Posted on 01/24/2009 8:44:42 PM PST by rabscuttle385
The 14th amendment took the definition of citizenship out of the hands of the states, and the language of the amendment makes personhood an unavoidable federal issue, since the amendment requires equal protection of all persons.
The federalism/states’ rights approach to abortion is inoperative.
Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?
The states CAN address the issue, if we had politicians with any leadership, guts and intelligence.
Hard as it may be to conceive, Ron Paul is wrong here; the 14th Amendment requires the Federal government to define personhood. In Roe v. Wade it did so, wrongly; if that definition were indeed rectified it would indeed require the Federal government, under the equal protection clause, to strike down abortion everywhere.
There is, barring another constitutional amendment, no longer any possibility of a house divided on this issue.
Well, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me the 14th amendment defined federal citizens, but never removed the definition of state citizen.
14th Amendment. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How would the federal government circumvent a state giving the rights of citizenship to the unborn?
Because the federal government has already declared the unborn nonpersons—state law cannot overturn federal law.
If passed, it would define life as beginning at conception.
If that happened, the Preamble, 5th, and the 14th amendments would apply to protecting the lives of the unborn,
an admission made by the court in their Roe v. Wade ruling when Justice Blackmun wrote;
If this suggestion of person-hood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
Last year Hunter's bill had over 125 co-sponsors.
The republicans had the majority in the house from 1994-2006. Were these bills ever passed or even voted on?
With ultra sounds/sonograms there is no longer any question or confusion about the person-hood or humanism of an unborn child.
Recently someone I know had an ultra sound at 7 weeks pregnant. She commented how the new baby looks exactly like her little boy.
Another question for those that believe this issue should be relegated to the states:
Is the definition of murder left up to the states to define or is it federally set?
And this is precisely why the 14th Amendment was passed—to prevent the states from determining, for instance, that freed slaves were not legal persons.
Can you name the bill(s) that Dr Ron Paul started to curtail abortion?
He has been in Congress since the Ford days, there must be dozens.
Yeah, brilliant. 535 members of Congress are all going to stand up and say “Hey, make me the target!”
This idea is dumber than something Gov. Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, of California would cook up.
Any tactic that does not disable the "human shield" defense of abortion used by American woman is doomed to ignominious failure.
Extending "choice" to men is the only realistic approach to curtailing the female monopoly on "reproductive rights."
A 3 day old baby isn't capable of taking care of itself...it is not viable without outside help...so I guess murdering living babies would be fine by her as well. And suppose the woman had a 25 year old daughter who was in a car crash and was seriously injured and wouldn't live without medical assistance...guess she believes her daughter ceases to be a human for a time and she may be allowed the choice rather to kill her daughter or not. Viability is not a rational, moral argument.
With the blood of 50,000,000 babies on their hands, liberals owe the nazis an apology.
Murder falls under state criminal jurisdiction.
Im what decision did the federal government make such a declaration? Seems to me they have tip-toed around the issue.
“Pro-choice” for individuals or “pro-choice” for states, either way, the babies are dead, and so is the heart of our founding documents.
The 14th Amendment was passed because the federal government desired the ability to define 'personhood', something that it was never given by the Framers.
But a contract of this nature actually existed in a visible form, between the citizens of each state, respectively, in their several constitutions; it might therefore he deemed somewhat extraordinary, that in the establishment of a federal republic, it should have been thought necessary to extend it's operation to the persons of individuals, as well as to the states, composing the confederacy.
It was apprehended by many, that this innovation would be construed to change the nature of the union, from a confederacy, to a consolidation of the states; that as the tenor of the instrument imported it to be the act of the people, the construction might be made accordingly: an interpretation that would tend to the annihilation of the states, and their authority. That this was the more to be apprehended, since all questions between the states, and the United States, would undergo the final decision of the latter.
Volume 1 - Appendix, Note D, Section 1
St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States
The 14th Amendment is pure, legalistic slight-of-hand in an effort to give the appearance of federal control over the States.
In fact, you can see the hubris yourself in the quote by one of the 14th's co-sponsors:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, 1866
How about that! Congress decided it could re-write the Laws of Nature.
-----
For those with a penchant for truth, the 'limits of the United States' can be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.
Here is an excellent article on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
IMHO, the general government has illegitimately ASSUMED a power that it was never intended to have, and our Republic has suffered greatly for it.
or they would have been on welfare
You know mathematically that there is only one logical point at which life begins, and that is conception. It is a fact that abortion kills a human life.What this would imply that life ends at the death of the last cell.
If this suggestion of person-hood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.Even if it were the case, it would not prohibit abortion.
In a democratic system it is not possible to reverse a judicial decision you disagree with unless you have overwhelming public support.
It is highly debatable whether there is at present even a bare majority for repeal of Roe. Certainly politicians, media, academics and other elites are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping Roe in force. Probably a 2/3 majority in the general population would be required just to make it an even fight.
The only way a dramatically unpopular initiative can be passed is to have the Court find such a “right” hidden in the Constitution. So far, only liberals have been able to use this tactic.
Talking about possible methods for overriding Roe in these circumstances is like talking about how if your aunt had b*lls she’d be your uncle. The statement may be technically accurate, but it is comprehensively irrelevant.
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.