• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abortion and Immigration Rules

AlbqOwl said:
That may be what you intended. I am not seeing you agreeing with my take on the history or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

That's right. As clearly explained in post after post I do NOT agree with your "take on the history of the Constitution."

There are many things occurring today that would surprise and dismay time-travelers from the 18th century.

Some, after study and contemplation may not agree with how things turned out today. (That would include Thomas Jefferson, who envisioned a nation based on an agricultural economy operated by yeoman farmers.)

Hamilton, who was a strong supporter of Federalism, might be tickled to death with glee. :shrug:

The bottom line is that if the majority of those "Founding Fathers" opposed the doctrine of Judicial Review (which clearly would not include Hamilton), they had both the power and opportunity to amend the constitution just like they did via the 11th Amendment.

They did not. That argues against this post:

AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is because the Doctrine of Judicial Review empowers the SCOTUS with determining if an action or a law is Constitutional or not.

Their rulings (which BTW I don't always agree with, but this is an argument on Constitutional validity, not my personal politics) determine if something is protected or not protected as a right.

The law does not give us rights, the law is supposed to protect our rights. IMO all SCOTUS is doing is indicating whether we are free to do something or can be restricted by law from doing it.

If you consider that "making law," as opposed to enforcing only laws that are valid...you are entitled to that opinion I guess. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Captain Adverse said:
(Second half) Now for Thomas Jefferson.

You know that case Marbury v. Madison? Did you realize that this case occurred at the beginning of the new administration of President Thomas Jefferson?

John Adams had appointed a number of Federal judges, including William Marbury whose appointment had already been approved by the Senate. Adams and Jefferson at this point were political opponents. Some of the appointment had not been delivered and Adams on his last day in office tried to make sure they did. Jefferson chose not to allow the undelivered appointments, and his Secretary of State James Madison did not send them out. Marbury sued to get a writ of mandamus from SCOTUS under the Judiciary Act of 1789, ordering the Secretary deliver his appointment.

Chief Justice John Marshall (also appointed by Adams) was presented with three issues and ruled as follows:

Did Marbury have a right to the commission? Yes, and it should have been delivered.

Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy? Yes, a writ of mandamus is appropriate.

Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy? No, because the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction, as it is an appellate court not a court of first review. That the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 allowing SCOTUS to issue writs of mandamus was un-Constitutional under Article III of the Constitution.

The first two holdings "pissed" (to say the least) Jefferson off, while the third firmly established the rule of Judicial review.

Please notice ALL of your Jefferson quotes occur AFTER this SCOTUS decision. Let's just say Jefferson was not a very forgiving man.

Still, Jefferson had no hand in writing the Constitution as he was serving as ambassador to France. He was also small central government "Articles of Confederation" supporter.

If one looks at his draft for the Constitution of Virginia 1783 one notes that all Judicial appointments are made by joint ballot of the Assembly, and all levels of court are not term limited, but hold office are as long as they remain in good behavior. They can be removed by impeachment. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-06-02-0255-0004

That just brings me back to the point that not all Founding Father's agreed on everything. Jefferson was also clearly upset about the Marbury decision. Yet where is the effort on Constitutional reform of this issue during his administration? (Crickets).

However, there is no real argument against his personal and political reasons for opposition to the increased power of ALL branches of the Federal government, including the Judiciary.

His views were clearly not shared by the majority of the Founders or we would still (if our nation didn't dissolve beforehand) be laboring under the Articles of Confederation.

As for the last citation, appeal to authority? So that is that gentleman's position...big deal. :shrug:
Click to expand...

The gentleman's position that also was not without merit in our fledgling Republic and whether he didn't actually pen the words, he did have a huge influence on the content and structure of the Constitution that was signed:

Although Thomas Jefferson was in France serving as United States minister when the Federal Constitution was written in 1787, he was able to influence the development of the federal government through his correspondence. Later his actions as the first secretary of state, vice president, leader of the first political opposition party, and third president of the United States were crucial in shaping the look of the nation's capital and defining the powers of the Constitution and the nature of the emerging republic. . .​
https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

As for his motives, I don't question Jefferson's motives. He clearly opposed Marbury and was of the opinion that the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of government should bear equal authority in interpretation of the Constitution. And, if no agreement should exist, then the states themselves should be the mediator of the dispute. He was overruled for, as you pointed out, there was no solid consensus on several matters among the Founders. And that is why it took three long years of active work to write the Consitution and there was much compromise among the parties to arrive at a document that most could sign with a clear conscience.

But nobody, not Jefferson, not Hamilton, none of them could possibly have imagined a court system, let alone a Supreme Court, that would be split 5/4 on almost every decision which obviously indicates roughly half will not be going by constitutional principles on every vote. And they could not imagine a court system exercising the massive amount of judicial overreach that we see far too often these days.
 
AlbqOwl said:
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.
Click to expand...

well i would as i have many times said , that the founders created that the senate of the state governments would be the first bulwark against unconstitutional acts by not allowing legislation to pass the senate floor from the house and if such legislation did manage to pass, then USSC would be the second bulwark.

but i do clearly remember reading Madison some time ago where he does say the states themselves are the final authority on whats constitutional.
 
Master PO said:
well i would as i have many times said , that the founders created that the senate of the state governments would be the first bulwark against unconstitutional acts by not allowing legislation to pass the senate floor from the house and if such legislation did manage to pass, then USSC would be the second bulwark.

but i do clearly remember reading Madison some time ago where he does say the states themselves are the final authority on whats constitutional.
Click to expand...

That is where I think common sense comes in. If the Legislature and Executive and SCOTUS all disagree on the constitutionality of something, then the only proper authority should be the states themselves. It certainly isn't as if the justices of the SCOTUS suddenly become infallible upon obtaining the honor of their position. We know that from some of the truly dreadful decisions that have been handed down.

And it is even more dangerous when we have half the court making decisions on what the justices think should be constitutional and giving no importance to what the Constitution originally intended in the matter.
 
AlbqOwl said:
That is where I think common sense comes in. If the Legislature and Executive and SCOTUS all disagree on the constitutionality of something, then the only proper authority should be the states themselves. It certainly isn't as if the justices of the SCOTUS suddenly become infallible upon obtaining the honor of their position. We know that from some of the truly dreadful decisions that have been handed down.

And it is even more dangerous when we have half the court making decisions on what the justices think should be constitutional and giving no importance to what the Constitution originally intended in the matter.
Click to expand...

this is why i am so much against the 17th, because it totally changed the face of government and moved faction into the federal government allowing legislation to be created which was controversial, which had to be ruled on by the courts and disastrous results.

if America had remained true to the constitution and how it separated power, many USSC decisions would have never happened.
 
Captain Adverse said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just wanted to add that once the fetus reaches viability it is up to the states to decide whether or not they wish to proscribe elective abortions.

There are several states that don't have laws proscribing elective abortions past viability, yet the stats prove that even though the state does not have a law against it ....abortions past viability are not any higher in those states than in states that proscribe them past viability.

The reason is very simple. Abortions past 21 weeks gestation are more dangerous for the woman.
Only 1.3 percent of abortions take place between 21 and 24 weeks gestation. A 2003 Fox News article posted after 24 weeks gestation only about 100 abortions a year in the whole the US occurs. Those are the very extreame cases where an emergency stat c-section would be more dangerous to the woman than having an abortion.
 
Master PO said:
this is why i am so much against the 17th, because it totally changed the face of government and moved faction into the federal government allowing legislation to be created which was controversial, which had to be ruled on by the courts and disastrous results.

if America had remained true to the constitution and how it separated power, many USSC decisions would have never happened.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom