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?
That is the crux of the whole situation. It isn't a matter of making a law to say what forms of killing can and cannot be sanctioned it is about the legally accepted definition of life. Your argument doesn't advance the debate at all.
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.
Well, I don't believe that and I don't think "they" do either.
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.
No argument. It is not a question of what unalienable rights are, in my view, and putting legal authority to make law back in state's hands doesn't do that IMO. Overturning RvW only removes the fed gov's heavy unlegislated hand off of the states. Then states can make their law and have it stand or fall by virtue of legitimate Constitutional challenges where that argument over a proper definition of life and "persons" is supposed to take place. That is taking us back to what it is supposed to be. Given the advances in bio-medical science in the last forty years it would be much harder to make a rational case that a unique human life is not created at the moment of conception. It probably would have been ridiculous even forty years ago had things proceeded through the courts in the proper manner.
You are making it sound like things turn on the definition of unalienable rights. I don't think any court has even entertained a case made on that basis. What they have done is question the definition of human life. They haven't changed the meaning of unalienable rights they simply set the subject, the unborn, outside of its scope. Euthanasia turns on other legal issues.
It is no business of man to define what Life is. It is beyond man's jurisdiction.
Men wrote the Constitution, men wrote the statutes there under, men write all secular laws. Who else is going to decide the legal definitions of our secular canon of law. Do you want to put a piece of blank paper on Mt. Sinai and wait for something to appear on it? Even if something does there is no provision in the Constitution for using that or any other divinely acquired document to use as our secular law. That is the game we have now, the reality we live by, as long as we look to the Constitution as our supreme law of the land.
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?
As was posted by someone else on this thread it will be a long time until we get a Congress that will do that. It doesn't matter what I want. Reality as it is is what we have. My liberty is already defined in the "halls of men." That would be true even if every law and every court had followed the Constitution to the letter.