W:276]14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

[Lursa]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Easy, everyone gets life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Unborn children have a god given right to a future.

Nope...that's religious BS.

I still don't understand how you can turn life liberty and the pursuit of happiness into just about the total opposite for unborn children. That's called a double standard, when you decide one group of people have more rights than another group of people.

And lets face it, new life begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. And its growing, you just cant see it through the topsoil yet.

It's like I didnt even post anything, you refute nothing I wrote, you just continue with 'na huh!'...You are wrong. Legally and morally. Your "opinion" does not drive the law, thank God.

 

[Iron_Merc]

Re: Actual history

If you have an ounce of integrity, you will go after both/all equally. Otherwise you may as well hang a 'I'm a hypocrite, just because it suits my personal needs and agendas' around your neck. You profess to be an ' anti-abortion extremist' <---- Act like one and stop cherry picking who your enemies are based on political lean. That's a very weak and transparent cop out.

I get it. I have my own people to blame as well (one conservative judge who later changed his mind) . But now I am going after the people that support abortion and abortion rights. Rarely if ever will you find a conservative abortionist in this nation. Rarely if ever will you see a conservative advocating for abortion. Because the two cannot mix.

Anyway lets try to stay on point here.

 

[Logician Man]

Re: Actual history

I get it. I have my own people to blame as well (one conservative judge who later changed his mind) . But now I am going after the people that support abortion and abortion rights. Rarely if ever will you find a conservative abortionist in this nation. Rarely if ever will you see a conservative advocating for abortion. Because the two cannot mix.

Anyway lets try to stay on point here.

You need to do some in-depth demographics research. Post the number of women in the U.S. who receive abortions that self-identify as 'Christians.". What do you think that number will be per year. Let's see who is really seeking out all of these abortions. I'll wait while you do your research.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Actual history

I get it. I have my own people to blame as well (one conservative judge who later changed his mind) . But now I am going after the people that support abortion and abortion rights. Rarely if ever will you find a conservative abortionist in this nation. Rarely if ever will you see a conservative advocating for abortion. Because the two cannot mix.

Anyway lets try to stay on point here.

I feel bad for your country but thats factually not true in america. What country are you from, you should move here to the states.

 

[southwest88]

Re: Actual history

Quote: Iron_Merc
But looking back now, the DoI did create a nation that was based on equality, so they meant what they said at the beginning. Therefore, abortion is a desecration of the sanctity of life, a desecration of the right to life, and a violation of the 14th amendment AND the DoI.

You are forgetting something very critical to this debate and as a result, making presumptions and presuppositions in error. You have to remember, at the time of its founding, the country consisted of ONLY white males. They had the right to set up society how they wanted it - and instead of placing themselves at the top of the totem pole they leveled the playing field via the DoI. They were tasked with the job of creating the mechanics of a nation state, and to be honest, they did a pretty damn good job of it. You cant hold a grudge against white males, when they were the sole population of the nation at that time. You cant hold bias against white males because they framed the freedoms that you so fervently want to strip away from Americas most innocent. You cant hold a grudge against America's early government being all white males. Because the population didn't permit for anything BUT white males. If anyone is the hypocrite here its the left. Look what they gave us. Be grateful not resentful.

I think your statements only serve to reinforce my points of view. Country was founded by white people for ALL people. And so the left finds itself squarely in another paradox. If anything, you should be thanking the white males for granting your the very freedoms and liberties you so callously tread on by advocating for the killing of others.

Liberal buzzword of the day: Paradox

end quote


Very pretty rose-colored glasses you have there. First of all the DoI did not create a nation. That was the inhabitants & citizens of the nation, who strove mightily to translate rhetoric into reality. Nor was the nation based on equality – the Native Peoples, French, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish & even the British themselves were eventually expelled from what became the US, or incorporated into the body politic . desecration of the sanctity, innocent & so on are theological categories - & quite out of place in a political discussion – assuming that that’s what this is, or @ least is supposed to be.

at the time of its founding, the country consisted of ONLY white males – If that were true, then the British colonies & the US would have resembled Mexico – European men, & Native Peoples wives, with mestizo children the overwhelming norm. That didn’t happen in the US, of course. & it’s interesting that the last of the great powers to colonize the Americas (Britain) intermarried the least with the Native Peoples. From what I recall of civics on the subject, the British colonists (in what became the US) preferred to marry their fellow colonists, or other British or French or Dutch colonists – rather than marry Native Peoples.

