Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

cap'n queasy wrote: Clearly, the Constitution is not only a legal document, it is the SUPREME law of the land.

So where in the Constitution does it state that you have the right to life?

Remember, you were debating the Declaration of Independence, to which I replied that it is not a legal document.

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Ninth Amendment, basically states that the Constitution doesn't list your rights. At the same time, you right to life isn't protected from government infringement, and thus legalized abortion legislation does not violate your Constitutional rights.

[Obilisk18]

LostSoul3412 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Clearly, the Constitution is not only a legal document, it is the SUPREME law of the land.

So where in the Constitution does it state that you have the right to life?

Remember, you were debating the Declaration of Independence, to which I replied that it is not a legal document.

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Ninth Amendment, basically states that the Constitution doesn't list your rights. At the same time, you right to life isn't protected from government infringement, and thus legalized abortion legislation does not violate your Constitutional rights.

My point, in a previous post, was that the constitution says nothing about bodily sovereignty either. If a generalizable right to privacy can be found in the constitution in various "penumbras" (which I roundly reject), and if that right to privacy is broad enough to extend to abortion (again, something I roundly reject), then there's no question a right to life can be inscribed, found, derived, implanted out of whole cloth, into the constitution. And if not, then we're not violating anyone's interests in a substantive way, and the state is free to do what it will in relation to abortion using other factors. Notice here that the states interests almost must be resolved in favor of illegal abortion. Without either fetal rights or the rights of the woman to consider, the sole remaining factor is the states interest in protecting fetal life (even if it is not obligated to do so, it certainly has such an interest). The entire pro-choice case hinges on something which isn't explicitly in the constitution.

[Prole]

CCD wrote: IMO, this is precisely the problem that extreme secularists and others have when attempting to explain the source of rights. If there is no God, or no God can be acknowledged as the source of human rights, where then do human rights come from, and what guarantees that human rights as defined by a society cannot change as that society changes?
We do not live in a theocracy; rights do not exist because they are "God's will." Rights come from people. However, considering that about 85% of America regards themselves as Christian, and the remaining majority monotheistic, I'd say that the interpretation of God's will is certainly a factor. Secular does not imply that people are necessarily areligious or atheistic; it just means that we can make rational laws without having to invoke God's will at every opportunity.

[ChuckBerry]

So, is it being argued here that the individual possesses no right to life, that the government has sole discrection under the law to determine if a citizen may or may not live and may revoke its licence to the individuals life when it sees fit?

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Is it your position that the state and federal laws which address murder are unconstitutional?

No, but that is irrelevant.

Laws that prohibit murder are restrictions upon my "freedom to kill". It has nothing to do with your right to live.

Why would you not have the freedom to murder if your victim has no right to life?

[LostSoul3412]

Obilisk18 wrote: My point, in a previous post, was that the constitution says nothing about bodily sovereignty either.

I never claimed it did.

Obilisk18 wrote: If a generalizable right to privacy can be found in the constitution in various "penumbras" (which I roundly reject), and if that right to privacy is broad enough to extend to abortion (again, something I roundly reject), then there's no question a right to life can be inscribed, found, derived, implanted out of whole cloth, into the constitution.

That's speculation, though, and besides the point. I'm sure that a Supreme Court ruling can overturn Roe v. Wade, but until they do, the point is irrelevant as to the possibilities of the law.

Obilisk18 wrote: And if not, then we're not violating anyone's interests in a substantive way, and the state is free to do what it will in relation to abortion using other factors.

I would agree, and I think that abortion as a policy issue should be up to the states.

Obilisk18 wrote: Notice here that the states interests almost must be resolved in favor of illegal abortion. Without either fetal rights or the rights of the woman to consider, the sole remaining factor is the states interest in protecting fetal life (even if it is not obligated to do so, it certainly has such an interest). The entire pro-choice case hinges on something which isn't explicitly in the constitution.

I would say the same for the pro-life case. Neither side can claim the Constitution as evidence of their case, because the Constitution isn't the place for policy. The Constitution doesn't grant any rights what so ever, and so to claim Constitutional protection by either side is bollocks.

Under a federal system, it's the state's job to determine domestic policy, not the federal government's.

[LostSoul3412]

CCD wrote: So, is it being argued here that the individual possesses no right to life, that the government has sole discrection under the law to determine if a citizen may or may not live and may revoke its licence to the individuals life when it sees fit?

Yes, but they won't for one simple reason:

Elections, and the people's check on the government.

