Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
There is a specific event that is an absolute prerequisite to being a "person" under common law.
If you think for a little bit, maybe you can use that knowledge you claim to have gotten from reading Copi and deduce what the event in question is.
Politicians regularly say many many things to many different people to get elected.
This is called politics.
If I were involved in the anti-abortion movement I would not hold my breath.
It's the professional malcontent wing of the pro-life movement talking. They're upset that Bush hasn't signed an executive order that requires all abortionists and women who've had abortions to be stoned to death in 24 hours.
That's strictly YOUR opinion of what equal protection means.
You either believe in Federal courts overturning State's powers or not.
If believe that the Federal Court can tell a State School that it can't set quotas for admissions, then you also believe in a Federal Court telling a State that it can't make abortions illegals.
Can't stand on both sides of the fence.
Wrong.
You can't make a tourist a slave.
Additionally, on the jurisdiction side, tourists are not free to commit criminal acts.
Exactly.
You are confusing more judge made law with the laws of the US and several States and the Constitution.
Again, see the Alien Act and Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798 under the Constitution. Also try out the Alien Registration Act of 1940. Resident Aliens may be rounded up by the government and interned or deported at any time under this act. They don't have the rights of citizens. That is in fact the whole point of gaining citizenship.
The Alien Enemies Act is still in force. See 50 USC 3
Read the 14th Amendment. The Equal Protection Clause specifically says it applies to "persons," not citizens.
It says: "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
And who is within its jurisdiction? "All persons born or naturalized in the United States".
Who died and made you Pope and Chief Justice?
that doesn't answer the question. What's the answer to the question?
Why do you assume that the people through their legislature are more apt to write insufferable and unconstitutional laws than activist judges who have nothing better to do than overturn the laws passed by the people's representatives?
i don't. That has nothing to do with what i wrote.
And how would you know you have the right bead on what is and is not constitutional?
i read it. How would YOU know i don't?
You seem to be confusing a refusal to criminalize a moral wrong (abortion) with a positive action to destrain a person from acting or enjoying a thing (penal/capital punishment and seizures).
Straw man. The 5th and 14th amendments are POSITIVE rights. Those judges who would rule to deprive those rights from innocent citizens are wrong. simply enough to me.
Under the consitution, the state can refuse to punish an immoral act, such as prostitution.
Under the constitution NO state can deprive an innocent person of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law.
The problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it forcibly decriminalized a morally abhorent action in all cases that the people had outlawed.
i agree.
Allowing self-defense is not really different in consequence or law than allowing abortion. The effect is the termination of a human life withot a trial or action of the law by an extra-governmental agent.
False analogy. The intruder is not innocent. The unborn baby is.
Be careful of having your argument "prove too much". You are actually making the case (whether you realize it or not) that the 5th and 14th amendments are null and void.
what makes the difference is that most people view self-defense as a normal legal right, while most people view abortion as a sin.
Abortion is derpiving an innocent person of life without the due process of law, with no exceptions as understood by the common law and the framers (self defense, etc. And, no, the framers did not write said amendments without the original understanding of exceptions).
Lets not confuse the powers of the state with the needs of the law.
That's exactly what i would say to you. The state is expressely forbidden to deprive the unborn of life. Therefore Gonzalez was wrong.
Um, yes you can.
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety." (50 USC 3.21
You're just another person who mistakenly believes that the Constitution grants rights.
The Constitution grants no rights, it restricts the government from violating the God-given rights enjoyed by all human beings.
Governments can either violate rights, or protect them.
Don't you remember the case from Louisiana some years back where some bumbling drunk went up to the wrong house in the middle of the night and had his head blown off for knocking on the door?
Is knocking on a door drunk justification for execution?
Point to where it says that we can make slaves out of tourists.
Neither Texas nor any other state is in the abortion business. The person doing the depriving was the "mother". The Constitution is not concerned with outlawing murder, other than by the government.
No, not at all. The Constitution grants citizens various immunities and privileges not enjoyed by those who are not citizens.
Example, foreigners do not have rights of free speech to participate in the American political process through monetary donations. That right is conferred upon attainment of citizenship.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
I believe that this is a better position for Gonzales than a judgeship! Really, there are not a lot of abortion cases that are prosecuted by the Federal Government...so, I don't think you need to worry. We need to worry about his policy on immigration and crime. He helped write the Patriot act, which IMO is very needed right now.
"natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government .... who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies ..."
That would include tourists.
On the Texas Supreme Court, Gonzales ran afoul of anti-abortion activists in a case involving parental notification for minors seeking abortions. He agreed with the court majority that a 17-year-old girl qualified for an exemption from the requirement.
In his opinion, Gonzales wrote that the decision was "personally troubling to me as a parent," but that he had "an obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view." -- Source
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.