In fact North America was teeming with Native Peoples, & not with anyone else, @ first - @ the beginning of the European colonization in 1492 CE. Disease & then warfare much reduced the populations of the Native Peoples. The survivors in the US were exiled to the West, to desolate lands – until the US population caught up with the border again, & the Native People were displaced again.

Country was founded by white people for ALL people – That is simply not true, as even this abbreviated summary of US/Native Peoples history indicates. The Native Peoples were nearly always rejected, & considered enemies of the colonists. In the US, every attempt was made to eliminate the Native Peoples, by warfare, or by stripping their children of their language, religion, culture, traditional lands & foods & habits. The US was founded to affirm the political maturity of the British colonists - & to displace the British administration with a native (British) administration.

If rights & freedoms leaked out from that start, it was from elaborations of traditional British rights – the vote, the franchise for freemen, & so on. & from leadership by Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln - & other non-elites who didn’t believe that government somehow belonged only to wealthy, established families.

In a political system, no one grants rights – the franchise was struggled for by ordinary men, by women. Women struggled for the right to own property & enter into contracts. The slaves struggled to be free, industrial workers struggled for the right to form unions, & so on.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Some interesting points to contend with, indeed.

Abstract



Full Source here:
Unborn children as constitutional persons. - PubMed - NCBI

To establish personhood of the unborn than a Constitutional Amendment would need be needed to be added the US Constitution.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

There are a number of particular posts that I take exception to, and points that I agree and object to, so responding to any particular one would be distracting. I do want to address, generally, the subjects of the 4th, 13th, 14th Amendments, though, and how they relate to the question at hand. They do, although indirectly. The following is my personal analysis, so I am not supplying citations other than the original topic.

In Roe, the Court discussed the "penumbra" of rights that surround the Bill of Rights. What they mean by that is that there are two ways of looking at the constitutional restraints expressed in the document: literally, or conceptually. With regard to the 4th and 13th Amendment arguments, one can look only at the text and context of the provisions and say that "the 4th only has to do with papers and effects" or "the 13th is about slavery". Or, as the Court has done on numerous occasions, address the concept upon which that "Right" is based and find a generalized principle more broadly applicable. In the 4th, that concept is "privacy", and in the 13th, that is "forced behavior" (it was not just about slavery, BTW, but explicitly also about "involuntary servitude"). Even more generally, one can look to the 9th Amendment to see if tradition, history, or contemporary conditions support the existence of an "unenumerated right" that deserves protection (e.g., procreation, family planning, child rearing, right to self defense, etc.). (I personally prefer to look to the 9th Amendment, textually, as it is "cleaner" analytically.).

I am with you on the 9th Amendment. However, neither the 4th or 13th Amendment, directly or not, relate to abortion.

Any concept of "privacy" in the 4th Amendment is limited by the plain text of the 4th Amendment. Which is to say, the privacy in the 4th Amendment is to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and warrants issued on the basis of probable cause. At best the 4th Amendment was espousing a particular kind of "privacy," a privacy in papers, effects, belongings, house, and oneself, from unreasonable searches by the government and seizure (this was a reference to physical detainment). The plain text of the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. It is the plain text of the 4th Amendment which is paramount, and it neither

The 13th Amendment is equally uninvolved with abortion. Yes, "involuntary servitude" is referenced, but that referenced a specific kind of relationship between persons, and not a relationship between a person and a fetus. Of course, this is a plain text meaning I am resorting to, whereas you were looking to a principle, but like the 4th Amendment, any principle is fixed to the text of the amendment.

Griswold v. Connecticut is a much derided case, and justifiably so, precisely because it did not take long for many people to discover the plain text of the amendments cited in the decision simply did not support what the Court said. This fatal flaw has been said, in legal academic circles, to be the reason, the only reason, the Court has not invoked this same analysis from those same amendments for purposes of liberty and privacy interests, or any other unenumerated rights.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

No, a non-medical motivated abortion cannot just be the mother's choice....at least not through the...

At what point would you place the life (and life it is) of the unborn child above the woman's decision to terminate ?




So if that mother loses the desire to give birth, possibly on a whim, she has the right to at ANY time in the pregnancy ?





