Political Crossfire Forums

[AllAmericanMan]

Im not trying to demonize anyone Im simply trying to communicate the truth as I see it. I see many faults in the "pro choice" arguements and I have laid them out in detail. Ive said all I have to say about it.

[F'losrix]

I voted yes because I believe the court will take a major leap to the right with the recent additions of Roberts and Alito. I also have little doubt that there are more retirements coming during the current administrations term of office. It's hardly a secret that the strategy is to pack the court with justices who will overturn Roe, and probably other privacy-related cases as well.

One's privacy 'rights' (as extrapolated from the 4th Amendment) are going to be the big issue before Americans & the courts in the coming years, as I see little reason for the federal government to halt its grab for more power & control over our lives. I fully expect the People will ultimately be on the losing end, though few of them seem to realize the potential dangers to their liberty looming on the horizon.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Im not trying to demonize anyone

Calling us "pro-death" isn't demonizing?

AllAmericanMan wrote: Im simply trying to communicate the truth as I see it. I see many faults in the "pro choice" arguements and I have laid them out in detail.

How can you define the "truth" of another person's opinion? What you see is another who does not share your identical views, and so you attack us for that. Well, I apologize for believing in something different that yourself, and I am also sorry that the society of the United States supports such differences.

AllAmericanMan wrote: Ive said all I have to say about it.

Then ignorance and arrogance have truly gotten the better of you. We have not argued for you to change your views, we have stated our side as Pro-Choice, yet you continue to label us as "pro-death", despite the clear differences that we have pointed out. I am sorry that our views conflict with yours, but that does not mean that you should not grant us your respect in this debate.

[AUEagle]

Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe that states should vote on this issue.

[LostSoul3412]

AUEagle wrote: Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe that states should vote on this issue.

And I believe that it should be an individual issue, and that Roe v. Wade should be upheld in the American legal system.

But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans.

[Shady]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I voted yes because I believe the court will take a major leap to the right with the recent additions of Roberts and Alito. I also have little doubt that there are more retirements coming during the current administrations term of office. It's hardly a secret that the strategy is to pack the court with justices who will overturn Roe, and probably other privacy-related cases as well.

One's privacy 'rights' (as extrapolated from the 4th Amendment) are going to be the big issue before Americans & the courts in the coming years, as I see little reason for the federal government to halt its grab for more power & control over our lives. I fully expect the People will ultimately be on the losing end, though few of them seem to realize the potential dangers to their liberty looming on the horizon.

I think that's the right of it. In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: I think that's the right of it. In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy. Good riddance to the right to murder the unborn.

[Plodder]

Quote: Calling us "pro-death" isn't demonizing?
no its an accurate description of what you support without the veils and perfume added.. Quote: In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy the big losers are those who belive that theoir freedom is limitless. Quote:
But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans. well i dont like it and because ofthat pewople lie me are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of it. Also Roe is no law since hte SC cannot make laws.

[Plodder]

Quote: Calling us "pro-death" isn't demonizing?
no its an accurate description of what you support without the veils and perfume added.. Quote: In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy the big losers are those who belive that theoir freedom is limitless. Quote:
But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans. well i dont like it and because ofthat pewople lie me are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of it. Also Roe is no law since hte SC cannot make laws.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Calling us "pro-death" isn't demonizing?
no its an accurate description of what you support without the veils and perfume added..

I think that's what the Nazi Party said about Jews too...

Plodder wrote: Quote: In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy the big losers are those who belive that theoir freedom is limitless.

And why should freedom not be limitless? I suppose this is more of a philosophy debate than an abortion one, but I don't think that having the right to your own body is demanding limitless freedoms.

Plodder wrote: Quote: But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans. well i dont like it and because ofthat pewople lie me are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of it. Also Roe is no law since hte SC cannot make laws.

You are correct that the Supreme Court cannot make the laws, but they are the highest interpreters of the laws, and according to them, an embryo does not have human rights; therefore, it is not a person under American legal definitions. Regardless of whether or not you like it, that is what it is.

[Plodder]

Quote: I think that's what the Nazi Party said about Jews too... no, the nazis said that the jews were tratiors and that they were making the german race impure.



Quote: And why should freedom not be limitless? I suppose this is more of a philosophy debate than an abortion one, but I don't think that having the right to your own body is demanding limitless freedoms.
if we had limitless freedom we should be able to rape beat or kill anyone or anythung.

Quote: You are correct that the Supreme Court cannot make the laws, but they are the highest interpreters of the laws, and according to them, an embryo does not have human rights; therefore, it is not a person under American legal definitions. Regardless of whether or not you like it, that is what it is. actually they cannot make legal defenitons becsue they would need to make laws. they decide what is not in agreement with the constitution.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: if we had limitless freedom we should be able to rape beat or kill anyone or anythung.

As I said, that was more of an issue for the philosophy forums, not these ones. So I will still push the second part of my claim:

Demanding the right to your own body is not demanding limitless freedom.

Plodder wrote: actually they cannot make legal defenitons becsue they would need to make laws. they decide what is not in agreement with the constitution.

