Posted on 08/12/2007 5:48:50 PM PDT by Delacon
Bingo!
I agree that the state has a right to punish social predators-even denying them life if that is just punishment.
However, it is always implied, in the founding principles, that we are discussing innocent human life.
I am convinced that the right to life of innocent human beings must be protected by every decent human being. It is a moral/social duty for regular folk.
Defending human life is the solemn duty of public officials. It is what the founders would call a shared responsibility, not a power “reserved” to the states, which is what some people at FR keep suggesting is the meaning of federalism.
Why is it when social conservatives don't get their way on a national level they quote a secessionist document as if it holds some sort of credence? It doesn't. And the Preamble? Perhaps you'll be able to provide something from the document itself other than the intro. Here chew on this
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45
Now I would assume we can agree that birth (as well as marriage or any other social issue) falls under the 'lives, liberties' of the citizens of a respective state. Where did Mr. Madison, the Father of the Constitution deem these issues lay?
Federalism does not suggest that God-given rights may be passed off to the states.
No Federalism according to the Stanford Encyclopedia
Federalism is the theory or advocacy of federal political orders, where final authority is divided between sub-units and a center. Unlike a unitary state, sovereignty is constitutionally split between at least two territorial levels so that units at each level have final authority and can act independently of the others in some area. Citizens thus have political obligations to two authorities. The allocation of authority between the sub-unit and center may vary, typically the center has powers regarding defense and foreign policy, but sub-units may also have international roles. The sub-units may also participate in central decision-making bodies
Bump and ping
“A Constitutional amendment respecting the right to life for the unborn should be a priority of any moral people.”
I don’t think you are the first on this thread to mention a constitutional amendment but lets address that. If a constitutional amendment was passed that defined life as life of the unborn be it the moment sperm met egg or some other definition, I’d respect it as the law of the land. I would even approve of it because the people had spoken in an overwhelming majority(2/3rds both houses) and personally because I have a restrictive pro-choice position. But I don’t think a constitutional amendment is going to pass anytime soon. This leads me back to the article which I posted. Get a republican president to win in 08, get him to appoint 1 or 2 supreme court justices, get them to overthrow Roe v Wade and send it back to the state legislatures. Allow the people to weigh in at a state level making their own laws. Then at a later time if its possible pass a constitutional amendment or SCOTUS will decide on it based on life issues and not rights to privacy.
In post 14, Billbears was agreeing with you: he left off his sarcasm tag.
“However, it is always implied, in the founding principles, that we are discussing innocent human life.”
Define life. Thats the problem. This has other ramifications. If you don’t leave it to the states then you leave it to the federal government who may, just down the road, define your comatose family member as not being entitled to the rights to life as they are doing all over Europe.
TY and Billy you gotta be much more sarcastic. You sound well..pretty much like a lot of the posters to me. :)
If you think about it, most of the most divisive issues in politics are covered by the 10th amendment. Let the states decide.
Yes, they are doing it in the state of Florida, and Massachusetts, and New York, and...
The federal government and the state government look the other way.
A few other societies have done this too. We don’t like to look back and think we are capable of thier inhumanity, but we are.
I have always been curious about why a state can’t say “We refuse to recognize the medical license of a doctor who performs abortions.”
Don’t states have a say in that? I would think so.
“I’m not opposed to incrementalism as a way to turn back the tide of child-murder”
M203M4, you have my respect for umm not using incrementalism in a negative way. I have never understood how incrementalism got a bad rap amongst conservatives. We cons arent opposed to change, we are opposed to radical change, untested ideas, uniform impositions and govt fiat. The one thing, in terms of change, we should be for is incrementalism. Which leads me back to the article I posted. Federalism allows for slow change either for what you believe or againt it. But it better than immediate change at the drop of a hat like a centralized federal government would do.
You and I were in a discussion regarding this several months ago. I think you might like to comment on this thread.
but the problem is not about incrementalism. it is the belief that federalism and states rights rights is more important than saving lives.
It’s this same mentality that allows ron paul to hide behind the constitution when we are threatened by islamists around the world.
The right to life is God-given, and is therefore unalienable.
Man did not grant the gift of life, and man has no right to take it from the innocent. That includes individuals AND states. The Founders recognized that this was the one of the keystones underlying our form of governance.
Those who are saying, "overturn Roe and return the abortion issue to the states" are making several grievious errors.
A) They are making inalienable rights subject to the whims of particular states, thereby completely negating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are destroying the union - and the explicit reasons for our union.
B) They are removing the only possible moral, intellectual, and legal arguments that make it possible to overturn Roe in the first place. Even the judges who decided Roe admitted that if an unborn child were a "person" that they would therefore have the protections provided in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
C) Even if, lacking the proper arguments against Roe, you were able by pure brute political force to overturn Roe, they are removing the only possible moral, intellectual, and legal arguments for ending abortion in the several states.
D) They are opposing the Reagan GOP pro-life platform that lays out that unborn babies are persons and are therefore deserving of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
E) Even if they got what they say they want, most abortions that occur today would continue to occur. So, in a practical sense, this position can hardly be called pro-life.
Fact is, the Stephen Douglas-like states' rights position vis a vis abortion is a complete copout. The politicians that use it are telling me that they will do little to stop abortion, and that they really don't care that much if the practice actually ends or not.
The securing of Life and Liberty for our posterity, the unborn and even the as-yet unconceived, is at the heart of the Preamble to the Constitution. And the Preamble is the laying-out of the very premise of our Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
“but the problem is not about incrementalism. it is the belief that federalism and states rights rights is more important than saving lives”
No its not. You went from the problem, even what the problem is to the assumption that federalism and states rights will place itself over what the problem is. Did you mean to say that federalism and states rights wont work to end abortion of any kind? Honestly if you are for a countrywide ban on abortion under any circumstance then federalism isnt the way you should go. You should continue to stive in the only way that anyone does to seek radical change, uniform impositions, centralized governmental fiat. In short, like a liberal.
The Constitution was written with the Declaration of Independence in mind. The Declaration of Independence says:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The government has indeed become destructive of the right to life among the unborn. It is our right "to alter or to abolish it". Sadly, there are too many choicers to do so right now.
The Constitution starts out saying,
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The 5th Amendment says,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 14th Amendment says,
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
Justice Blackmun also said that if the personhood if the unborn was recognized, the right to life of the unborn would override the right to privacy of the woman.
With all this in mind, it seems clear to me based on science that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception. From that point forward is only growth and development until natural death. It is not right to allow an innocent person to be killed in one state while not another anymore than it is right to enslave one in one state while not another due to an arbitrary reason such as skin color. The federal government on down has a duty to protect the life, liberty, and happiness of each person. Government can generally only deny those rights if a person has broken the laws.
Turning abortion back to the states may be our best chance for now, but our work is not done until this entire country recognizes the right to life of the unborn person as specified in the Declaration, Preamble, 5th Amendment, and 14th Amendment. This can be done through Duncan Hunter's Personhood at Conception Act. All it requires is to pass through Congress, and get a President's signature. It would automatically recognize personhood as beginning at conception. An unborn child from conception would then be protected under the 5th and 14th Amendments. Roe vs. Wade would be moot. It can also be done through an Amendment. I'll take whatever possible to end this travesty in our nation.
You are welcome. Great points!
Awesome post.
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.