Political Crossfire Forums

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I don't see any thing that denies the unalienable right to life?

That wasn't the point. The point was that the federal government has the power to supersede the states.

Gilbert1908 wrote: And since there has NEVER been any attempt to EVER counter this inalienable right stated in virtually EVERY state constitution

State constitutions, not the federal Constitution. Partly this is because it isn't necessary. A change to state constitutions are not required for the federal government to issue legislation.

Gilbert1908 wrote: 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.

But it never says that there is, which is the key to protection from the government. The Ninth Amendment established that the rights of the people are not listed in the Constitution, but that any rights not listed are subject to federal laws and restrictions.

Gilbert1908 wrote: 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.

Unfortunately, the Tenth Amendment has become perverted into nothingness by those who seek policy in the Constitution, and cite the Constitution as the basis of their policy.

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.[/quote]

Gilbert1908 wrote: Are you saying that the constitutions of every state listing the RIGHTS of each individual of that State is not LEGAL??

Not at all, but it has no power over federal legislation.

Gilbert1908 wrote: 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.

Not at all. Considering that the United States is a federal system and that the federal government has implied powers overriding the state governments, and that the states are sovereign in the creation of their own constitutions, the federal government neither needs to amend the states' constitutions, nor does it have the power to. It is the states' responsibility to amend their own constitutions so that they comply with federal law.

Gilbert1908 wrote: 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????

Yes. Until the state governments have the power to override federal legislation and mandates, such is the case of reality.

Gilbert1908 wrote: Come on, don't be ridiculous.

Reality is a funny thing.

[Lumina]

Gilbert1908 wrote: 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?

Yes, you did respond to the original request with examples of legal docs referencing the right to life. And yes, now that you have, I think the sands will shift (rueful LOL). Thanks for posting from the Preamble and etc.; now let's see how the tack changes.

[LostSoul3412]

Lumina wrote: Yes, you did respond to the original request with examples of legal docs referencing the right to life. And yes, now that you have, I think the sands will shift (rueful LOL). Thanks for posting from the Preamble and etc.; now let's see how the tack changes.

:tsk:

Actually, if you go back to my original request, I asked for federal laws or legal documents that mention a right to life, unfortunately I dug myself a whole when I re-posed the question while omitting the "federal" specification of the question... that'll teach me to construct my questions more carefully.

Regardless, state governments are ultimately inferior to the federal government. While this wasn't the actual intention of my posts here, this is where the thread has headed, and so I must tend to the monster I have created.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Lumina wrote: Yes, you did respond to the original request with examples of legal docs referencing the right to life. And yes, now that you have, I think the sands will shift (rueful LOL). Thanks for posting from the Preamble and etc.; now let's see how the tack changes.

:tsk:

Actually, if you go back to my original request, I asked for federal laws or legal documents that mention a right to life, unfortunately I dug myself a whole when I re-posed the question while omitting the "federal" specification of the question... that'll teach me to construct my questions more carefully.

Regardless, state governments are ultimately inferior to the federal government. While this wasn't the actual intention of my posts here, this is where the thread has headed, and so I must tend to the monster I have created.

Actually that isn't quite accurate here are you first two questions

LostSoul3412 wrote: Can anyone please show me textual evidence anywhere in United States laws, or legal documents (such as the Constitution) that states that you have the right to life beyond the regulatory scope of government power?

LostSoul3412 wrote: I understand the Declaration completely, the problem is that it's not a legal document under United States law.

Where in United States law or legal document does it state that you have the right to life beyond the regulatory scope of federal power?

As someone once said "reality is a funny thing".

[LostSoul3412]

Exact terminologies? No, but ultimately the same premise. United States law is not equivalent to, for example, Wisconsin law.

Regardless, this is the path the thread has taken.

The ultimate point I was attempting to lead into is that any grounds for federal legislation on abortion are void. Legally, and Constitutionally, it is a state issue.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Exact terminologies? No, but ultimately the same premise. United States law is not equivalent to, for example, Wisconsin law.

Regardless, this is the path the thread has taken.

The ultimate point I was attempting to lead into is that any grounds for federal legislation on abortion are void. Legally, and Constitutionally, it is a state issue.

So then you would support the overturning Roe V. Wade.

[TheCaliforniaLife]

I found where :)

American Convention on Human Rights
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/basic3.htm

[LostSoul3412]

TheCaliforniaLife wrote: I found where :)

American Convention on Human Rights
http://www.cidh.oas.org/Basicos/basic3.htm

:td:

Interest group, not government organization.

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: So then you would support the overturning Roe V. Wade.

I would support the claims that unborn persons are not American citizens, and therefore are not subject to protection from the government (and therefore government has the constitutional authority to legalize abortions), however, it's not the judiciary's place to set policy by mandating that first trimester abortions be available for everyone.

I think that it should be left to the states to determine their policy on abortions. However, ultimately, I feel that any legislation on it is not necessary. Meaning that doctors have the power to deny to perform an abortion, but they must direct the patient to another one that will.

However, that is just my personal opinion, and I realize that it is ultimately the state legislature's duty to set the policy for their state.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: So then you would support the overturning Roe V. Wade.

I would support the claims that unborn persons are not American citizens, and therefore are not subject to protection from the government (and therefore government has the constitutional authority to legalize abortions), however, it's not the judiciary's place to set policy by mandating that first trimester abortions be available for everyone.

I think that it should be left to the states to determine their policy on abortions. However, ultimately, I feel that any legislation on it is not necessary. Meaning that doctors have the power to deny to perform an abortion, but they must direct the patient to another one that will.

However, that is just my personal opinion, and I realize that it is ultimately the state legislature's duty to set the policy for their state.

I'm sorry was that a yes or a no to my question?

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: I'm sorry was that a yes or a no to my question?

Both.

[Gilbert1908]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: I'm sorry was that a yes or a no to my question?

Both.

That figures. LOL

[LostSoul3412]

Gilbert1908 wrote: That figures. LOL

You asked, and I answered. :wink:

[Lumina]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: That figures. LOL

You asked, and I answered. :wink:

The word is "equivocation."

For what that's worth.....

[Obilisk18]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: That figures. LOL

You asked, and I answered. :wink:

And your answer was bizarre. And leads me to one of my theories about abortion; it causes many people to go against some of their most deeply held convictions. From what you've said, you appear to be even more of an originalist and strict-constructionist then I. There is no possible originalist/strict-constructionist view of the constitution that could possibly allow Roe to stand. And certainly not your view, which eliminates judicial review entirely.

You've said you believe the state legislatures have the right to regulate abortion. Therefore, you believe Roe should be overturned, since that's precisely what it would allow. Any "both" answer shows that you're allowing your personal convictions to get mixed up with your judicial philosophy. That's fine with me. But don't try to pass it off as consistent or reason based.

[LostSoul3412]

Obilisk18 wrote: You've said you believe the state legislatures have the right to regulate abortion. Therefore, you believe Roe should be overturned, since that's precisely what it would allow. Any "both" answer shows that you're allowing your personal convictions to get mixed up with your judicial philosophy. That's fine with me. But don't try to pass it off as consistent or reason based.

The only part that I would allow to stand is the definition of citizen to not include unborn persons, as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment as persons "born or naturalized", and unborn persons do not fit those requirements. However, at the same time there is not power of the Court to say that first trimester abortion must be respected. So would I overturn it? Yes, but I would include the citizen provision in the new ruling.