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

[Lursa]

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

Protections of US citizens.

I did provide this earlier, but it didnt lead to further discussion:

That's fine...it may come to that. However, the states may not make laws that overrule the Constitution. So if a state govt makes law that violates women's Constitutional rights....the federal law supersedes those of the state. The RvW decision ensures that the rights supported in their decision must stand...state law cannot overrule that.

There are some state laws proposed that do conflict with the Constitution, some even pass. But if they end up being challenged in the courts (not all are, some are socially acceptable and no one is concerned), and are found unConstitutional, they are invalidated. For example...last spring, several states tried to pass 'heartbeat abortion' laws. Every single one of them has been blocked so far...as unConstitutional.

Perhaps just a bit more in post 285.

 

[NWRatCon]

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

I think we agree that the 9th is the proper locus for the discussion, I was merely pointing out the theoretical bases for the applicability of the 4th and 13th Amendments. Not sure I want to belabor the discussion on that element of the topic. In that respect, I won't even quibble about Griswold, because, in my view, its primary value is in naming and articulating the principle of autonomy over procreation choices, much like Katz's creation of the rule regarding the "expectation of privacy".

Where you and I will always differ is the conception of "originalism", which I view as both a "fool's errand" and excuse for violent judicial activism. All interpretation should begin with the text and one's best effort to discern the drafters' intent. That's a tautology. Too often, though, that process is used as an excuse to stop any further analysis there, turn a blind eye to the practical effects or absurd results, and/or justify imposition of personal predilections - especially to strike down laws and precedents on idiosyncratic and ideological bases. Re:

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.

With regard to Uziel's question about state laws and federal supercession - that's the point of the 14th Amendment and the Supremacy clause. The 10th Amendment comes into play only of there is no discernable federal or individual interest. Indeed, it, like the 9th, reserves the rights of "the people" against encroachment by both federal, and by application of the 14th, State governments. Pregnant women are people too. ZEFs, not so much.

Too often, in my view, the discussion here about the OP has been diverted into pure ideological pronouncements devoid of legal basis. That is just not a discussion I prefer to further.

 

[NWRatCon]

Re: Benign neglect, @ best

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.

States are neither autonomous fiefdoms nor petty dictatorships. They, like the federal government, are creatures of the citizenry and restricted in their activities by enumerated (and unenumerated) rights of individuals. Southwest's post, I think, was just addressing the historical context of State laws and their relationship to constitutional history. . Similarly, current State laws have to be viewed in the context of Roe and the interests articulated therein. Instead, it is quite apparent that they are more focused on the make-up of the Supreme Court than fidelity to the law, Constitution, rationality, or individual rights

 

[Rich2018]

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

Protections of US citizens.

Does that include the ones not born yet ?

 

[Iron_Merc]

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

Does that include the ones not born yet ?

To take it one step further, some leftists believe rights do not apply to new born babies either.

The argument goes like this: A new born is not a true person in the sense of development, because they are closer to a fetus in terms of physical attributes. Very flawed, I know. And very disrespectful to the sanctity of life.

The argument is a blatant deception and a perversion of American values, specifically with the deprivation of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This gives late term abortionists a blank check for genocide/infanticide - and its already happening on a large scale

And one other thing, the original intent of Roe vs Wade called for early term abortions. Abortionists are pressing for less and less regulation on abortion. That being said, what justification do you guys have for committing late term abortions?

Question: are late term abortions a violation of Roe v Wade?

 

[minnie616]

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

Does that include the ones not born yet ?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.

 

[Rich2018]

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

All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens.

I think Bush tried to change that, so a person born in the USA isn't automatically deemed a US citizen. But it's still the law.


Does your post include the ones not born yet ?

 

[NWRatCon]

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

Does that include the ones not born yet ?

By definition, one cannot be a citizen until born. I pointed that out earlier.

 

[NWRatCon]

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

To take it one step further, some leftists believe rights do not apply to new born babies either.

I call "bull****", Merc. Absent citation to some verifiable source, that is just not true. The argument fails as based upon a false premise. Moreover, it is not on subject. You can't even follow your own proscription, can you?

Question: are late term abortions a violation of Roe v Wade?

Now I doubt you have even read the decision.

 

[Iron_Merc]

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

I call "bull****", Merc. Absent citation to some verifiable source, that is just not true. The argument fails as based upon a false premise. Moreover, it is not on subject. You can't even follow your own proscription, can you?

Now I doubt you have even read the decision.

