Posted on 11/19/2007 5:32:58 AM PST by the tongue
There is no states rights clause in the constitution. In recent years, the phrase was popularized by rascist Democratic Senators and Congressmen who were opposing the civil rights movement in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. In the aftermath of Nixon’s southern strategy we seem to have adopted some of their legal arguments. However, this does not change the fact that “states rights” is actually a very innacurate reading of the Constitution which misconstrues the 10th Amendment and attempts to right the 14th Amendment out of the Constitution.
First you have to define killing the unborn as murder. Then it would already be illegal.
Got the difference ?
More disinformation. Blacks were only defined as 3/5th to apportion representation in Congress after the Revolutionary War and enumeration of taxes. It had NOTHING to do with their status or not as citizens.
You should study a bit more history of the real kind, not the revisionist kind.
If this was meant to include the life of the unborn, it would have also had to mean the liberty and property of the unborn... which would be a nonsensical meaning.
I beleive that the 5th would cover that. As someone mentioned earlier, the only way the pro aborts get away with their argument is to deny that the unborn are not persons and push the "when does life begin" argument.
We need an amendment ASAP. However, in the mean time, at least allow some states to protect their unborn. The point is that the Super Senate Supremes should not decide.
On many many other issues, you absolutely can have up to 50 different versions of what is right and wrong. Otherwise, why have states? Come on Huckabee!!! Surely you are deeper than that.
Nothing in the language of the 14th Amendment can be construed to exclude the unborn.
You cannot argue that the law does not apply as written because the historical circumstances which originally inspired it no longer have the same urgency.
Agree, Rob. A state to state fight would be a much more practical and effective pro-life strategy. No way would a Constitutional amendment pass. In stating my opinion, I think of the state by state successes of concealed carry laws.
The Supreme Court has already held that the 10th Amendment merely states a Truism. It doesn’t protect “states rights” it merely reinforces the idea that the federal government is one of limited poweres by explicitly saying that any powers not granted to the federal govenment are reserved to the states or to the people.
In other words, the 10th Amendment says nothing about whether the federal government might have the power to ban abortion under the powers already granted to it by the 14th Amendment and the necessary and proper clause. It also says, nothing about whether the we should adopt a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.
To say that we should leave this matter up to the states is basically to concede that we do not believe that an unborn child is not a person. How can we possibly say that a state has the right to legalize the killing of a class of people. If Neo-Nazis were elected in New York and legalized the killing of Jews such that hundreds of thousands of Jews were being killed in New York each year (just like hundreds of thousands of unborn children are killed in NY each year) would you still argue that the federal government should not get involved to ensure that no person is deprived of life without due process of law?
I never realized how many good conservatives think that inalienable rights can be infringed as long as a state gubberment OK’s the practice. I wonder if there are any limits to what would be acceptable, as long as as state gubberment decides. Legal murder of children under ten? The sport hunting of the red headed? Mandatory organ removal and donation for the left handed? Taxation without representation?
Freegards
(1) By this reasoning, one could argue that the comatose and the severely retarded are not persons, either - since they have no more practical liberty than the unborn.
(2) The unborn certainly have property rights. Some of the unborn have extremely substantial property, in fact.
My own will certainly includes sizeable bequests to at least one of my own, as yet unborn, children. And my born children already had partially-funded trusts in their names prior to their birth.
The 10th Amendment doesn’t grant rights to the states. All it does is say that power which is not granted to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. So, if you can find a power which allows the federal government to regulate - such as the 14th Amendment - then the 10th Amendment will not stand in the way of regulation. Also, the 10th Amendment cannot by definition be violated by a Constitutional Amendment.
Great point. Also, no-one argues that infants are not persons and yet they have no real liberty or property.
ok, if we assume Thompson is telling the truth and that he is really strongly pro-life but believes its a states rights issue as Thompson is claiming, is there any evidence of Thompson showing pro-life leadership in his own home state???
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.