life should be protected by the bill of rights the RVW decision took away that choice and that is why it is unconstitutional.

Actually, it did not, in my eyes; since it allowed for a "sliding scale" of a woman's right to abortion, with unresetricted access in the first trimester, restricted access in the second, and emergency access only in the third trimester, the SC made the best "good faith" attempt to protect what they presumably saw as the moral position, if not the legal one, i.e., the protection of the zygote. But to rule against a woman's right to privacy would be unconstitutional.

And only the most liberal interpretation of the 4th amendment could possibly construe an amendment about illegal search and seizure to be applicable to abortion in the first place.

You may be right here, but I want to research the actual ruling before I concede the point here.

You are trying to skew the issue here, can you give me a single reason why the people should not be given the right to decide for themselves when a person becomes a person? You're grasping at straws here but you still haven't given me a real reason why the xth amendment is not applicable.

I was right; you don't read what I write. Go back and look at my last post; I have repeated myself enough.

Here's why your logic is fallacious:

a) You believe that the Supreme Court's decision is legal because the constitution doesn't specify when a person should be granted the rights of life, liberty, and property.

No, the Constitution does not give a definition of personhood, and we cannot prove one way or the other what exactly they meant by personhood. That means that, no matter what we all believe, not matter what convincing argument you may have for the personhood of a fetus, it is not necessarily guaranteed protection because it is reasonable to assume that the drafters may not have seen it as a person. Have you noticed that I don't argue fetal personhood? That's why. It is irrelevant, IMO.

b) Since it is not stated in the constitution when life begins you automatically jump to the conclusion that a zygote is not protected by the bill of rights.

No, I conclude that the definition of a zygote's personhood should be left up to the states. However, the states cannot make laws that violate the woman's right to privacy without amending the Constitution, and a ban on abortion would violate that right.

c) Since it is not stated in the constitution that the zygote is protected by the constitution then it automatically is not and thus the 4th amendments right to privacy is applicable and the zygotes right to life is not.

The woman's right is protected, because she is specifically included as a person in the Constitution. The zygote's is not. Constitutional protections trump all other laws. (Note that they also trump the Declaration's descriptions, including the "right" to life.)

Your logic is flawed in between a and b because if the right to life is not mentioned in the Constitution then that decision needed to be made by the people before the Supreme Court decided whether abortion falls under the right to privacy that is why the 10th amendment takes precedence over the 4th. Until there is an amendment to the constitution made concerning when a person becomes a person then the 10th amendment still applies and the 4th amendment is not applicable and the RVW decision is unconstitutional and needs to be overturned.

The Supreme Court was put in an untenable position, and they did the best they could. They had to protect the rights of the mother, but they could not rule on the rights of the fetus; and, as we have been arguing for the thirty years since, how can you separate the two? They made the only choice they could: they protected the one right specifically delineated in the Constitution, the right of a woman to be secure in her person. They could not rule against that right. They tried to leave the matter of fetal personhood up to the states, in deciding to allow bans on late term abortions, but they had to protect the moother's rights. Exactly as I have always argued, the mother's right to choose may be unfortunate, but in our society, it is necessary. If you want to change that, and protect fetal personhood, you need to do one of two things: get the Constitution changed so that it SPECIFICALLY grants personhood to a zygote; or invent a way that the fetus can be protected, without infringing on the mother's right to choose not to be pregnant. Until then, RvW should stand.

This is not a Supreme Court dictatorship this is a Democracy overturn RVW and give the people their vote if they vote for abortion then that is one thing but to not allow that vote to take place is quite another like I said this isn't a dictatorship, or a government of, by, and for the government, this is a government of, by, and for the people!!!

Vive la Revolucion!