Just breathe. Everything is going to be alright! Sources:

"Pro-Choicers" Who Want to Legalize Infanticide | American Right to Life

Philosophy & Public Affairs, Abortion and Infanticide, and online: "It will be seen that this condition is not satisfied by human fetuses and infants, and thus that they do not have a right to life." -University of Colorado professor Michael Tooley

Singer & Dawkins, the world's most notorious "bioethicist" and evolutionist, advocate killing handicapped children. The above sources defend the killing of any babies and to that end, Peter Singer is well known for claiming that "the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, of a chimpanzee." In this brief clip, speaking to Singer, Richard Dawkins, the world's leading promoter of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, is limiting (currently) his defense of after-birth abortion to handicapped children, in his advocacy of infanticide:



This is all I'm going to say on the matter because we want to keep the discussion on point. That being said, small tangents are acceptable once in a while if you want to clarify a certain piece of evidence that relates to Roe v Wade.

As for the decision, no I have not read it. You have to keep in mind I have only been debating online for the past three weeks of my life. I have not talked about politics for the past two years. You have to cut me a little slack while I ramp this up. I am getting there. So I will say again, does Roe v Wade permit late term abortion? What is the legal justification for late term abortion?

 

[minnie616]

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

....

And one other thing, the original intent of Roe vs Wade called for early term abortions. Abortionists are pressing for less and less regulation on abortion. That being said, what justification do you guys have for committing late term abortions?

Question: are late term abortions a violation of Roe v Wade?

False, the original intent of Roe was never only for early term abortions.

Educate yourself and read the Roe decision.

The Roe decision always allowed for last term when they threatened the woman’s life or her long term health.

Abortions in the third trimester are to protect the woman’s health

After viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions unless they were necessary, in appropriate medical judgement to preserve the life or health of the woman.

I already explained a non viable pregnancy can threaten the woman’s life since it bring on a life threatening infection.

Also last term abortions are legal when irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.

 

[Iron_Merc]

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

False.

The Roe decision s always allowed for last term when they threatened the woman’s life or her long term health.

After viability, the state could regulate or prohibit abortions unless they were necessary, in appropriate medical judgement to preserve the life or health of the woman.

I already explained a non viable pregnancy can threaten the woman’s life since it bring on a life threatening infection.

Also last term abortions are legal when irreparable damage to a major bodily function would occur if the pregnancy continued.

Thank you. That was exactly the kind of information I was hoping for. Now lets carry on....

 

[minnie616]

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

Thank you. That was exactly the kind of information I was hoping for. Now lets carry on....

Oh by the way when contractions are induced or a c section used on a non viable fetus even in a hospital it is an abortion.

And is counted in the abortion stats.

 

[southwest88]

Call the question

Just breathe. Everything is going to be alright! Sources:

"Pro-Choicers" Who Want to Legalize Infanticide | American Right to Life

Philosophy & Public Affairs, Abortion and Infanticide, and online: "It will be seen that this condition is not satisfied by human fetuses and infants, and thus that they do not have a right to life." -University of Colorado professor Michael Tooley

Singer & Dawkins, the world's most notorious "bioethicist" and evolutionist, advocate killing handicapped children. The above sources defend the killing of any babies and to that end, Peter Singer is well known for claiming that "the life of a newborn baby is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, of a chimpanzee." In this brief clip, speaking to Singer, Richard Dawkins, the world's leading promoter of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, is limiting (currently) his defense of after-birth abortion to handicapped children, in his advocacy of infanticide:

…

& do Tooley, Singer & Dawkins hold themselves forward as spokesmen for the Left? I don't believe so, or @ least I've never heard Dawkins claim such a thing. Do you have a cite that says otherwise? Or better still, a direct quote from them saying so?

 

[NWRatCon]

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

Just breathe. Everything is going to be alright! Sources:

"Pro-Choicers" Who Want to Legalize Infanticide | American Right to Life

Thanks for confirming my original suspicion.

 

[NotreDame]

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

Where you and I will always differ is the conception of "originalism", which I view as both a "fool's errand" and excuse for violent judicial activism. All interpretation should begin with the text and one's best effort to discern the drafters' intent. That's a tautology. Too often, though, that process is used as an excuse to stop any further analysis there, turn a blind eye to the practical effects or absurd results, and/or justify imposition of personal predilections - especially to strike down laws and precedents on idiosyncratic and ideological bases.

Well, your view isn’t expressed as an indictment of originalism but disgust with particular application of it. But application is an indictment of the person doing the applying and not originalism itself.

I agree with you ideological and “personal predilections” applicability is problematic. However, that is perhaps inevitable regardless of the interpretative method. I prefer originalism over the other interpretive methods with those less desirable aspects.

I disagree with the “practical effects or absurd results,” where this is understood to as the original meaning leads to what IS an absurd result or unpalatable practical effects, that is a consequence of written law. To be governed and ruled by written law and the notion the written law has a meaning of its own, is to also be bound to its effects and results, absurd or otherwise.

I’m willing to accept those absurd results in exchange for the many benefits and logical justification for a system of written laws with its own meaning.

The written law and its own meaning is a check on tyranny. A law, or laws, without its own meaning, is fertile ground for the tyrant to usurp power and rights of the people by applying any meaning, in this instance a meaning usurping rights and power, to a written law without a meaning of its own. The judiciary can be just as tyrannical in the usurpation of rights and expansion of power where the written law is devoid of its own meaning. The written law, with its own meaning, can restrain the judiciary, and leaders, or at least facilitate doing so.

The written law protecting free speech facilitates against a judiciary or leader, from deciding free speech isn’t a right. A written law protecting the right to a jury trial facilitates against the judiciary of government asserting no one is entitled to a jury. The law against quartering troops in our homes facilities against Trump attempting to do so, especially when the judiciary follows that meaning of the third amendment.

So, absurd outcomes and unpalatable effects is a result of a system honoring written law with a meaning of its own.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

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

In that respect, I won't even quibble about Griswold, because, in my view, its primary value is in naming and articulating the principle of autonomy over procreation choices, much like Katz's creation of the rule regarding the "expectation of privacy".

I agree with your view above in regards to its value. I agree with its Holding a right to privacy exists, I just disagree with how they reached that Holding. Such a right does exist, in the 9th Amendment. I think the 9th protects a vast sea of privacy interests.

I’m not at all in disagreement necessarily with the expectation of privacy test of the 4th Amendment. I have objections to it, but it’s tied to the 4th Amendment text.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Iron_Merc]

Re: Call the question

& do Tooley, Singer & Dawkins hold themselves forward as spokesmen for the Left? I don't believe so, or @ least I've never heard Dawkins claim such a thing. Do you have a cite that says otherwise? Or better still, a direct quote from them saying so?

Here is Richard Dawkins taking about Infanticide.

 

[southwest88]

Re: Call the question

Here is Richard Dawkins taking about Infanticide.
…

Originally Posted by southwest88
& do Tooley, Singer & Dawkins hold themselves forward as spokesmen for the Left? I don't believe so, or @ least I've never heard Dawkins claim such a thing. Do you have a cite that says otherwise? Or better still, a direct quote from them saying so?

end quote/

Or are you just another Luddite throwing sabots into the machinery of Modernity? That ship sailed (coal fired, actually) way back @ the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in UK. No one's going back, just because you prefer barefoot & pregnant as the natural state of women.

 

[Iron_Merc]

Re: Call the question

Originally Posted by southwest88
& do Tooley, Singer & Dawkins hold themselves forward as spokesmen for the Left? I don't believe so, or @ least I've never heard Dawkins claim such a thing. Do you have a cite that says otherwise? Or better still, a direct quote from them saying so?

end quote/

Or are you just another Luddite throwing sabots into the machinery of Modernity? That ship sailed (coal fired, actually) way back @ the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution in UK. No one's going back, just because you prefer barefoot & pregnant as the natural state of women.

Definitely not a luddite. I used to work in the computer industry. I initially paint in broad strokes, I will admit to that. But that scope narrows as needed for debates. Sometimes its hard for outsiders looking in to connect the dots at first. I am here to debate the status quo and get a pulse on politics again. I enjoy a good challenge. (ive been out of politics for two years) -

Its a well known fact that Richard Dawkins has embraced liberal and progressive values. He is often interviewed at length about politics and could definitely be considered a spokesperson of sorts for the left.

 

[southwest88]

Nope, he's much bigger than the frame

…

Its a well known fact that Richard Dawkins has embraced liberal and progressive values. He is often interviewed at length about politics and could definitely be considered a spokesperson of sorts for the left.

Merely your (?) opinion, & ill-founded. Dawkins is vastly overqualified to be the Left's spokesman. See Political views of Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia

"Richard Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and writer. Dawkins himself has stated that his political views are left-leaning.[1] However, many of Dawkins's political statements have created controversy even among left-wing and atheist communities.

…

"Views on religion[edit]

"Dawkins is a noted critic of religion, atheist, anti-theist, anti-religionist and a secular humanist.[70][71] Dawkins believes that there is a conflict between science and religion and that science prevails in the debate.[72][73] Dawkins also thinks that parents forcing their religion on children is a form of mental child abuse and that religion in general is a form of cultural virus.[74]

"Dawkins advocates for what he calls "militant atheism" and believes that atheists should not hide their identities so that they can be better integrated into politics and society.[75] Dawkins has written several books criticizing religion, most notably The God Delusion (2006). Dawkins has written that some of his main points in The God Delusion were that atheists can be happy and moral and that they should not be apologetic about their religious identities.[76]

"Christianity[edit]

"Dawkins has repeatedly criticized Christianity, believing that it has been a negative force throughout history.[77] While he has praised the life of Jesus, he has been critical of the supernatural portions of Christianity and the effect it has on the world. Dawkins has argued that Jesus was a theist because everybody in his time was, and that his ethics should be separated from his theology. "I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time", while also creating a T-shirt that read "Atheists for Jesus".[78] Dawkins has also said that he is a "secular Christian"—in his words, "in the same sense as secular Jews have a feeling for nostalgia and ceremonies."[79]

"However, Dawkins, along with his criticism of Christian fundamentalists, has also criticized moderate Christians for fueling extremists by showing exterior niceness."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

Dawkins is his own person, you're not going to be able to pigeonhole him with any success.

