Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur.
He who is in the womb, is considered as born, whenever it is for his benefit.
Maxims are enforcable, and this one was not limited to wills and estates. 
Posted on 03/17/2006 1:00:57 PM PST by Gelato
Personal physical threats are also a no-no on FR, in case you haven't noticed.
No, I don't value the present condition of stare decisis. I do want it returned to its condition prior to the FDR court's massive expansion of the interstate commerce clause. In other words, I want it corrected.
Yet you claim to be 'pro-life'.
That's funny--I've had several made to me, hit abuse, and the posters have remained in good standing.
And there's also the matter of personal attacks. (Polite cough in direction of EternalVigilance.)
Must be one set of rules for us peons, and another set for the bubbas.
You're so funny.
Back to the subject of the thread:
Is it obvious from the preamble that the Founders intended for the blessings of liberty spelled out in the Constitution would apply to their posterity?
You said: Bottom line: both penumbras and preambles are unenforceable. Keyes should stick to what he actually knows about.
***
You are correct, at least technically. However, preamble are relevant to the meaning and intention of the provisions that follow, not unlike legislative history. The preamble is not law, but it DOES suggest how the following language ought to be interpreted. I don't know if the analysis goes as far as Keyes suggests, it is certainly NOT appropriate to ignore the introductory language or any statute, and certainly not the constitution.
You said, in part: 12 of the 13 original states did not outlaw abortion...
***
Not to outlaw something is not the same as to endorse it. Was abortion a common practice at the time? Was it recognized as a valid form of birth control? I am not suggesting I know the answer, I am just asking the question.
You said, in part: 12 of the 13 original states did not outlaw abortion...
***
Not to outlaw something is not the same as to endorse it. Was abortion a common practice at the time? Was it recognized as a valid form of birth control? I am not suggesting I know the answer, I am just asking the question.
Yes, it is.
The problem is the preamble is not enforceable in and of itself, as one can use just about any clause of same to support one's favorite social welfare or pork barrel expenditure. The notion that the preamble was some sort of enforceable clause got thrown out with the Carolingian "ship duty" cases of the 1670s for precisely this reason. Actual enforceable law goes in the body of the law or constitution.
Roe v. Wade is downright awful constitutional law. Its jurisprudential DNA is that of the Dred Scott decision--which required a Civil War to undo. It used an amazingly novel expansion of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause (even by the ghastly standards of the Warren Court) to overturn abortion laws across the fruited plain. Leaving aside the issue of abortion (which I favor prohibiting in all instances but where the mother is in imminent danger of life and limb), it's the sort of ruling that just opens the door for all manner of further abuse.
Bottom line: to outlaw abortion at the federal level will require either (a) passing a state law (such as South Dakota's), overturning Roe at the Supreme Court, and a federal law (the less desirable course, but an acceptable stop-gap measure); or (b) amending the Constitution (a lot harder to do, but a lot harder to undo, which is why I favor it). And, IMNHO, the trends augur well for the latter course over the long term. (The pro-aborts, after all, have self-selected themselves out of the gene pool.)
No and no, but it wasn't generally illegal unless performed without the women's consent, or the consent of her husband if she were married.
Okay.
I apologize for what I said.
We still obviously have some disagreements over this, but you've made some points that are intellectualy honest and certainy defensible.
I shouldn't have accused you of supporting abortion.
Because society can not demand that one person sacrifice himself or herself by being passive when his or her life is threatened.
If the woman desires to sacrifice herself for her child, then that is a completely different matter. But, she should be counseled on the child's chances and no one should fault her for acting to preserver her life.
Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur.
He who is in the womb, is considered as born, whenever it is for his benefit.
Maxims are enforcable, and this one was not limited to wills and estates.
Went and read the entire transcript.
Some real interesting comments by Dr. Keyes vis a vis fundamental tax reform as well!
http://www.keyesarchives.com/media/interviews/06_03_16jerryjohnson.htm
bttt
As an aside, it has always amazed me that conservatives who complain about the courts legislating from the bench and making bad law in the process, denigrate the Dred Scott case (Dred Scott v Sandford 60 US 393) as bad law. It was even argued twice, 1855 an 1856.
Actually, I have read it, from the first word to the last and all the 500 word sentences in between. It contains no novel interpretation of US and state law at the time. It used accepted law and custom prevailing at the time, framers' intent, and all the judicial management that original intent folks (of which I'm one) want the court to use today.
The judicial process in Dred Scott was nothing like the process used in the Roe Case.
If the woman desires to sacrifice herself for her child, then that is a completely different matter. But, she should be counseled on the child's chances and no one should fault her for acting to preserver her life.
Just wanted to see if people see the baby as a person like I do, thats all. Just asking the question, and you're correct the mother should not be frowned upon or anything if she chooses to save her life.
Apology accepted.
Thanks.
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.