You misrepresent reality

It IS a legal issue

It is also a moral issue, when should the law draw "a line in the sand"




They're also held to a legal standard.

But you can clarify your position once more. Do you believe a mother should have the legal right to terminate her pregnancy at ANY stage ?

Shortened to save space.

You keep coming back to your argument being about having an abortion a week before giving birth. The reality is that late term abortions are rare and only occur where the life of the child or mother is in danger.

There is no need to make this a law as medical ethics already covers this and a woman having a late term abortion on a whim simply does not happen.
I do not misrepresent reality. I oppose the needless laws created so that men can feel superior to woman and justify the creation of these laws as you have done by demonising women by arguing they cannot be trusted to think for themselves.

You are not asking me to clarify my position. You are trying a trick of pretending your argument that late term abortions can be done on a whim.

I agree. Abortions past viability are very rare. And they are because of catastrophic fetal defects , or irreparable damage to major bodily function ( examples include: stroke , heart attack, paralysis from the neck down, kidney damage, liver damage etc. ) .

There are only 4 clinic doctors that perform abortions past viability.
OB/GYN send their patients who have these late term complicated pregnancies to one of the 4 clinic doctors for their abortions.

From Romper :

In 2013, there were four doctors in the country who performed abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy, according to Slate. (Current numbers could be even lower.)
.

 

[Iron_Merc]

Re: Actual history

If you are actually claiming white people didnt start this country we cannot continue this discussion. It means you have a fundamental flaw in your reasoning and ANY political subject seen through this lens, is therefore flawed.

Seriously? You tell me how culturally diverse our nation was in the old days. Our government was all white by default. It wasn't a racist decision, that's the point I'm trying to make. These are the founding fathers, hate it or love it they were all white.

You are clearly brainwashed into believing the liberal revisionists history of the nation. That is based on lies.


Do I even have to ask you a question here?
Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States

These are the people that founded our nation. This is undisputed.

Not to mention the people that signed the DoI:

Observations?

And yes, the majority wanted an OPEN SOCIETY based on LIFE and LIBERTY, right out of the gate.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Rational yes, historical absolutely not.

Of course it is historical, Rich. Never in human history has a fetus been given the rights of a person. That is a modern phenomenon/ ideological position that has only emerged since Roe. Find me any historical reference that says otherwise.

I agree.

The unborn is NOT a person and an unborn does not have rights.

In the history of the United States, the unborn have never had rights.


States have rights to protect non persons. Think about the anti cruelty laws some states have even though animals have no rights.

Some states even protect the parent’s interest in the unborn

At most , the law represents the potentiality of live birth.



From Roe vs. Wade section IX:

Appellee argues that the State's determination to recognize and protect prenatal life from and after conception constitutes a compelling state interest. As noted above, we do not agree fully with either formulation....

some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. G Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth.

In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

 

[NWRatCon]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I apologize, in general, for my scattershot posts. I got a lot on my plate this week, but this is, for the most part, a topic I have an abiding interest in, so I am doing my best to keep up.

I am with you on the 9th Amendment. However, neither the 4th or 13th Amendment, directly or not, relate to abortion.

I'm sure you realize that we disagree on this point! LOL To the extent that ANYTHING in the Constitution relates to abortion (along the lines I mentioned earlier), the concepts informing the 4th and 13th Amendments are, at least arguably, applicable. I'll elaborate more below.

Any concept of "privacy" in the 4th Amendment is limited by the plain text of the 4th Amendment. Which is to say, the privacy in the 4th Amendment is to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and warrants issued on the basis of probable cause. At best the 4th Amendment was espousing a particular kind of "privacy," a privacy in papers, effects, belongings, house, and oneself, from unreasonable searches by the government and seizure (this was a reference to physical detainment). The plain text of the 4th Amendment has nothing to do with abortion. It is the plain text of the 4th Amendment which is paramount, and it neither

I think your post was truncated. In a literal sense, that is true. Has the Supreme Court ever applied the literal application you propose? For over 100 years after the creation of the Fourth Amendment consideration of applicability to other forms of communication than writings wasn't even an issue. So, does the principle of "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" apply to telegrams? Phone calls? Private conversations? Not according to your interpretation.

Similarly, the argument that "involuntary servitude" only applies to slavery (which begs the question why they included "involuntary servitude" at all).

