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.
Speak for yourself. I run into "states rights trumps unalienable rights" types every day. And that is exactly the position McCain holds. Ron Paul too.
You may fool some, but you won't fool me.
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.
Not at all, sir. You may not be summarily killed in any state in the Union. Your protection against such treatment flows directly from the Constitution itself. I argue that such treatment is (not "should be") naturally extended to the unborn as well.
It would still be left to the state to write such laws and statutes as they might, the only difference would be that murder of the unborn, or murder of the retarded, or murder of the elderly, or any other "justifiable" killing that the state might try to sanction would be rightly prohibited, in the very same fashion that your own right to life is protected, and would have to pass muster before a (limited) US Supreme Court, interpreting such laws and statutes in the light of the Constitution as is proper.
As is always the case with Conservatism, I do not seek to change the Constitution, I seek to change it back.
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.
Agreed, and that authority, by it's nature is limiting in nature, it proscribes particular borders, and that should always be the proper assumption, as I understand it. It's authority is granted in order to protect those rights which it has no power over.
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.
It is not that I do not trust the system. I do not believe that unalienable rights fall under the purview of the states as the Federalists do, and I never will. Nor do I believe them to fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal government, as the statists do, but that they are to remain sacrosanct, above all jurisdictions of men.
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.
You have correctly identified the problem, but again, I will reiterate: It is no business of man to define what Life is. It is beyond man's jurisdiction. Until the United States Congress passes some sense of that truth to strike down the rebellious justices of the Supreme Court, there will be no justice in this land, and other unalienable rights will become "definable" as well- Do you want someone telling you what "Liberty" is? Do you care to have it's limitations defined in the halls of men?