Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: Abortion and Immigration Rules

  1. #11
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,305
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    We have a dangerous situation in this country in that it is not the elected representatives of the people (the Congress) signed by the elected President of the country who decide what the law of the land will be. The law of the land is now determined by judges who somehow have been given power to dictate what the law of the land will be.

    This was NEVER intended by the Founders or the people when they signed and the states ratified the Constitution of the United States. For the judges to do this is in itself unconstitutional.
    If so then they had a chance to correct this back in 1796 when the first issue of judicial review was exemplified in the SCOTUS decision under Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States

    Then shortly thereafter it became settled law when SCOTUS ruled under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

    It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

    So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Recall, the Constitution was ratified and became the law of the land in March 4, 1789.

    These two rulings occurred in 1796 and 1803, respectively within 7 to 14 years of ratification.

    If the "Founding Fathers" did not want this judicial power to be "constitutional," they certainly had the ability to eliminate it at the time.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 03-18-17 at 11:21 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  2. #12
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,305
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
    Not saying that abortion has anything to do with immigration.

    Only saying that the definitions that guide the award of citizen rights are applied unequally between the two considerations.

    As I said, I may not be catching the finer points of the two arguments.

    Is it appropriate to bestow the rights of American citizens on those who are not American Citizens?

    Should we be prosecuting murderers in Kuwait, for example, as murderers in US Courts because they killed a human in Kuwait? Do all humans around the world have rights under US law?
    I already answered your questions in my first response:

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    First, when it comes to basic rights remember that neither citizenship, nor our Constitution grants inherent rights. These constructs only serve to protect them in our society from infringement.

    Second, I agree that while we must assert that all humans share these inherent rights...free access to our (or any) nation and the privileges such citizenship entails is NOT part of this essential "liberty" protection.

    This is where those judges are erring with such broadly sweeping rulings IMO.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:30 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,272

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    We have a dangerous situation in this country in that it is not the elected representatives of the people (the Congress) signed by the elected President of the country who decide what the law of the land will be. The law of the land is now determined by judges who somehow have been given power to dictate what the law of the land will be.

    This was NEVER intended by the Founders or the people when they signed and the states ratified the Constitution of the United States. For the judges to do this is in itself unconstitutional.

    IMO, even when the court declares a law unconstitutional, the power is not given to the court to overturn the law. It is incumbant upon the CONGRESS, sworn to uphold the Constitution, to overturn or amend the law. If they do not, and we the people believe our elected representatives are not fulfilling their obligation to uphold the Constitution, then it is up to us to deal with it at the ballot box or by recall of our elected representatives.

    It is a very dangerous thing when the court takes upon itself to ignore the law of the land and put into effect what it thinks the law should be.
    The reality of the country today is that our politicians have assumed the position of a privileged class. Our elected representatives are more talented at getting votes than they are at exercising personal integrity or personal convictions.

    I doubt that most have either.

    They are more than willing to assume a political position to gain re-election. Due to this, we are not led by those with integrity. We are led by lying, cheating whores who will do anything to maintain their privileges.

    Trump is more than willing to profess what he believes in order to try to get it accomplished. The lying whores surrounding him in DC are confused by this approach.

    It's an interesting confrontation.
    I am not of the mind that a man is either of science or of religion. At his best and his worst, man exists in the misty glimmering where the falling angel meets the rising ape. That he chooses a direction from that point defines him as human.

  4. #14
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,770
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    If so then they had a chance to correct this back in 1796 when the first issue of judicial review was exemplified in the SCOTUS decision under Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylton_v._United_States

    Then shortly thereafter it became settled law when SCOTUS ruled under Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Recall, the Constitution was ratified and became the law of the land in March 4, 1789.

    These two rulings occurred in 1796 and 1803, respectively within 7 to 14 years of ratification.

    If the "Founding Fathers" did not want this judicial power to be "constitutional," they certainly had the ability to eliminate it at the time.
    Unfortunately the Founders being neither clairvoyant nor fortune tellers did not anticipate progressivism or other forms of aggressive courts who would ignore the intent of Marbury and instead of stating what the law is as the lawmakers intended would state what the law should be in the opinion of the court.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  5. #15
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,305
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    Unfortunately the Founders being neither clairvoyant nor fortune tellers did not anticipate progressivism or other forms of aggressive courts who would ignore the intent of Marbury and instead of stating what the law is as the lawmakers intended would state what the law should be in the opinion of the court.
    Forgive me for pointing this out, but neither are you clairvoyant nor a fortune teller so as to be able to read the minds and intentions of the Founders back then today.

    We have enough trouble trying to understand each other's goals and purposes today, much less try to figure it all out back then. The best we can do is read what they wrote, and what other's wrote of them to get a general feel for various issues currently up for debate.

    The thing many people don't realize now is that those men and women in that era grew up under a system of common law, where the Courts did exactly what you now suggest they would be opposed to.

    Common law courts would interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament on a case by case basis, and any disputes of interpretation between jurisdictions would be passed up to the highest court to determine how the law applied throughout the land.

    So the Founders would see nothing wrong with the process as applied to Federal law. After all, anything they did not agree with could be addressed via act of Congress or a new Constitutional Amendment.

    That is STILL the case.

    So if enough citizens believe something should be addressed by law or Amendment, they have that right to push for Congress to act.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 03-18-17 at 12:11 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 07:20 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    43,838

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Sorry, you are mistaken.

    The ruling in Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was based on a right to privacy in control of ones own body. It also held that this right only extended until viability of the fetus, at which point it is protected and cannot be aborted (with the exception it may occur to preserve the life of the mother. See Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973)).

