Well let's see. I have his response to Congress in 1817 on the issue and you have what? Thought so.
Ridiculous. Why can't you even understand the simple words "Bill of RIGHTS"? While the Bill of RIGHTS most certainly limits the power of the national government, its primary purpose is obvious on its face: To protect the inalienable rights of the people.
What do you not understand about Barron (1833). What do you not understand that SCOTUS denied such incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states until 1898 (5th), 1925 (1st), and the 1930s for the rest? Why if this limitation existed no one was able to find it until we had the Progressives foisted upon us?
First, I have proved that the unborn are in the Constitution. Like nearly our entire legal and political class today, you're simply ignoring it, and pretending that the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments somehow aren't part of the Constitition.
LOL, I'm the only one providing data from the Framers here. I don't care how you 'feel'. It has nothing to do with feelings. What it has to do with is the intent of the Framers. Listen again real close okay? SCOTUS did not recognize the Fifth Amendment applied to the separate and sovereign states until 1898, 30 years after the passage of the 14th. SCOTUS did not recognize the First applied to the states until 1925, a full 60 years after the passage of the 14th. Why if these Amendments applied to the states was the issue not confirmed before this time? What? It took a full 60 years for a First Amendment case to come before the Court?
Brutus, no. 12 7 Feb. 1788Storing 2.9.150--51
Hold on I had to pick myself up. You quoted from someone of the time.
Even Brutus recognizes my point: That the Preamble was designed to declare the overall purpose of the entire document
Of course he recognizes your point!! He was arguing this was a danger!!! I pointed that out. I also pointed out the Federalists did their best to alleviate the concerns of Brutus by saying the Preamble wouldn't do just that. And Mr. Madison confirmed that in 1817 by stating the Preamble did not have the power Mr. Calhoun wanted it to have
By the way, "Brutus" eventually accepted the Constitution, with its Preamble, just as Hamilton accepted the Bill of Rights. Too bad you seem to be unwilling to do the same.
Brutus accepted it because he had his concerns answered it would not do just what you want it to. Hamilton accepted the BOR because he realized early on it would be a fight of incrementalism to get what he truly desired. A strong national government with little to no use for the states.
I’ve never seen anyone who makes arguments against arguments I never made like you do. You’re the king of the red herring.
The fact is, we do have a Preamble, one that is not meaningless.
We do have a Bill of Rights, one that is applicable to the States, and that protects the rights of persons in the womb: or would protect them if judges, presidents and congresscritters could read simple English, understand it, and have the courage to enforce it, as their sworn oath requires.
God, Government and the Preservation of Life
by David Barton
Protecting innocent life is a key and recurring theme in the Bible. Life is God-given; He formed us, made us, and breathed life into us. Therefore, He gave clear commands both on preserving innocent life and on punishing those who take it (See, for example, Exodus 23:7, Deuteronomy 27:25 &21:8-9 & 19:10, Proverbs 6:16-17, 2 Kings 24:4, Psalm 10:2,8, et al.) Since God is the author of life, and since He alone holds the keys of death (see 1 Samuel 2:6), He – not man – is to determine when life is to end.
The first occasion is for the cause of civil justice (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11-13, Numbers 35:16-27, 2 Samuel 4:11, etc.). The shedding of blood in such cases is not the shedding of innocent blood. The second justifiable cause is general military conflict (e.g., Numbers 32:27, 2 Chronicles 32:8, 1 Samuel 4:1). The third cause is in defense of one’s life, family, or property (e.g., Nehemiah 4:13-14 & 20-21, Zechariah 9:8, 2 Samuel 10:12). In these three situations, the taking of life is not viewed by God as the shedding of innocent blood.
Similarly, Jewish scholars point out that the prohibition in the Sixth Commandment is not against killing but rather is against murder. That is, they assert that the proper translation from the Hebrew is not “Thou shalt not kill,” but rather “Thou shalt not murder.” Murder is the taking of innocent life, while killing may not be (e.g., the three Biblically justified examples given above).
This preservation of innocent life was viewed by our Founding Fathers as one of the chief purposes of civil government. As Thomas Jefferson explained, “the care of human life. . .is the fist and only legitimate object of good government.” And the Declaration of Independence similarly declared: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men . . .are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life. . . .[And] that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
Consequently, the Founders established numerous laws to protect innocent life – laws prohibiting murder, suicide (which the Founders termed “self-murder”), assisted suicide, abortion, and infanticide. Yet, in protecting life, the Founders understood that respect for innocent life would dwindle if the influence of religion were reduced in the nation. As President George Washington warned: “Where is the security . . . for life if the sense of religious obligation desert?”
It is not surprising, then, that with the concerted efforts over the past three decades to diminish the effects of religion in the nation, there has been a corresponding decrease in respect for and protection of innocent life. For example, in the abortion arena, since even those on the pro-abortion side concede that a partial-birth abortion takes the life of a baby capable of living on its own outside its mother’s womb, then even pro-abortion forces cannot deny that a partial-birth abortion is the shedding of innocent blood. Pro-lifers, however, have long argued that all abortions shed innocent blood.
Some researchers now argue that abortions are good for society. For example, researchers from Stanford University and the University of Chicago recently released the results of a study concluding that “Falling crime rates in the 1990s may be a direct positive result of Roe v. Wade. The study suggests that since a disproportionate number of poor, minority, and teenage mothers – whose homes produce statistically more young adult criminals – aborted their children right after the Supreme Court gave the nod in 1973, large numbers of would-be criminals were killed before they could rape, murder, or steal” (World magazine).
While such ludicrous logic is used to excuse the shedding of innocent blood inside the womb, it seems that there is now a move to justify the shedding of innocent blood outside the womb.
An advocate of this position is Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton. In the mid 1970s, Singer founded the radical group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) on the presumption that the life of a person is not necessarily more valuable that the life of an animal; he also has run for office as a candidate for the Green Party. However, it was not these beliefs or activities which have resulted in the latest outcries against him.
He was recently made a tenured professor of bioethics at Princeton’s Center for Human Values. This appointment enraged many because of his views on human life, documented in his book Practical Ethics, include the view that parents should be allowed to kill a severely disabled infant in order to increase the family’s happiness. Singer argues that children less than a month old have no human consciousness; therefore, it is acceptable to kill them. He asserts, ”Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all.”
So, first was the argument that a baby inside the womb was not a person; now we find that a baby outside the womb also is not a person! And this guy is a professor of bioethics at the Center for Human Values? What kind of “ethics” is this? And what “human values” is he teaching?
Perhaps the most sobering aspect of Singer and his views is the influence that he can have on his students. As Jesus wisely observed in Luke 6:40, every student, when he is fully instructed, will be like his teacher.
The conclusions reached by academicians at Princeton, Stanford, the University of Chicago, and at other schools confirm what Dr. Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration. Long ago correctly observed, “Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.”
Interestingly, a warning by John Quincy Adams also accurately describes where America now finds itself:
Three points of doctrine . . . form the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of a God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve [any] of these articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=164