The 13th Amendment is equally uninvolved with abortion. Yes, "involuntary servitude" is referenced, but that referenced a specific kind of relationship between persons, and not a relationship between a person and a fetus. Of course, this is a plain text meaning I am resorting to, whereas you were looking to a principle, but like the 4th Amendment, any principle is fixed to the text of the amendment.

I don't think your argument actually flows the way you assert, actually. The servitude is not to the fetus, but to the state - if it requires the woman to carry a pregnancy to term, or prevents her from using contraception. These constructions, as I have said, essentially render the protections of the Amendments meaningless.

You assert that "Griswold v. Connecticut is a much derided case," - but that is just in your particular circle of acquaintances, apparently. It has been cited repeatedly and favorably in so many Supreme Court and lower court decisions that I would exceed the 3000 character limit citing them. Griswold is still much alive and viable.

I would like clarification, though. You say "I am with you on the 9th Amendment." Yet, you deride Griswold. Can you square that for me? I don't see how one follows the other.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I read the amendments to ensure I recalled them correctly. If your argument is that the issue has been argued and ruled, then what's the point of this forum? Surely, that's not what you meant. Right?

That's like saying no one can disagree with the Supreme Court, ever.

Er, that's pretty broad. Most of the RvW opinion was based on the 14th. If you cant even grasp the arguments, I'm pretty sure my explaining them wont help. But there are at least 10 precedents that support the opinion. One of my co-posters has that list, but I do not.

Minnie, do you happen to have your list handy?



Links in posts 189 and 190 support the 13th and 4th, but I havent done so for the 14th.

There were several right to privacy precedents set before Roe v Wade.
The more precedents, the harder it is to overturn a SC ruling.

It will be extremely hard to overturn Roe without also striking down the precedents of right to privacy cases before Roe including right to privacy regarding child rearing rights , such as the right for parents to send their children to private or religious schools instead of public schools.

These most likely would become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned.

Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Lursa, I thought that I clearly stated my topic; I tried to be very clear to avoid meandering into other areas, ie morality, viability, etc.- I apologize if I failed to do that. I do not believe using court rulings are relevant to this discussion, because we can all point to rulings with which we disagree. I am trying to determine a logical position that I can support and the first step, for me, is to determine if it is a state or federal issue.



The 4th hinders the government from doing certain things (unreasonable searches and seizures). The legality of abortion is neither. If the government tried to FORCE an abortion, the 4th might apply. If abortion was illegal, then doctors could not participate in abortions. The 4th in no way relates to a secondary party's rights. Also, I do not see how privacy is relevant. Does disallowing a doctor to perform an abortion somehow affect someone's privacy?

NotreDame's post had some interesting points. I think what he wrote is very similar to my point above, if much less concise.




Clearly, the 13th relates to slavery. If someone has voluntary sex that results in pregnancy, they were not forced and therefore slavery does not relate. I think an argument could be made here related to rape, but that is a very small percentage of abortions.




I cannot see how this amendment relates to our topic. If this relates to abortion, then it relates to everything and all issues are within the purview of the Federal government. I do not think that is the intent. Do you?

From the following Live Science article:

Constitutional rights

The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy:

The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs

The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers
The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches
The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information
The Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.


The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states:

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.

However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing.

For example, the Supreme Court first recognized that the various Bill of Rights guarantees creates a "zone of privacy" in Griswold v. Connecticut, a 1965 ruling that upheld marital privacy and struck down bans on contraception.

Read more:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I agree that it is currently at the federal level, but that does not mean it should. I have yet to see anything supporting it at the federal level that is compelling.

Sorry, I get frustrated because I am trying very hard to avoid going down a rabbit hole and abortion has many such holes...

Why would you believe that states have the authority to take precedence over a persons right to privacy.

If states have authority to to interfere with a family’s right to to privacy then the state could dictate where your/ our children have to go school and what religion they have to learn.

There would be no schools of choice or home schooling a state decided not to allow it.

So with that in mind I will ask again....Why do you feel that states have a right to disregard and not to protect the right to privacy regarding family, marriage, mothering, procreation and child rearing?

 

[danielpalos]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

From the following Live Science article:



Read more:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

Seems more like a lack of Due Process, to some on the left.

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.

"Natural rights" are not alienable by any right wing implied fantasy.