    This has NOTHING to do with being a "naturalized citizen." At best one might argue it as a birthright citizenship issue (under the 14th Amendment) since the child has not been born, only conceived, in the USA. But that is weak sauce in terms of your argument's premise. IMO you cannot conflate this with the Immigration issue.



    First, when it comes to basic rights remember that neither citizenship, nor our Constitution grants inherent rights. These constructs only serve to protect them in our society from infringement.

    Second, I agree that while we must assert that all humans share these inherent rights...free access to our (or any) nation and the privileges such citizenship entails is NOT part of this essential "liberty" protection.

    This is where those judges are erring with such broadly sweeping rulings IMO.
    That is an interesting point. The USSC defines as of which point of growth a human is protected from being killed. This essentially arbitrary definition constitutes a precedent for groups that may enjoy the Rights of the Constitution and from whom such rights might be withdrawn; even the right to live. This can and will be built on incrementally along paths of ideological bias. But this was clear from the start but ignored under the leftish paradigm.

  7. #17
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,770
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Forgive me for pointing this out, but neither are you clairvoyant nor a fortune teller so as to be able to read the minds and intentions of the Founders back then today.

    We have enough trouble trying to understand each other's goals and purposes today, much less try to figure it all out back then. The best we can do is read what they wrote, and what other's wrote of them to get a general feel for various issues currently up for debate.

    The thing many people don't realize now is that those men and women in that era grew up under a system of common law, where the Courts did exactly what you now suggest they would be opposed to.

    Common law courts would interpret and apply the laws passed by Parliament on a case by case basis, and any disputes of interpretation between jurisdictions would be passed up to the highest court to determine how the law applied throughout the land.

    So the Founders would see nothing wrong with the process as applied to Federal law. After all, anything they did not agree with could be addressed via act of Congress or a new Constitutional Amendment.

    That is STILL the case.

    So if enough citizens believe something should be addressed by law or Amendment, they have that right to push for Congress to act.
    I don't have to be clairvoyant or a fortune teller to know the minds and intent of the Founders. They left behind a wealth of documents that inform us as to their intent and purpose for the Constitution. And at some point, I believe I have probably studied all of them.

    And that has nothing to do with THEIR provision that the people be able to amend the Constitution as necessary.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  8. #18
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,305
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by AlbqOwl View Post
    I don't have to be clairvoyant or a fortune teller to know the minds and intent of the Founders. They left behind a wealth of documents that inform us as to their intent and purpose for the Constitution. And at some point, I believe I have probably studied all of them.

    And that has nothing to do with THEIR provision that the people be able to amend the Constitution as necessary.
    First, if you did study as much as you state then you would know that I am correct, and your "assumptions" about what they would think about judicial review are to say the least...less than correct. The facts already presented to you regarding their reaction to the case of Marbury v. Madison show that if nothing else.

    Second, the power to pass laws and amend the Constitution has EVERYTHING to do with how to address any ills and concerns about how our Constitutional government works.

    The fact that you don't recognize at least the second point undermines your entire argument. :
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  9. #19
    Sage
    AlbqOwl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Mexico
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    18,770
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    First, if you did study as much as you state then you would know that I am correct, and your "assumptions" about what they would think about judicial review are to say the least...less than correct. The facts already presented to you regarding their reaction to the case of Marbury v. Madison show that if nothing else.

    Second, the power to pass laws and amend the Constitution has EVERYTHING to do with how to address any ills and concerns about how our Constitutional government works.

    The fact that you don't recognize at least the second point undermines your entire argument. :
    "With us, all the branches of the government are elective by the people themselves, except the judiciary, of whose science and qualifications they are not competent judges. Yet, even in that department, we call in a jury of the people to decide all controverted matters of fact, because to that investigation they are entirely competent, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

    "A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:298

    "The original error [was in] establishing a judiciary independent of the nation, and which, from the citadel of the law, can turn its guns on those they were meant to defend, and control and fashion their proceedings to its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1807. FE 9:68

    "The principal [leaders of the political opposition] have retreated into the judiciary as a stronghold, the tenure of which renders it difficult to dislodge them." --Thomas Jefferson to Joel Barlow, 1801. ME 10:223

    "It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson to James Pleasants, 1821. FE 10:198

    From Federalist #78
    Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
    Federalist No. 78 | What Would The Founders Think?

    . . .On this point, David P. McGinley has an interesting piece in American Thinker entitled Our Dying Constitution. In it he makes the bold statement that “Our Constitution is almost dead” because it has been subjected to judges who “ignore the actual text of the document” or who “redefine” it to reflect their own personal beliefs and feelings. . . .

    . . .When judges disregard or redefine the plain words of our Constitution or make up things with absolutely no textual support, they render the document meaningless. In keeping with this practice, its proponents have invoked the Orwellian term “living constitution” when in actuality they have put it on its death bed. . .
    The Power of the Judiciary | What Would The Founders Think?

    Rebut it if you can.
    "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776

  10. #20
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 12:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Abortion and Immigration Rules

    Side note: to the arguments

    One thing many people do not know/or refuse to accept about what the founders created is that the federal government was never delegated any powers concerning the peoples lives liberty or their property, none.

    this is what kept government limited and prevented the federal government from violating rights of the people, because if the federal government cannot make laws on the people, they cannot act, and if they cannot act you cannot have the violation of rights.

    since government has stepped out of the limited government the founders created and assumed powers over the people, cases of law which would have would have never been heard by the federal courts have been and more will be, which is part of the problem.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •