Posted on 09/27/2003 8:46:49 PM PDT by thoughtomator
Edited on 09/27/2003 9:33:29 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Provide evidence for your claim: quote the text that does this. You're not swallowing that "emanating from penumbras" bunk, are you?
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the states from doing so or authorizes the federal government to prevent the states from doing so.
Very bold statement. Goes against every basic principle of our constitution & BOR's.. I suggest you read our 9th & 10th amendments as to states powers, and those delegated/retained by the people..
I'm very familiar with them---they're the main support for my "very bold statement."
The Ninth does not say WHICH unenumerated rights are "retained by the people"---and it CERTAINLY does not say that ALL unenumerated rights are retained by the people. The Tenth indicates that since the power to restrict abortion is not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States," this power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It does not decide whether any given state or its people have that power, but leaves it up to each state's constitution.
Conclusion: if a state's constitution gives it the power to restrict abortion, then it has that power under the United States Constitution.
Preservation of Western culture, which includes both pagan and Christian traditions, is of importance to me.
I see. So the community has a right to impose whatever personal preferences happen to be held by a majority.
I thought that was just a rhetorical curlyque. What do you mean by "sequestering"? Pregnant women should of course have complete freedom of movement.
It is no more arbitrary than your moral judgement that a preborn human being does not have a right to life, or that the mother of a preborn child does not have an obligation to care for him.
Agreed. Child neglect is criminal.
What makes criminalization of born child neglect any less arbitrary than criminalization of pre-born child neglect? What makes criminalization of born child murder any less arbitrary than pre-born child murder?
Our constitution is a very libertarian style document.
Nonsense. While the constitution does not authorize the Feds to impose social obligations upon the citinzery, it does empower the states to do it. C.f the 10th ammendment. Laws prohibiting work on Sundays, prostitition, sodomy, abortion, obscenity and the like were on the books of most states since the founding of our Republic. Some of the very same people who wrote the constitution wrote those state laws.
The assertion that our Republic was ever libertarian, or that the founders were libertarians, is BS.
Communities tend to impose "whatever personal preferences happen to be held by a majority" or a vocal minority for that matter.
That is all that matters. Do you see the difference?
Yes, but that misses the point. What I'm trying to get as is the standard by which to judge the moral legitimacy of the preferences the community wishes to impose. On what basis, for instance, would you condemn the preferences being imposed upon white people in Zimbabwe? Or upon back people in the Jim Crow South? Or upon Jews and Slavs in Nazi Germany?
Or are you prepared to say that all these preferences were legitimate on the basis that the majority approved of them?
Or are you a nihilist?
Not true. The 14th Amendment applies the BOR to the states. If you don't believe me, read the speaches made during the debate Congress had prior to the vote on the said amendment. I've read them. Every single one of the supporters of the amendment in Congress explicitly stated that one of its purposes was to impose the Bill of Rights on the states.
What if the woman is caught attempting to get an abortion? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from getting one?
What if she is a known drug addict or alcoholic? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from poisoning her child?
Why is it, then, that states had been doing this since the begining of the Republic until 1973? Was there an amendment passed in 1973 that I am not aware of?
But you (or really the courts) are the one determing when these 'rights' begin so they have no meaning.
Our rights to life, liberty, & property exist. We've discussed the hopeless dilemma of separating rights in the inseparable early pregnancy of woman/unviable child; - thus your claim that I & the courts 'determine their beginning' is meaningless noise.
Even worse, you believe that the state has a right to determine what a local community deems as rights
Our constitution is our supreme Law of the Land. Believe it.
--which is not mentioned or implied in the Consitution.
You contend our rights are not constitutionally outlined? Daft..
The Bill of Rights is only a list of things the federalis cannot do.
Belied by both the supremacy clause & the 14th. You need to study.
Since you believe the state should be ideally, the Consitution, you believe in a large state since it would take a large state in order to ensure these rights in every nook and cranny.
Are you 'all there' this morning? Your line above is pointless babble..
As a rightwing libertarian, I look at large states as inherently corrupt.
Yep, libertarians want limited government.. What else is new?
Look how many so-called 'libertarians' (see thoughtomator) claim they believe in a right to life but have no problem with the state dropping 'bunker-busters' on civilians.
Bad manners.. Ping him about it, not me.
No more reasonable than sequestering a person caught attempting to hire a hitman.
What if she is a known drug addict or alcoholic? Would it not be reasonable to sequester her in order to prevent her from poisoning her child?
No; we do not currently sequester anyone for what they MIGHT do, so why would we start then?
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Yes, I happen to agree with you. The only problem is that now you're moving away from libertarian political philosophy, because the Western and Christian traditions envision a role for the state that is far greater than merely the nightwatchman role than libertarians envision.
The Christian tradition affirms the power of the state to enforce prohibitions of the moral law of "victimless" crimes. However, the extent to which provisions are to be enforced is dicated by prudence. If it enforcing of such a provisions does more harm than good, it should not be enforced.
Which logically would mean that all "others" are..
and it CERTAINLY does not say that ALL unenumerated rights are retained by the people.
Another bold/weird idea. Why would we limit our own unenumerated rights, without specifically delegating such power to our governments?
The Tenth indicates that since the power to restrict abortion is not "delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,"
The power to violate a womens [or any persons] rights are prohibited by both the supremacy clause & the 14th.
is this power is "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." It does not decide whether any given state or its people have that power, but leaves it up to each state's constitution.
States powers are lmited by the constitution. Live with that fact.
We throw such people in jail for attempted murder.
No; we do not currently sequester anyone for what they MIGHT do, so why would we start then?
Actually, we do. Known durg addicts are often prohibited from engaging in activities that put other people in danger. A drug-addicted mother can have her children taken away by social services.
I have not thought through the possible unintended consequences of a policy of sequestering drug-addicted pregnant women, and then taking away their children after birth, but if such a policy would on net save lives, I would support it.
Which logically would mean that all "others" are..
Rubbish; those rights may have been ceded to states through their constitutions.
Why would we limit our own unenumerated rights, without specifically delegating such power to our governments?
See above.
The power to violate a womens [or any persons] rights are prohibited by both the supremacy clause & the 14th.
Which part? "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed"?
States powers are lmited by the constitution.
Some are. You have yet to demonstrate that the power to restrict or ban abortion is among them.
Oh, okay. So you do not recognize the 14th Amendment. Yes, you are right, without the 14th Amendment, the BOR does not apply to the states. I just wanted to be clear on whether you in fact recognize the amendment.
Out of curiousity, what is your view on the 13th and 15th Amendments?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.