 

[NWRatCon]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

In my view, the legal analysis is quite simple:

The 9th Amendment states:

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

On its face this does not preclude applicability to the States, but any ambiguity was eliminated by the 14th Amendment, which provides,

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.

At the time of both enactments, an "unborn" child was only a potential life. That is still the case, morally, ethically, and legally. Roe actually extended a legal "interest" to the fetus, as far as I can determine, for the first time in American jurisprudence. That interest should not, in my view, be extended beyond viability.*

* The period of viability refers (traditionally) to the period after the twenty-eighth week, or more recently the twenty-fourth week, of gestation when a human fetus is capable of living outside of the womb.

 

[danielpalos]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

In my view, the legal analysis is quite simple:

The 9th Amendment states: On its face this does not preclude applicability to the States, but any ambiguity was eliminated by the 14th Amendment, which provides, At the time of both enactments, an "unborn" child was only a potential life. That is still the case, morally, ethically, and legally. Roe actually extended a legal "interest" to the fetus, as far as I can determine, for the first time in American jurisprudence. That interest should not, in my view, be extended beyond viability.*

* The period of viability refers (traditionally) to the period after the twenty-eighth week, or more recently the twenty-fourth week, of gestation when a human fetus is capable of living outside of the womb.

An ounce of the prevention is worth a pound of cure; only the right wing objects for the sake of their socialism on a national basis.

 

[southwest88]

Benign neglect, @ best

I do not understand why you would ask me that. I have stated multiple times I am seeking justification for a federal ruling. I believe that the states should rule on abortion, not the federal government.

Look into the history; the states had ample time to legislate on abortion, if they had wanted to. & most of them simply outlawed abortion, as I recall. See History of Abortion - National Abortion Federation

"Abortion Was Legal

"Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before “quickening” were openly advertised and commonly performed.

"Making Abortion Illegal

"In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of “native” Anglo-Saxon women."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

One of the reasons that the Supreme Court may have held in Roe is to try to clear up the contradictory statutes @ the state level - to @ least allow for some standardization of the legal environment.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

I'm sure you realize that we disagree on this point!

So, does the principle of "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" apply to telegrams? Phone calls? Private conversations? Not according to your interpretation.

The issue raised by your comment is whether inclusion of those items in the 4th Amendment admits to a generalized principle of privacy. But those remarks do not demonstrate the 4th Amendment has a generalized principle of "privacy." Yes, one can ask whether the phrase "person, houses, papers, and effects" should include telegrams, private conversations, and phone calls, to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, but the resolution of that question does not demonstrate the 4th Amendment has a broader notion of "privacy." I can concede, for the sake of argument, those items should be included in the 4th Amendment but that concession does not follow to the conclusion the 4th Amendment has a broader, generalized principle of privacy. At most, including those items in the 4th Amendment is to say those items are to be included within the specific parameters of the 4th Amendment regarding search, seizure, and issuance of warrants, which is another way of saying the 4th Amendment protection against the government conducting unreasonable "searches" of persons, houses, papers and effects, and "seizures" of persons, houses, papers and effects, includes searches and or seizures of telegrams, phone calls, and certain kinds of private conversations. That does not demonstrate the amendment has a generalized "privacy" and that conclusion does not follow.

And, just for clarification, I am a textualist/originalist, I am not and never will be a "literalist." To that end, some of the evidence I would examine in understanding the meaning of the 4th Amendment is, inter alia, historical context, in which the 4th Amendment was conceived, in part, to preclude generalized searches by the government for evidence of a crime or wrong doing, which was done under the crown.

Similarly, the argument that "involuntary servitude" only applies to slavery (which begs the question why they included "involuntary servitude" at all). I don't think your argument actually flows the way you assert, actually. The servitude is not to the fetus, but to the state - if it requires the woman to carry a pregnancy to term, or prevents her from using contraception. These constructions, as I have said, essentially render the protections of the Amendments meaningless.

I never said involuntary servitude "only applies to slavery." The 13th Amendment is addressing both involuntary servitude and slavery as separate and distinct concepts. The 13th Amendment is blessed with a significant historical record giving birth to its existence that shapes its meaning. The involuntary servitude language sought to address the particular relationship among people, persons, and not a fetus, specifically coerced or forced labor by one person(s) for the benefit of another person(s). Logically, laws proscribing abortion do not constitute as "involuntary servitude" to the state, as the woman is not coerced or forced into labor for the benefit of any person of the state or the state itself. In addition, laws infringing upon the liberty to do something is not involuntary servitude to the state.