Time for the Branches of American Government 101:

The Legislative Branch (Congress), makes the laws.

The Executive Branch (President), enforces the laws.

The Judicial Branch (Supreme Court), defines the laws.

That is the way the American government is established. Congress makes the laws and the Court defines them. While you have cited one of their powers (to determine unconstitutionality), that is not the greater scope. Their primary power is to define the laws passed by Congress, which is what was done in the case of Roe v. Wade, where a human being was legally defined as being born, and drawing the first breath. Before those two qualifications are met, it is not yet a person in the eyes of the law.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: I think that's the right of it. In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy. Good riddance to the right to murder the unborn. But then, there is no murder here, your lies none withstanding.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Calling us "pro-death" isn't demonizing?
no its an accurate description of what you support without the veils and perfume added.. you are lying.

Quote: Quote: In the end the big losers are the people who value freedom and privacy the big losers are those who belive that theoir freedom is limitless. Quote: But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans. well i dont like it and because ofthat pewople lie me are fighting tooth and nail to get rid of it. And I will fight you all the way in stopping your hate mongering and misogynistic attempt at enslaving and oppress women.

Quote: Also Roe is no law since hte SC cannot make laws. Ah, back to your usual misrepresentation, I see.

[Plodder]

Quote: Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

second lne means that they can say if the law agrees withthe constitution or not. They cannot defonne a law.



Quote: Demanding the right to your own body is not demanding limitless freedom.
regarldess of your wild imagination the baby in the womb is not part of her body. therfore she cannot make the descision to kill it.
Quote: I will fight you all the way in stopping your hate mongering and misogynistic attempt at enslaving and oppress women.
you will fail because that is not my goal. so you basically miss the whole point.

[LostSoul3412]

Plodder wrote: Quote: Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

second lne means that they can say if the law agrees withthe constitution or not. They cannot defonne a law.

All that means is that they have ruling over American laws. The term "under this Constitution" does not mean that they decide if it agrees with it (Even though that is another power of the Supreme Court), it means that they have jurisdiction over any law that is put in place under the Constitution. If you look, it clearly states that the Supreme Court hold authority over "the laws of the United States", which means they have final authority over the definitions of the laws. That entire passage mentions nothing of Constitutional Review, and does nothing to help your claims.

Plodder wrote: Quote: Demanding the right to your own body is not demanding limitless freedom.
regarldess of your wild imagination the baby in the womb is not part of her body. therfore she cannot make the descision to kill it.

If the embryo is not a part of her body, then remove it at conception and see what happens. As long as the embryo is physically attached to the mother, it is a part of her body.

[F'losrix]

LostSoul3412 wrote: All that means is that they have ruling over American laws. The term "under this Constitution" does not mean that they decide if it agrees with it (Even though that is another power of the Supreme Court)
Where do you think the court gets that power if this section of the Constitution defining judicial power isn't it? Read on before you react either way...

People certainly do disagree over whether the court has the power to decide the constitutionality of laws at all, or made it up for themselves. My own opinion is that the wording is subject to interpretation (and likewise misinterpretation).

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..."

So lets break this down. The judiciary is being delegated certain powers. Those powers extend to all cases that fall under their jurisdiction (that jurisdiction being defined by the rest of the paragraph). What exactly are those powers? Well, it's a bit vague having only been described as 'in Law and Equity'. I would say they have the power to scrutinize the law as it is applied to the specific case before them, both to determine whether the application of the law to that case is based on a valid interpretation of its wording, and whether the law in question is being applied with equity.

What's left is to examine the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary as set forth in this section of the Constitution. The phrase "arising under this Constitution" has to be taken as a continuation of what came before it and in consideration of the limitations that follow it. I would say their power extends to any case resulting from disagreement over the application of the Constitution itself. Here is where things get tricky: is 'arising under this Constitution' only stuff like the structure of the federal government, separation of powers, elections, etc. - the things governed strictly by the Constitution that aren't set forth through other law? Or is there something more?

I'm of the opinion that you have to interpret this or any other section of the Constitution not as separate pieces, but as a whole, comparing how the different parts relate to or otherwise refine each other. That being the case, consider what is popularly referred to as 'the supremacy clause':

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

This paragraph looks fairly clear, but isn't necessarily. The Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance of it are the supreme law of the land - even to the point that the judges of every state are bound to them, despite anything in their own states' laws or constitutions to the contrary, the conflicting items failing to withstand the supremacy exerted by the federal Constitution and federal laws (presuming those federal laws aren't themselves overstepping the limitations on federal jurisdiction vs. state jurisdiction already set forth in the Constitution & its amendments - but read on....)

So if the judiciary's power extends to cases arising under the Constitution, and federal laws are made in pursuance of it, wouldn't it be reasonable to extrapolate that the court's power extends to considering whether those laws really have been made in pursuance of the Constitution - that is to say, ruling on their constitutionality?

