I disagree. Laws describing penalties for preforming abortions are certainly Constitutional. Laws legalizing abortions are *not*, as they fall afoul of the very premise for which our government was established.
Likewise, states may write laws describing capital punishment for crimes- These are Constitutional, and are the state's by right, providing there is due process. A state cannot give itself the power to kill it's citizens without cause- That is prevented by the Constitution. It is the same thing.
Life is one of the enumerated unalienable rights which stand above the power of all governments. Our government was formed to protect those rights above all other things. You are correct that the government can take life under specific conditions, and ONLY under specific conditions.
That is the point. There is no right given to any level of government which does not specifically require due process of law (with the exception of war). As an American, your government is prevented from killing you without due process. Equally importantly, no person may take your life without just cause. That boils down to your unalienable right to exist, which no one has the right to preempt (without due process / just cause) except for your Creator.
Since abortion could not possibly fit those conditions under a fair reading of the Constitution this paranoia about states being able to legalize abortion without redress or remedy is just the handwringing of sheep and would-be statists.
I resent that misrepresentation. I am not a statist. I am a federalist. I am not advocating a slew of federal laws, nor am I advocating federal enforcement squads. Murder penalties are dealt with severally at the state level, as are most crimes, as would criminal prosecution of abortion.
What I insist upon, and as you, yourself, said, is a "proper reading of the Constitution", but in the light of the Declaration of Independence, and within the scope of the greater Judeo-Christian ethic, as it was meant to be, and as it was established.
What I propose does not take the prosecution away from the states, but only defines the parameters federally, as is proper. Namely, It would be illegal everywhere in these United States to perform abortions on the grounds that it is above the powers of the state, and above the powers of the federal government, to allow the purposeful taking of human life *at all* without due process or just cause.
What is so very important in this issue is this: If government is given power over these unalienable rights, that means that government will invariably decide it has the power to determine who to delegate those right to, and who to take them from. That is what governments do. As long as God is the Arbiter of unalienable rights, it is beyond the scope of government to do anything but protect those rights, and leaves government without the power to exercise power over them.
That is the very basis and root of our freedom FRiend. I give nothing to the federal government, or the state. I take it away from them all, and put it in the Hands of God, where it rightfully belongs, as the wisdom of our fathers so perfectly handed it down to us.
I didn't say they were not.
Laws legalizing abortions are *not*, as they fall afoul of the very premise for which our government was established.
True enough. I didn't say anything to the contrary.
Likewise, states may write laws describing capital punishment for crimes- These are Constitutional, and are the state's by right, providing there is due process. A state cannot give itself the power to kill it's citizens without cause- That is prevented by the Constitution. It is the same thing.
I made that point myself.
Murder penalties are dealt with severally at the state level, as are most crimes, as would criminal prosecution of abortion.
That is exactly what I am advocating.
What I insist upon, and as you, yourself, said, is a "proper reading of the Constitution", but in the light of the Declaration of Independence, and within the scope of the greater Judeo-Christian ethic, as it was meant to be, and as it was established.
No disagreement there. There is no other "light" by which to properly read the Constitution. But you can insist until you are blue in the face. Things will still have to work through the Constitutional process of government in the hands of imperfect men unless you by-pass it or eliminate it.
What I propose does not take the prosecution away from the states, but only defines the parameters federally, as is proper. Namely, It would be illegal everywhere in these United States to perform abortions on the grounds that it is above the powers of the state, and above the powers of the federal government, to allow the purposeful taking of human life *at all* without due process or just cause.
How is that proper? The federal government doesn't "define the parameters" of any other murder statute. It is up to the state to write those laws and, like all laws, are subject to challenge in the court system. You apparently want to bypass that basic structure of our republic. That is not federalist it is centralist. Or, as I accurately described it before, statist.
What is so very important in this issue is this: If government is given power over these unalienable rights, that means that government will invariably decide it has the power to determine who to delegate those right to, and who to take them from.
That is a non-sequitur. No one, least of all me, has suggested the government has "power over unalienable rights." It does have authority to make, enforce and adjudicate law and the founders created a very specific structure by which it is supposed to operate to do that.
It is understandable that you don't trust that system since it appears to have failed so often and so badly. But IMO it is not the system that has failed but the use of it by the people and our representatives that is at fault. Over the course of our history the system has been mis-used and ignored. The system can't be blamed for that.
You, like others, are arguing the false premise that we, who want the matter back in states' purview, believe it is Constitutional for states to make abortion legal. That isn't true. First of all making something a law does not make it Constitutional it just makes it a statute vulnerable to all the challenges that any statute is. Secondly we rightly see that more challenges could be made if all fifty states had their own set of statutes. We also see that the problem isn't really about what laws are made. It isn't even about how those laws are interpreted by the courts.
All legislation is potentially bad and subject to potentially bad court decisions. When the federal government makes a bad law it is bad law for all fifty states and the opportunity to challenge it is narrowed down by a huge factor. The same is true when federal courts are the only venue for challenge. The decision affects all fifty states and the scope of possible appeals is greatly diminished.
The problem is that life in the womb isn't considered to be an individual human life by current legal definition. Until that changes any law outlawing abortion, federal or state, would be subject to rejection. The only way that will change is by having many fervent arguments in the courts of law. Arguing "unalienble right to life" is pointless since the courts will never disagree with that premise. They will simply disagree about what is life. Checkmate. Put it on the federal level and it's super-checkmate.