You assert that "Griswold v. Connecticut is a much derided case," - but that is just in your particular circle of acquaintances, apparently. It has been cited repeatedly and favorably in so many Supreme Court and lower court decisions that I would exceed the 3000 character limit citing them. Griswold is still much alive and viable.

The number of citations to the case may be true but does not change the fact the case has been derided because of the specific methodology used. I tied the derision to the specific methodology. I said, "Griswold v. Connecticut is a much derided case, and justifiably so, precisely because it did not take long for many people to discover the plain text of the amendments cited in the decision simply did not support what the Court said. This fatal flaw has been said, in legal academic circles, to be the reason, the only reason, the Court has not invoked this same analysis from those same amendments for purposes of liberty and privacy interests, or any other unenumerated rights.

The case has been criticized, even by some liberals, because of the specific methodology used in the case. It did not take long for "many people to discover" the very amendments cited to simply did not support what the Court said. The Court subsequently began using the word "liberty" in the 14th Amendment for the privacy and liberty interests as opposed to following the tortured logic of Griswold.

 

[NotreDame]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

.

I would like clarification, though. You say "I am with you on the 9th Amendment." Yet, you deride Griswold. Can you square that for me? I don't see how one follows the other.

Because the 9th Amendment protects unenumerated rights, which is to say if one is dealing with an unenumerated right, which they were in Griswold, then the 9th Amendment is the proper amendment for its protection, as opposed to the tortured logic of Griswold, invoking amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with what the Court said.

And I have the benefit of some historical evidence giving meaning to the 9th Amendment, some of that evidence being Barnett's law review article on the 9th Amendment.

 

[Uziel]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

From the following Live Science article:



Read more:

Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws | Live Science

Hi minnie, I appreciate your input, but I am confused. What does privacy have to do with whether abortion is a state or federal issue?

 

[Uziel]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Why would you believe that states have the authority to take precedence over a persons right to privacy.

If states have authority to to interfere with a family’s right to to privacy then the state could dictate where your/ our children have to go school and what religion they have to learn.

There would be no schools of choice or home schooling a state decided not to allow it.

So with that in mind I will ask again....Why do you feel that states have a right to disregard and not to protect the right to privacy regarding family, marriage, mothering, procreation and child rearing?

The question isn't about whether or should be legal at the state level or any level. The only question is whether it's a federal issue. I'm not suggesting the states should do anything, but I am suggesting that it does not fall within the purview of the federal government.

 

[Uziel]

Re: Benign neglect, @ best

Look into the history; the states had ample time to legislate on abortion, if they had wanted to. & most of them simply outlawed abortion, as I recall. See History of Abortion - National Abortion Federation

"Abortion Was Legal

"Abortion has been performed for thousands of years, and in every society that has been studied. It was legal in the United States from the time the earliest settlers arrived. At the time the Constitution was adopted, abortions before “quickening” were openly advertised and commonly performed.

"Making Abortion Illegal

"In the mid-to-late 1800s states began passing laws that made abortion illegal. The motivations for anti-abortion laws varied from state to state. One of the reasons included fears that the population would be dominated by the children of newly arriving immigrants, whose birth rates were higher than those of “native” Anglo-Saxon women."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

One of the reasons that the Supreme Court may have held in Roe is to try to clear up the contradictory statutes @ the state level - to @ least allow for some standardization of the legal environment.

Hello southwest, I hear you, but I think you are mistaken. The failure of the states does not suddenly empower the fed in any way. If something is not enumerated in the Constitution then the 10th amendment stipulates that it is reserved for the states OR the people.

Why do you want to empower the fed in any way? The Constitution clearly enumerates what the federal government can do. Section 8 is very clear, as is the tenth.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

Hi minnie, I appreciate your input, but I am confused. What does privacy have to do with whether abortion is a state or federal issue?

Protecting the rights of US citizens.

 

[minnie616]

Re: 14th Amendment - Original Intent and Roe V Wade

The question isn't about whether or should be legal at the state level or any level. The only question is whether it's a federal issue. I'm not suggesting the states should do anything, but I am suggesting that it does not fall within the purview of the federal government.

Protections of US citizens.