Regardless, it is within the government's power to do so if they deemed necessary.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Why would you not have the freedom to murder if your victim has no right to life?

Because it's destructive to society and because the state has interests to protect the individual for their economic contributions to the government.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Why would you not have the freedom to murder if your victim has no right to life?

Because it's destructive to society and because the state has interests to protect the individual for their economic contributions to the government.

So then what do you think Jefferson and the other men who virtually signed thier own death sentences when they signed the declaration of Independence meant when they agreed to this:

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

If these truths were self evident why would they need to be codified?

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So then what do you think Jefferson and the other men who virtually signed thier own death sentences when they signed the declaration of Independence meant when they agreed to this:

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

If these truths were self evident why would they need to be codified?

Completely irrelevant.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, therefore cannot protect your rights.

Please provide a law/legal document that states you have the ultimate right to life.

[Selfish_Meme]

That is also a circular argument, we hold these truths to be self evident, or we say they are because we say they are.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So then what do you think Jefferson and the other men who virtually signed thier own death sentences when they signed the declaration of Independence meant when they agreed to this:

"we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

If these truths were self evident why would they need to be codified?

Completely irrelevant.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, therefore cannot protect your rights.

Please provide a law/legal document that states you have the ultimate right to life.

Not apparently to the states of the United States

Section 1. VA State Constitution-
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article 1. Vermont State Constitution-

That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore no person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person's own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.

Pennsylvania Constitution-
Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

New Jersey-
ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES


1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


Delaware-

PREAMBLE

Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.

Maine-
Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


Massachusetts-

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness

California-

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy

[TheCaliforniaLife]

LostSoul3412 wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Clearly, the Constitution is not only a legal document, it is the SUPREME law of the land.

So where in the Constitution does it state that you have the right to life?

Remember, you were debating the Declaration of Independence, to which I replied that it is not a legal document.

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Ninth Amendment, basically states that the Constitution doesn't list your rights. At the same time, you right to life isn't protected from government infringement, and thus legalized abortion legislation does not violate your Constitutional rights.
The 14th Amendment...

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States wrote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



"All persons born or naturalized in the United States,...., are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
This is the legislation for being considered a citizen of the US and of the State where you live.
You must be a person (definition not expressed in the amendment) and...:
-be born in the United States
or
-be naturalized
...to be considered a citizen.


"...,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
This is an exception to this. It includes those born on United States soil in other countries.


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This means that the government can not abridge any of our rights and that we are protected from the government by the Bill of Rights.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Not apparently to the states of the United States

Section 1. VA State Constitution-
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article 1. Vermont State Constitution-

That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore no person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person's own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.

Pennsylvania Constitution-
Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

New Jersey-
ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES


1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


Delaware-

PREAMBLE

Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.

Maine-
Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


Massachusetts-

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness

California-

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy

State legislatures are perfectly free to determine their own policy, and it should be the case in a federal system.

However, this thread deals with the national government, and the federal laws. Mainly, my purpose here is to prove that there is no basis for a federal ban on abortion, and the method to this madness is to prove that the federal government does not have to protect your right to life, and can restrict it at anytime with legislation. Having said that, there is pure Constitutional ground for the legalization of abortion, and the "right to life" claim is null and void.

State governments are free to proclaim whatever rights they want to protect, but the federal government has the grounds to override the states at every turn. Because of that, state governments are not a valid claim to the absolute right to life.

I still wish to see some federal law/legal document that grants your right to life the ultimate protections. State laws are fine, until the federal government overrides them, which is very possible with federal preemption that has overpowered many state laws and provisions ever since McCulloch v. Maryland.

[LostSoul3412]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: You must be a person (definition not expressed in the amendment) and...:
-be born in the United States
or
-be naturalized
...to be considered a citizen.

Neither of which apply to unborn persons, so what's your point?

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: "...,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
This is an exception to this. It includes those born on United States soil in other countries.

...?

What are you talking about? "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means that all citizens are subject to the laws and restrictions of the governments that reside over the individual's place of residency. As an American citizen, I am still protected by the American government in foreign nations, but I am no longer subject to their laws. I am, however, bound to the laws of where I am present at any given time, however, I am only protected from government if I am a citizen.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This means that the government can not abridge any of our rights and that we are protected from the government by the Bill of Rights.

:td:

That's the elementary school reading. The same things you stated were already incorporated with the original Bill of Rights.