 

[NWRatCon]

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

I agree with your view above in regards to its value. I agree with its Holding a right to privacy exists, I just disagree with how they reached that Holding. Such a right does exist, in the 9th Amendment. I think the 9th protects a vast sea of privacy interests.

I’m not at all in disagreement necessarily with the expectation of privacy test of the 4th Amendment. I have objections to it, but it’s tied to the 4th Amendment text.

I think, my friend, when we eschew emotions, you and I row in similar directions (albeit to different destinations). I highlighted that sentence because I think that is the nub of our agreement.

And when you say,

your view isn’t expressed as an indictment of originalism but disgust with particular application of it. But application is an indictment of the person doing the applying and not originalism itself.

You are correct, and I don't disagree. My objection is often that originalism is used as blunt instrument to bully everyone within reach. Nor can I object to your agreement that

ideological and “personal predilections” applicability is problematic. However, that is perhaps inevitable regardless of the interpretative method. I prefer originalism over the other interpretive methods with those less desirable aspects.

Where I do disagree, amiably, is that I view "originalism" like capitalism - it is a method of getting somewhere, but it is not an end in itself. I think I've used the phrase that "starting interpretation with original intent is a tautology." You have to start with the text and original intent, as best it can be discerned, but that is not the end point of analysis. My objections are two-fold: First, too often that is where the analysis ends; second, that it is more often than not used fallaciously as an "appeal to authority" to cover an ideological outcome rather than as a genuine analytical tool.

When I describe it as a "fool's errand", what I mean is that "original intent" is often impossible to tease out of an enactment. Even sponsors of legislation don't control the outcome or form of the final product, and numerous voices and intents influence its development, implementation and interpretation. One legislator intends one meaning, another a different one, and even though they use the same word they have different expectations for its application. Sometimes the end product isn't even what either intended, and some things/word choices become issues that no one anticipated.

It is then the role of jurists to do their best to give meaning to the law's final product in the context of contemporary experience. Some just don't try very hard, or import meanings that strain credulity. Judging is hard, and it should be. My greatest objections are to those that use shortcuts or aren't willing to accept outcomes that are out of their comfort zones, even when that is exactly where the law leads.

 

[Rich2018]

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

Here in Georgia, a federal judge has suspended a Georgia law restricting abortions to 6 weeks:

Georgia abortion law: Federal judge temporarily blocks Georgia's six-week abortion ban - CBS News



"Georgia's six-week abortion ban was just blocked by a federal judge from going into effect, according to Barbara Ann Luttrell, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Southeast. As of today, every so-called "heartbeat" bill has now been stopped from being implemented...
The law, House Bill 481, was set to go into effect January 1, 2020..."


6 weeks is not long enough...30+ weeks is too long despite what the pro choice lobby says.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

My opinion is that until there is a law restricting or prohibiting a practice, procedure, or behavior, it is a freedom.

That is because ALL laws restrict someone's freedom.

The Constitution was specifically designed to limit the government's ability to restrict someone's freedom. Therefore, one of the overriding principles of law in the U.S. is that the government must present a compelling argument as to why they should be allowed to restrict someone's freedom. That is, that the needs of society are greater (a more perfect union, domestic tranquility, blessings of liberty, etc.) than the freedom of an individual or group.

For example, we have laws that require drivers to drive on the right side of the street and observe other traffic laws BECAUSE it has been determined that the government has an overriding interest in minimizing traffic accidents over the individual freedoms to drive however one wants.

We have a government agency called the Environmental Protection Agency because it was determined that the government has an overriding interest in reducing air and water pollution by industries and others over those polluters who preferred to dump their waste into the water supply of a downstream state or city. The EPA restricts the freedoms of polluters.

As I said, ALL laws restrict freedom.

In the case of Roe v Wade, the state of Texas (I believe) failed to demonstrate the government's overriding interests in prohibiting abortion over the woman's freedom to terminate her pregnancy. Therefore, there is no justification to restrict a woman's freedom to seek abortion.

 

[Rich2018]

...that is because ALL laws restrict someone's freedom.

As I said, ALL laws restrict freedom...

Whose freedom does the 2nd Amendment restrict ?