This book could change the way conservatives read the Constitution

[AZRWinger]

Actually, to be pedantic, it didn't. Rather it recognized that the Constitution provided those rights.

Point out with a link the Constitutional text conferring a right to privacy. Oh wait, the right to privacy is conferred by an imaginary penumbra. But any excuse to liquidate the unborn children is accepted.

 

[NWRatCon]

Are you referring to the Citizens United decision?

Among others, many cited therein. There were ways to reach proper results without creating the Frankenstein Monster that the Supreme Court expressed in dicta more than a century ago. "But for 100 years, corporations were not given any constitutional right of political speech; in fact, quite the contrary. In 1907, following a corporate corruption scandal involving prior presidential campaigns, Congress passed a law banning corporate involvement in federal election campaigns. That wall held firm for 70 years."



Intellectual honesty has never been the forte of "conservative" Justices. They fictionalize the law constantly.

 

[Cordelier]

Why the resistance to referring to the unborn child as such? Abortion fanatics insist on the sacred right to slaughter the unborn right up to the point the child clears the birth canal. The use of fetus is meant to disguise support for abortions well after 9 weeks. Unborn child accurately portrays the scope of the slaughter.



We aren't discussing entering into contracts or voting. The law formally recognizes parental obligations to children without conferring all the rights of a legal personhood. Still, there is no disputing where the right to life is concerned abortionists insist on an arbitrary distinction.

Again, by your definition fetus is 9 weeks or less. Abortion advocates insist the unborn can be liquidated for any reason or no reason right up to birth. Are you recognizing the unborn have rights after 9 weeks?

I said a fetus was 9 weeks or more after fertilization. Before that stage, it goes through the Zygote and Embryo stages of development. Regardless of what stage of development we're talking about, though, at no time before birth can a proto-person be considered a person, and there is nothing within the Constitution to indicate otherwise. Citizenship is measured from birth. Age qualifications for voting and eligibility for office are measured from birth. So, in short, personhood in every legal sense begins at birth.

You can make all the emotional and spiritual arguments you want against abortion - and I'm not unsympathetic to them - I oppose abortion personally myself. But the distinction I draw is that my personal beliefs extend only to myself. My spouse isn't bound by them, let alone anyone else. That's part and parcel with freedom - that nobody else is required to live by anyone else's moral code.

I'll also say this... no woman goes through 8 or 9 months of pregnancy only to have an abortion on a whim. If she seeks an abortion at that late stage, you can be assured there is very grave reason for it.

 

[NWRatCon]

I said a fetus was 9 weeks or more after fertilization. Before that stage, it goes through the Zygote and Embryo stages of development. Regardless of what stage of development we're talking about, though, at no time before birth can a proto-person be considered a person, and there is nothing within the Constitution to indicate otherwise. Citizenship is measured from birth. Age qualifications for voting and eligibility for office are measured from birth. So, in short, personhood in every legal sense begins at birth.

You can make all the emotional and spiritual arguments you want against abortion - and I'm not unsympathetic to them - I oppose abortion personally myself. But the distinction I draw is that my personal beliefs extend only to myself. My spouse isn't bound by them, let alone anyone else. That's part and parcel with freedom - that nobody else is required to live by anyone else's moral code.

I'll also say this... no woman goes through 8 or 9 months of pregnancy only to have an abortion on a whim. If she seeks an abortion at that late stage, you can be assured there is very grave reason for it.

Hear, hear.

 

[Cordelier]

Point out with a link the Constitutional text conferring a right to privacy. Oh wait, the right to privacy is conferred by an imaginary penumbra. But any excuse to liquidate the unborn children is accepted.

Penumbras have to exist... if not, then from where do 9th Amendment unenumerated rights spring?

But, regardless of that, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion isn't an unenumerated right. Fair enough. So it goes to the 10th Amendment to decide as a reserved power. What I don't get is why that means it is automatically up to the States to exercise reserved powers? Does not the 10th Amendment also list the people as a co-equal recipient of them? Surely the power to decide a matter so personal and intimate as deciding whether or not to carry a fetus to term should lie with the people themselves to decide, on an individual basis. I don't argue that the vast majority of reserved powers properly belong to the States... but if we're going to talk about original intent, wasn't it the intent of the Founders that SOME - even one - reserved powers belong to the people as opposed to the States? If not, why include the last 4 words of the 10th Amendment?

 

[Cordelier]

Among others, many cited therein. There were ways to reach proper results without creating the Frankenstein Monster that the Supreme Court expressed in dicta more than a century ago. "But for 100 years, corporations were not given any constitutional right of political speech; in fact, quite the contrary. In 1907, following a corporate corruption scandal involving prior presidential campaigns, Congress passed a law banning corporate involvement in federal election campaigns. That wall held firm for 70 years."



Intellectual honesty has never been the forte of "conservative" Justices. They fictionalize the law constantly.

I don't disagree with you. I've never been able to square it with the Court's ruling in Paul v. Virginia (75 US 168) (1869) that corporations can't be considered citizens within the privileges and immunities clause. Would we really be comfortable with foreign individuals or corporations pumping billions of dark money into our elections?

 

[Rich2018]

Zero

Then they're not much good are they ?

 

[AZRWinger]

Penumbras have to exist... if not, then from where do 9th Amendment unenumerated rights spring?

Penubral rights spring from the entire bill of rights not a particular amendment. Unenumerated rights predate the imaginary penumbra by over a century. The DOI explains Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as AMONG the Creator bestowed rights, not an exhaustive list.

Of course recognizing the Creator would violate the de facto state religion of atheism. So, the contrivance of a penubra is necessary to illegally amend the Constitution with a so-called right to privacy.

But, regardless of that, the Supreme Court ruled that abortion isn't an unenumerated right. Fair enough. So it goes to the 10th Amendment to decide as a reserved power. What I don't get is why that means it is automatically up to the States to exercise reserved powers? Does not the 10th Amendment also list the people as a co-equal recipient of them? Surely the power to decide a matter so personal and intimate as deciding whether or not to carry a fetus to term should lie with the people themselves to decide, on an individual basis. I don't argue that the vast majority of reserved powers properly belong to the States... but if we're going to talk about original intent, wasn't it the intent of the Founders that SOME - even one - reserved powers belong to the people as opposed to the States? If not, why include the last 4 words of the 10th Amendment?

The SCOTUS is the representative of the People bringing forth new rights? There isn't a shred of authorization in the Constitutional definition of SCOTUS for that.

 

[Cordelier]

Penubral rights spring from the entire bill of rights not a particular amendment. Unenumerated rights predate the imaginary penumbra by over a century. The DOI explains Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as AMONG the Creator bestowed rights, not an exhaustive list.

Of course recognizing the Creator would violate the de facto state religion of atheism. So, the contrivance of a penubra is necessary to illegally amend the Constitution with a so-called right to privacy.

The SCOTUS is the representative of the People bringing forth new rights? There isn't a shred of authorization in the Constitutional definition of SCOTUS for that.

I agree it's not an exhaustive list - but there has to be some practical means of recognizing the unenumerated rights that the 9th Amendment says do exist. What better means of recognizing such rights then establishing penumbras between the enumerated rights? But hey, if you can come up with better practical means of recognizing unenumerated rights, have at it.

As for SCOTUS bringing forth new rights, a big part of their job is determining what the Constitution does say, is it not? All I ask is that they interpret this:

10th Amendment
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.

So if the people aren't legitimate recipients of reserved powers on a co-equal basis with the States, then how else do you interpret the last four words of the Bill of Rights (highlighted above)? And if the power to make basic decisions about one's own body isn't one of the reserved powers that properly belongs to the people, perhaps you can suggest one that is?

 

[Uncensored2008]

All rights are social constructs.

Nope - that is privilege.

Because the left views the state as supreme and the individual as meaningless, they view of Marxists/democrats is that rights don't exist. The people/peasants are property of the state/crown to be disposed of as the state/crown sees fit. The left replaces rights, which accrue to individuals, with privilege - which is granted by the state/crown.

A natural right exists absent rulers. If one is in the wilderness, nothing can stop him from picking up a rock or crafting a spear to protect himself. He has a right - only through force can others stop a person from their right to arms. And the initiation of the use of force is immoral - not that the left has any sort of ethical or moral code.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So you're asserting a fetus is a person and due the same rights as any person?

So you are asserting that what a woman carries when pregnant is not human and not separate and distinct from the mother?

Support of abortion depends on rejection of biological fact and the scientific method.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Nope - that is privilege.

Because the left views the state as supreme and the individual as meaningless, they view of Marxists/democrats is that rights don't exist. The people/peasants are property of the state/crown to be disposed of as the state/crown sees fit. The left replaces rights, which accrue to individuals, with privilege - which is granted by the state/crown.

A natural right exists absent rulers. If one is in the wilderness, nothing can stop him from picking up a rock or crafting a spear to protect himself. He has a right - only through force can others stop a person from their right to arms. And the initiation of the use of force is immoral - not that the left has any sort of ethical or moral code.

The state is not supreme nor is the individual meaningless. That's an incorrect read of the view. Rights are derived from societal or cultural agreement. This may happen with or without a government or formal sense of legality. The individual cannot be meaningless since they have to be the ones to make the cultural agreement.

This is why we have have a large variety of societies and a large variety of the concept of rights throughout history.

 

[Cordelier]

So you are asserting that what a woman carries when pregnant is not human and not separate and distinct from the mother?

Support of abortion depends on rejection of biological fact and the scientific method.

What I am asserting is that a fetus doesn't have rights. Under our Constitution, only persons have rights, and personhood begins at birth.

The whole abortion question - any Constitutional question - revolves on conflicting rights and powers. If it is Woman vs. Fetus, then Woman wins because she is a person with rights and the fetus is not. However, if the State intervenes on behalf of the fetus, and it becomes Woman vs. State, then it's a different matter entirely, because States have reserved powers under the 10th Amendment.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the 10th Amendment with an unbiased eye, so do women. I think that basic fact needs to be recognized.

 

[AZRWinger]

I agree it's not an exhaustive list - but there has to be some practical means of recognizing the unenumerated rights that the 9th Amendment says do exist. What better means of recognizing such rights then establishing penumbras between the enumerated rights? But hey, if you can come up with better practical means of recognizing unenumerated rights, have at it.

Try Article 5, the amendment process. It beats an activist judge sniffing the so-called penumbra by a mile.the

As for SCOTUS bringing forth new rights, a big part of their job is determining what the Constitution does say, is it not? All I ask is that they interpret this:

10th Amendment
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.

The Constitution specifies it is the People through their elected representatives who determine what is the law or through amendments define rigjts. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes penumbra sniffing judges to add new rights at their whim.

So if the people aren't legitimate recipients of reserved powers on a co-equal basis with the States, then how else do you interpret the last four words of the Bill of Rights (highlighted above)? And if the power to make basic decisions about one's own body isn't one of the reserved powers that properly belongs to the people, perhaps you can suggest one that is?

 

[Cordelier]

Try Article 5, the amendment process. It beats an activist judge sniffing the so-called penumbra by a mile.the

The Constitution specifies it is the People through their elected representatives who determine what is the law or through amendments define rigjts. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes penumbra sniffing judges to add new rights at their whim.

Article V co-exists with the 9th Amendment, does it not? They aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

Article IV §4's guarantee of a republican form of Government was in existence and ratified within the original Constitution when the Bill of Rights was being debated... if that was all that the 10th Amendment's last four words referred to, then what was the original intent behind including them at all? I don't subscribe to the notion that the Founders intended ornamentation within the Constitution. Every word they wrote into it has it's own meaning and purpose for being there.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What I am asserting is that a fetus doesn't have rights.

So like Jews in Germany in the 1930's.

Under our Constitution, only persons have rights, and personhood begins at birth.

LOL

Dehumanizing the intended victim is common for those who seek to engage in atrocities.

The whole abortion question - any Constitutional question - revolves on conflicting rights and powers.

Can you point to case law where unborn babies are declared "unpersons?"

Of course not - what you claim is false.

You are rejecting medical science and biological fact to promote abortion.

If it is Woman vs. Fetus, then Woman wins because she is a person with rights and the fetus is not.

Does the baby have switchblade or something?

If not so ghoulish, it would be amusing the way Abortion promoters try and portray the most vulnerable as if they were combatants.

However, if the State intervenes on behalf of the fetus, and it becomes Woman vs. State, then it's a different matter entirely, because States have reserved powers under the 10th Amendment.

Under our Constitution - that is a matter for the 50 states to decide individually.

All I'm saying is that if you look at the 10th Amendment with an unbiased eye, so do women. I think that basic fact needs to be recognized.

What you seek is to dehumanize your intended victims to strip them of legal protections.

 

[Cordelier]

So like Jews in Germany in the 1930's.



LOL

Dehumanizing the intended victim is common for those who seek to engage in atrocities.



Can you point to case law where unborn babies are declared "unpersons?"

Of course not - what you claim is false.

You are rejecting medical science and biological fact to promote abortion.



Does the baby have switchblade or something?

If not so ghoulish, it would be amusing the way Abortion promoters try and portray the most vulnerable as if they were combatants.



Under our Constitution - that is a matter for the 50 states to decide individually.



What you seek is to dehumanize your intended victims to strip them of legal protections.