The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to incorporate the state governments to the same restrictions that the federal government is bound to by the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment has no connection to the federal government, and effectively skips a step of governmental power to incorporate a part of state sovereignty under the United States Constitution. Having said that, the Fourteenth Amendment is basically a statement that applies to state governments, while skipping over the federal government. The original Bill of Rights protected you from the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment extended that protection to the states. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the state governments were not bound to the Bill of Rights. After the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights were effectively forced upon the state governments, and governmental respect for certain rights traveled through both levels of our federal system.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Not apparently to the states of the United States

Section 1. VA State Constitution-
That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Article 1. Vermont State Constitution-

That all persons are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety; therefore no person born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person as a servant, slave or apprentice, after arriving to the age of twenty-one years, unless bound by the person's own consent, after arriving to such age, or bound by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like.

Pennsylvania Constitution-
Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness.

New Jersey-
ARTICLE I
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES


1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


Delaware-

PREAMBLE

Through Divine goodness, all men have by nature the rights of worshiping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and property, and in general of obtaining objects suitable to their condition, without injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, for due exercise thereof, power is inherent in them; and therefore all just authority in the institutions of political society is derived from the people, and established with their consent, to advance their happiness; and they may for this end, as circumstances require, from time to time, alter their Constitution of government.

Maine-
Section 1. Natural rights. All people are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.


Massachusetts-

Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness

California-

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy

State legislatures are perfectly free to determine their own policy, and it should be the case in a federal system.

However, this thread deals with the national government, and the federal laws. Mainly, my purpose here is to prove that there is no basis for a federal ban on abortion, and the method to this madness is to prove that the federal government does not have to protect your right to life, and can restrict it at anytime with legislation. Having said that, there is pure Constitutional ground for the legalization of abortion, and the "right to life" claim is null and void.

State governments are free to proclaim whatever rights they want to protect, but the federal government has the grounds to override the states at every turn. Because of that, state governments are not a valid claim to the absolute right to life.

I still wish to see some federal law/legal document that grants your right to life the ultimate protections. State laws are fine, until the federal government overrides them, which is very possible with federal preemption that has overpowered many state laws and provisions ever since McCulloch v. Maryland.

So let me get this straight, now that I have complied with your original request and provided you with not one but several examples of "a law/legal document that states you have the ultimate right to life." you are going to claim that the federal government will override virtually every state constitution's statement on inherent or unalienable right to life? Dont make this any sillier than it already is.

Provide one statement from one federal law maker or federal judge in the history of the United States that would suggest the state constitutions I have quoted are in error and must or should be overturned on the basis that life is not an inherent or unalienable right?

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So let me get this straight, now that I have complied with your original request and provided you with not one but several examples of "a law/legal document that states you have the ultimate right to life." you are going to claim that the federal government will override virtually every state constitution's statement on inherent or unalienable right to life? Dont make this any sillier than it already is.

Absolutely it can, and I only need two pieces of evidence to prove it:

McCulloch v. Maryland and the Supremacy Clause

Gilbert1908 wrote: Provide one statement from one federal law maker or federal judge in the history of the United States that would suggest the state constitutions I have quoted are in error and must or should be overturned on the basis that life is not an inherent or unalienable right?

That's not the point. Anyone can say that anything is an inalienable right, but the problem is what is a legal right. "Life", while many consider to be unalienable, is not a legally protected right, and can therefore be restricted, or even denied by the government.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

Quote: [quote="LostSoul3412"] TheCaliforniaLife wrote: You must be a person (definition not expressed in the amendment) and...:
-be born in the United States
or
-be naturalized
...to be considered a citizen.

Neither of which apply to unborn persons, so what's your point?

Neither of them have to apply. Fetus are of course not citizens (they are, in my view of the legislation, people).

Quote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: "...,and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,..."
This is an exception to this. It includes those born on United States soil in other countries.

...?

What are you talking about? "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means that all citizens are subject to the laws and restrictions of the governments that reside over the individual's place of residency. As an American citizen, I am still protected by the American government in foreign nations, but I am no longer subject to their laws. I am, however, bound to the laws of where I am present at any given time, however, I am only protected from government if I am a citizen.

I'll quote another source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Elk v. Wilkins established that Indian tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisidiction of the United States. Children born to these Indian tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier Act of Congress.

Quote: TheCaliforniaLife wrote: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This means that the government can not abridge any of our rights and that we are protected from the government by the Bill of Rights.

:td:

That's the elementary school reading. The same things you stated were already incorporated with the original Bill of Rights.