Before you decide to agree with that, notice the absence of a comma between 'United States' and 'which' in the opening clause. Should that alter our interpretation? Does this sentence mean that federal laws must be made in pursuance of the Constitution, or is it only granting supremacy to those which are made in pursance of the Constitution? (and who would decide which are or aren't?) Does this open the door to the validity of federal laws that aren't made 'in pursuance' of the Constitution? Much as the thought frightens me, I'm inclined to think maybe so, but I'm open to persuasion on the matter. It almost seems as though no body has been given the power to determine constitutionality, which would in some ways appear to defeat the very purpose having a Constitution.

It's important not to get carried away with the supremacy clause; the Constitution and the federal laws that hang up on it may be supreme - but their supremacy IS limited within the Constitution itself, and further by its amendments - the 9th and 10th in particular, which protect unenumerated rights and limit the power of the federal government to the things delegated to it expressly within the Constitution, reserving everything else to the power of the individual states or to the People. Then, in a sort of balancing act, you have the 14th, which prevents the individual states from abridging the privileges and immunities extended to U.S. citizens and requires the individual states to provide due process before depriving someone of life, liberty or property, and mandates that the individual states must extend the equal protection of their laws to any person within their jurisdiction.

Again we have a thorny question. If one believes the federal courts have the power to determine constitutionality, does this extend to determining whether states have violated the 14th amendment, failing to provide due process or equal protection? Or is that up to the courts of the state in question to determine for themselves? I should think the latter; that this is a mandate to the legal systems of the states to provide due process and for their courts to issue rulings that provide for equal protection under their own laws, not necessarily an invitation to the feds to stick their noses into it.

Within the scope of that portion of the 14th amendment considered here, are the federal courts then limited to cases of alleged infringement upon the privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens as a federal matter? Who decides if the states have made an abridgment of these in direct conflict with this amendment? And what about the Bill of Rights - don't those count as privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens?

The courts have held that they are, incorporating portions of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states. Whether they are right to do so remains a matter of serious debate, for some of the reasons I've touched on in this posting.

What is clear to me, is that whether the courts have the power to rule on the constitutionality of laws or not - some body should be charged with that responsibility - and it is a serious flaw in the Constitution if indeed no such provision has been made for this to take place. I don't buy claims that it rests with the legislative and executive branches alone to make sure the laws they pass comply with constitutional principles, nor the claims that the power of the people to right their wrongs through elections is sufficient. Nor do I view direct democracy as the cure - I believe the founders knew what they were doing in setting up this nation as a Republic with democratic representation, and that the 'cure' of direct democracy would end up being worse than the 'diseases' from which our current system of government suffers.

As to the abortion issue, the Constitution itself doesn't directly address the issue. So we have to rely on careful interpretation of its articles and amendments to see if anything applies. This leads us ultimately to the unsettled question of when does life begin and whether it reasonable to extrapolate a right to privacy from the 4th amendment, and what the scope & limitations of that right might be. Not to mention the whole thorny issue of whether this is a matter of federal jurisdiction or state jurisdiction.

I fall on the side of making reasonable expansions of liberty, not its polar opposite of doing everything we can to restrict liberties as much as possible without inspiring open revolt among the people. I'm inclined to believe that with the question of when life begins being unsettled, pregnancy and its termination are a private matter best left beyond the reach of an interfering government whose interest in the matter is questionable. That's my public opinion. My private opinion is that it would be extremely difficult for me to advise anyone to terminate a pregnancy as I do value the sanctity of human life and would only consider negating its potential development when allowing its natural progression would result in considerable misery for all involved, and most especially if doing so poses a serious threat to the continuation of life for the mother. Nor do I think any woman should be forced to continue a pregnancy resulting from an act to which she did not give her consent. All that said, I view the use of abortion as a form of birth control substituting for personal responsibility to be grossly repugnant. If I were persuaded that its use for this purpose were out of control, I would be more willing to entertain the idea of some further restriction being reasonable. I am not thus persuaded, however.

[WsTxRedRaider06]

Steen, if you fight the Pro-Life movement the way you post on this board, you will lose, and you will lose badly.

Quote: And I will fight you all the way in stopping your hate mongering and misogynistic attempt at enslaving and oppress women.


Calling someone names, twisting their intentions, and making an attempt to label someone something they are not and make them look bad, is the way Jr High girls fight.....

And for the sake of argument, on both sides of the issue, can we keep it to Pro-Choice and Pro-Life....These are the accepted terms, for the 2 sides.....Calling somene "Pro-Death" or "Anti-Choice", is doing nothing to present your side of the issue.....I can see why people would use those terms, but it is irrelevent, and makes you look like you graduatef from the Steen school of interweb posting.

[Plodder]

sorry that you are offended by my use of pro death but im not going to give in to the standard pro choice beCAUSE OF REASONS EXPLAINED IN OTHER FORUMS. oops all caps srry.

[AUEagle]

LostSoul3412 wrote: AUEagle wrote: Roe v. Wade should be overturned. I believe that states should vote on this issue.

And I believe that it should be an individual issue, and that Roe v. Wade should be upheld in the American legal system.

But until Roe v. Wade is overturned, that is the law in the United States, and like it or not, that is the law that governs you, me, and all other Americans.

The Constitution and the 10th Amendment suggest that abortion is a states right's issue or should be...