You're just making an emotional/spiritual argument. I'm making a legal one. There is no legal case that declares a fetus has rights. They all come down to deciding the correct balance between the powers of the State versus the powers of the individual woman. That's just a fact. It's also a fact that the 10th Amendment specifically names the people as a co-equal recipient of reserved powers on the same level as the States. A reserved power not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution either goes to the States OR the people. It uses that exact word - "or". One or the other.

I'm just curious as to how conservatives, with all their professed devotion to strict constructionism and original intent interpret that provision of the 10th Amendment. It has to mean something. It can't just be a reinstatement of Article IV §4's republican form of government guarantee.... if that was all it meant, well, that's already guaranteed - there was no need to restate it. So it has to be a separate guarantee from just being able to participate in the political process, mustn't it?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The state is not supreme nor is the individual meaningless. That's an incorrect read of the view. Rights are derived from societal or cultural agreement.

False.

Privilege is derived from societal or cultural agreement. Rights are fundamental and do not need to be granted by kings or dictators.

This may happen with or without a government or formal sense of legality. The individual cannot be meaningless since they have to be the ones to make the cultural agreement.

The reality is that in monarchies/socialist societies, 1% rule absolutely over the other 99%. The individual has little or no say over the rules of government - the ruling elite decide and then enforce their rulings.

This is why we have have a large variety of societies and a large variety of the concept of rights throughout history.

The overwhelming majority of societies throughout history are dictatorships. We are the exception, not the rule. Our society was founded on the concept that rights are granted by nature - or god as one views it. You hold the tradition, totalitarian view that the state/crown is the source of all, as the rightful owners of all. This is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional Republic, where the individual is the ultimate authority.

Traditionally, conservatives favor bottom up governance, where the people have the greatest political power. Electing representatives to govern in cities and towns who are directly responsible to the people. Towns and cities cede a small portion of the authority granted by the people to counties and shires. Counties cede a small portion of their authority to states. States then cede a small portion of authority to the federation, the federal government for the purpose of national courts and national defense.

democrats have a far different view, where there is a ruler, or group of rulers in Washington DC who hold absolute power. The Ruler will appoint barons, earls, ministers, secretaries, et al. to execute the will of the ruling caste on the many states. Governors are the rulers of the individual state, deriving their power from the central government and submit to rule by the central government. Counties must submit to the rule of the state, cities must submit to the rule of the counties, and the people must submit to the rule of every level of government.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You're just making an emotional/spiritual argument.

False, you are desperately seeking to use talking points from the abortion industrial complex.

I've used medical science and biological fact - which you reject.

I'm making a legal one.

You are defying medical and scientific fact.

There is no legal case that declares a fetus has rights.

False.

{A man in New Hampshire has been charged with two counts of murder after prosecutors accused him of killing a pregnant woman, making William Kelly the first person in the state to be charged with murder in the death of a fetus since New Hampshire passed a law making it a possibility more than five years ago.}

MSN

They all come down to deciding the correct balance between the powers of the State versus the powers of the individual woman.

The state has the task of protecting the most vulnerable members of society from predation by those who seek to profit from their deaths. The abortion industrial complex is a trillion dollar enterprise that seeks to expand.

That's just a fact. It's also a fact that the 10th Amendment specifically names the people as a co-equal recipient of reserved powers on the same level as the States. A reserved power not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution either goes to the States OR the people. It uses that exact word - "or". One or the other.

Is this a less spurious argument in the source you are using? Gutmacher I assume?

I'm just curious as to how conservatives, with all their professed devotion to strict constructionism and original intent interpret that provision of the 10th Amendment. It has to mean something. It can't just be a reinstatement of Article IV §4's republican form of government guarantee.... if that was all it meant, well, that's already guaranteed - there was no need to restate it. So it has to be a separate guarantee from just being able to participate in the political process, mustn't it?

The 10th says nothing of abortion or naming the unborn as "unpersons."

Per Dobbs AND THE 10TH - abortion is the purvey of the many states. The law created by the Burger Court violated the Constitution - on a dozen levels. Abortion advocates and promoters have 37 states that support them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

False.

Privilege is derived from societal or cultural agreement. Rights are fundamental and do not need to be granted by kings or dictators.

Rights and privilege are both derived from that place.

The reality is that in monarchies/socialist societies, 1% rule absolutely over the other 99%. The individual has little or no say over the rules of government - the ruling elite decide and then enforce their rulings.

That happens in the US as well. The only place where it is not happening is in Western European countries.

The overwhelming majority of societies throughout history are dictatorships. We are the exception, not the rule. Our society was founded on the concept that rights are granted by nature - or god as one views it. You hold the tradition, totalitarian view that the state/crown is the source of all, as the rightful owners of all. This is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional Republic, where the individual is the ultimate authority.