The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment is to incorporate the state governments to the same restrictions that the federal government is bound to by the Bill of Rights. The Fourteenth Amendment has no connection to the federal government, and effectively skips a step of governmental power to incorporate a part of state sovereignty under the United States Constitution. Having said that, the Fourteenth Amendment is basically a statement that applies to state governments, while skipping over the federal government. The original Bill of Rights protected you from the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment extended that protection to the states. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the state governments were not bound to the Bill of Rights. After the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights were effectively forced upon the state governments, and governmental respect for certain rights traveled through both levels of our federal system.
Sources?
Here is my view that I typed up:
The American Civil War started in 1861 and ended in 1865. When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already given U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States .The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future. This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship. The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law. This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So let me get this straight, now that I have complied with your original request and provided you with not one but several examples of "a law/legal document that states you have the ultimate right to life." you are going to claim that the federal government will override virtually every state constitution's statement on inherent or unalienable right to life? Dont make this any sillier than it already is.

Absolutely it can, and I only need two pieces of evidence to prove it:

McCulloch v. Maryland and the Supremacy Clause

I don't see any thing that denies the unalienable right to life? And since there has NEVER been any attempt to EVER counter this inalienable right stated in virtually EVERY state constitution I am comfortable that while Marshall believed the Federal Government did have the right to charter a bank I don't think he says anywhere that there is no inherent or unalienable right to life. And I am not suggesting that the federal laws are not supreme I am saying exactly what the FEDERAL Constitution says

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.


LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: Provide one statement from one federal law maker or federal judge in the history of the United States that would suggest the state constitutions I have quoted are in error and must or should be overturned on the basis that life is not an inherent or unalienable right?

That's not the point. Anyone can say that anything is an inalienable right, but the problem is what is a legal right. "Life", while many consider to be unalienable, is not a legally protected right, and can therefore be restricted, or even denied by the government.

Are you saying that the constitutions of every state listing the RIGHTS of each individual of that State is not LEGAL??

There would have to be an amendment to each state's constitution OR the federal constitution specifically countering the statement that "Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness" in order for you to be correct.

You are going to maintain that the "self evident truth" of Jefferson that life is an unalienable right which is then the FIRST right restated in the central legal document of EVERY state in the United States is NOT valid or legal or somehow could be overturned by the whim of a federal mandate????

Come on, don't be ridiculous.

[LostSoul3412]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Neither of them have to apply. Fetus are of course not citizens (they are, in my view of the legislation, people).

That's fine, but the point is that the requirement of being protected from the government is citizenship status, meaning that legalized abortion legislation does not violate anyone's "right to life".

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I'll quote another source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). Elk v. Wilkins established that Indian tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisidiction of the United States. Children born to these Indian tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier Act of Congress.

Very well, so in order to be a citizen, one must be subject to the laws of their respective residence. However, I still see what bearing this has upon the argument at hand.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: Sources?

Read the document itself. The original Bill of Rights does not mention the states at all, with the exception of the Tenth Amendment which reserves powers to the states. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, mentions state governments exclusively. Because of this, the Fourteenth Amendment serves the purpose of extending the protection of rights from not only the federal level, but on the state level as well.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: When the Union won the war, the government wanted to overturn the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

The Dred Scott decision didn't state the African-Americans could not become citizens, it stated that runaway slaves were property before they were people, and as such could not be citizens on the grounds that they were property. As soon as a slave was freed, he became a person, and thus a citizen.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: The framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to insure that this right would not be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and would not be overruled by a simple majority vote in Congress in the future.

That's not the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment at all! The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was a method to protect freed persons from their former masters, and from their state legislatures from barring certain rights from them. Essentially, the Fourteenth Amendment forced the state governments to respect all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, which was the intended purpose in an effort to prevent discrimination against African-Americans at the hands of their state and local governments. It had nothing to do with a fear of the Supreme Court, nor of fear unconstitutionality, since freed individual were already granted citizenship along with personhood.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: This is why the first clause of the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It is to reinsure the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was to give all those born in the U.S. a U.S. citizenship.

Definition of citizenship.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: The second clause is to protect U.S. citizens from the power coercive power of the government and to afford every person equal protection under the law.

You're right, except for one problem: it protests state citizens from state governments, not United States citizens from federal government, since they were already protected from the federal government in the original Bill of Rights.

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: This is law that protects illegal immigrants with U.S. laws. Since the illegal immigrants aren’t citizens, they should and they are afforded the protection of the U.S. government.

They are protected from other individuals, not from the government. This is why the government has the power to deport illegal immigrants.