Traditionally, conservatives favor bottom up governance, where the people have the greatest political power. Electing representatives to govern in cities and towns who are directly responsible to the people. Towns and cities cede a small portion of the authority granted by the people to counties and shires. Counties cede a small portion of their authority to states. States then cede a small portion of authority to the federation, the federal government for the purpose of national courts and national defense.

democrats have a far different view, where there is a ruler, or group of rulers in Washington DC who hold absolute power. The Ruler will appoint barons, earls, ministers, secretaries, et al. to execute the will of the ruling caste on the many states. Governors are the rulers of the individual state, deriving their power from the central government and submit to rule by the central government. Counties must submit to the rule of the state, cities must submit to the rule of the counties, and the people must submit to the rule of every level of government.

I realize that Lockeian humanism was the fashion at the time during the founding. The rest of this is just your paranoia.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Rights and privilege are both derived from that place.

What do you see as the distinction, then?

That happens in the US as well. The only place where it is not happening is in Western European countries.

ROFL

You mean like EnglandStan?

BWAHAHAHAHA

I realize that Lockeian humanism was the fashion at the time during the founding. The rest of this is just your paranoia.

Locke certainly was influential - as was Kant.

Regardless, your rejection of civil and human rights is an issue independent from epistemological questions.

 

[Slartibartfast]

What do you see as the distinction, then?

There really isn't much of one. I simply used your terminology to move the conversation forward and get past that sticking point.

ROFL

You mean like EnglandStan?

BWAHAHAHAHA

You don't seem totally unhinged there.

Locke certainly was influential - as was Kant.

Regardless, your rejection of civil and human rights is an issue independent from epistemological questions.

What you consider human rights is just your ideology and has no independent reality outside of that.

 

[Cordelier]

False, you are desperately seeking to use talking points from the abortion industrial complex.

I've used medical science and biological fact - which you reject.



You are defying medical and scientific fact.



False.

{A man in New Hampshire has been charged with two counts of murder after prosecutors accused him of killing a pregnant woman, making William Kelly the first person in the state to be charged with murder in the death of a fetus since New Hampshire passed a law making it a possibility more than five years ago.}

MSN

The state has the task of protecting the most vulnerable members of society from predation by those who seek to profit from their deaths. The abortion industrial complex is a trillion dollar enterprise that seeks to expand.


Is this a less spurious argument in the source you are using? Gutmacher I assume?



The 10th says nothing of abortion or naming the unborn as "unpersons."

Per Dobbs AND THE 10TH - abortion is the purvey of the many states. The law created by the Burger Court violated the Constitution - on a dozen levels. Abortion advocates and promoters have 37 states that support them.

I'm not going to chase after every quote. I haven't got time to spend parsing rhetoric.

A fetus only has such rights as the mother chooses to bestow upon it - in the New Hampshire case, obviously the mother intended to carry until term, and so it had a right to life bestowed upon it by the mother. Even if she had been struck in the parking lot of an abortion clinic on her way to abort the fetus, there is also the possibility she could have changed her mind in the waiting room.

You still haven't addressed the meaning of the last four words of the 10th Amendment.

 

[Rich2018]

I'm not going to chase after every quote. I haven't got time to spend parsing rhetoric.

A fetus only has such rights as the mother chooses to bestow upon it - in the New Hampshire case, obviously the mother intended to carry until term, and so it had a right to life bestowed upon it by the mother. Even if she had been struck in the parking lot of an abortion clinic on her way to abort the fetus, there is also the possibility she could have changed her mind in the waiting room.

You still haven't addressed the meaning of the last four words of the 10th Amendment.

Are we accepting that someone can be forced to use their body to save/preserve life ?
Forcing a pregnant woman to see out her pregnancy and give birth is doing exactly that

That is the same principle as forcing a healthy person to donate one of their kidney to a compatible recipient who would otherwise die.

 

[Cordelier]

Are we accepting that someone can be forced to use their body to save/preserve life ?
Forcing a pregnant woman to see out her pregnancy and give birth is doing exactly that

That is the same principle as forcing a healthy person to donate one of their kidney to a compatible recipient who would otherwise die.

You're preaching to the choir there, Rich. I agree completely. Of course, that raises the question of whether or not the State has the right to compel organ donations. Using the logic of Dobbs, there's nothing within the Constitution that gives people the right to decide whether to donate a kidney... so it goes to the 10th Amendment as a reserved power. So who gets to decide? The State or the people?