Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.
"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
I already have in several places. He is biased and allows those biases to interfer with his legal reasoning and those biases especially in favor of affirmative action I strongly oppose.
You're not listening, as a matter of fact, you don't WANT to listen.
The exact opposite is true, is is NOT allowing his biases to interfere with his legal reasoning...lawyers in this forum are in agreement.
You WANT biases interfering with legal reasoning, and the fact that he will not let that happen pisses you off.
Here's the litmus test...on what LEGAL grounds should he have denied Jane Doe a Judicial Bypass?
Seventeen is the legal age of consent in Texas, kind of difficult to make the argument that being legally mature to consent to have intercourse does not translate into legally mature.
Your entire argument is based on how you "feel" about issues...that's so liberal.
Regarding 17 and leaving the court to intrepret guidelines I'll post what I did earlier as you did not catch it then and then I leave you with this subject as it is you who does not want to see:
"If they meant legal age they would have said so. Heck, if they were of legal age then this would not be an issue. We are talking about minors. "Mature" is NOT defined. BUT playing by your rules, since one is not mature unless 17, then no one under the age of 17 in Texas should be granted an abortion without the notification of their parents. Then you are arguing that Gonzales interpreted the law incorrectly?"
"If they meant legal age they would have said so."
They didn't because Texas law already established maturity (don't confuse maturity with adulthood) but Texas law defines mature by the standard already set by law, that standard is the age of consent. You confuse legal age, with legal age of consent, indeed, by your argument, there is a magical moment between an individual who is 17 years and 364 days old is not mature, and sometime during the night becomes mature.
Once again, your "version" of the law would nullify the law by naking it impossible for anyone under the age of 18 to obtain an abortion without parental notification.
You want the judges to change laws!
That's judiciual activism, and liberal thinking.
Here's a clue...Judicial activism is wrong, EVEN when it favors YOUR point of view, we need judges who will hand down ruling drafted in accordance to the strict, self-evident letter of the law, ASIDES from that, we need legislators who will draft clear and concise laws.
Your problem is the same problem all zealots have...you refuse to see the world as it is, and want it to be the way that you wish it would be, and you would rather blame a strict constructionist judge for not handing down an activist judgement, than recognize that the law is at fault, and work to change it.
Alberto Gonzales is exactly the kind of Judge we would need in a Cort of law, but he's not the ONLY thing we would need...we need laws better crafted by legislators.
Jane Doe was 17.
You don't know the facts of the case, but you've been arguing that the ruling was wrong for three days now.
i've been honest. if you think otherwise, please provide specific examples.
Murder of person A by person B is not a civil rights violation, unless person B is acting under color of authority.
you are arguing that people are not constitutionally forbidden to kill other innocent people unless the killers are under "color of authority"?
that's a bizarre argument, and even if it were true, then judges ("under color of authority") could not rule in favor abortion.
The 14th Amendment forbids the government from murdering you.
the 5th and 14th amendments enumerate my right to life--a right that cannot be abridged by, say, leftist judges who would support a democrat's "right to choose" to kill "republicans". no one "under color of authority" can legitimate (by judicial fiat, legislation, etc.) the death of innocent people. You've already agreed to this principle.
The problem is that you are inconsistent in your application, and you continually commit the fallacy of the false-disjunct.
The courts can no longer "allow" the murder of innocent unborn persons than they can "allow" the murder of innocent already born persons. Such a ruling of allowance would violate the 14th amendment under their "color of authority".
tame: So then any person CAN be deprived of life, liberty or due property without due process of law???
pooh:Not by the state.
but it would be okay, (i.e., legally permissable) for any joe to do it?
No, it wouldn't because the state OR feds cannot rule or legislate to ALLOW any joe to do so. See how it works? Same with abortion.
Consider this: a burglar breaks into my house. I shoot him. I have denied him due process of law, as I have denied him his right to life and did not grant him "substantial due process."
False analogy. an exception (which the framers of the said amendments most certainly distinguished in their original meaning) is not a rule. self defense is not contrary to the principles found in the amendments. self defense is consistent with them.
assumes the said rights of innocent persons have not been forfeited. That's not rocket science.
Your analogy "proves" much more than i'm sure you want it to. for instance, your analogy would not allow you to go out and kill anyone just because you felt like it. this is true, in part, because of the 5th and 14th amendments. in like manner, a pregnant woman and her doctor are not allowed to kill an innocent unborn child for the same reasons.
Kindly note that the state is not actually aborting babies.
By YOUR reasoning it most certainly IS. Please note that PEOPLE kill other people. Also, these people cano only carry out this murder without legal consequence if the STATE allows them to. But the state cannot allow them to because of the 5th and 14th amendments. So we're right back to the main point. the 5th and 14th amendments prohibit killing unborn children.
Good grief. You've just taken a hugely expansive interpretation of the Constitution.
Quite the contrary. my position is consistent WITH the principles of the constitution. YOUR position is the one that is expansive, even to the point of allowing the death of innocent children.
It defines what the law IS. Also, what certain states CANNOT say...for instance, depriving citizens of life, liberty and property without due process, etc.
Rather, it assumes the existence of the English Common Law.
That's not all it assumes.
When was Lynching made illegal? Duels? Abortion? Before that, were these not therefore legal?
Murder has been illegal since before the constitution. the 5th and 14th amendments further enumerate, and elaborate, and safeguard the rights of citizens against such murder.
You are projecting a Christian understanding of Natural Law onto a document written in religiously neutral terms. The illictness of murdering children comes from the Common Law understanding of a Christian English people, not from some phrase in the Constitution. Cart before the horse again.
That does not answer the point. Again, by YOUR own reasoning, you can kill your own children so long as the states allow it REGARDLESS of the reasons early Americans used against it.
btw, the constitution was not written in religiously neutral (i.e., secular) preconditions. Theism was the presupposition of most of the framers.
They don't?!? No, they don't. The Constitution is a framework for government. It does not define what the law must say. Rather, it assumes the existence of the English Common Law. then a state can have the right to permit murder When was Lynching made illegal? Duels? Abortion? Before that, were these not therefore legal? by YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, it is perfectly constitutionally permissable for you to murder your children, so long as you could get the state legislature to write laws allowing it. Such as the Roman Law of Paterfamilias? You are projecting a Christian understanding of Natural Law onto a document written in religiously neutral terms. The illictness of murdering children comes from the Common Law understanding of a Christian English people, not from some phrase in the Constitution. Cart before the horse again.
Yes he does. He believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the constitution, and it is up to the people's representatives in the Legislatures to craft laws on the topic.
He does NOT believe what you believe re what you originally wrote. btw, it is entirely irrelevent to our debtate whether or not Bork applies the principles of the 14th amendment to abortion. the principles DO apply.
"From the beginning of the Republic until that day, January 22, 1973, the moral question of what abortions shoudl be legal had been left entirely to state legislatures." (Tempting, p. 112)
1) he was providing a history. 2) (incidentally) he wrote in that same paragraph "...the right to abort, whatever one thinks of it, is not to be found in the constitution."
He certainly does NOT believe that abortion is outlawed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. That is precisely the sort of judicial lawmaking that he is so opposed to.
The principles of the 5th 14th amendments Do apply, even if judge Bork were to reason otherwise.
He is a good man, but he has the liberty to be wrong from time to time.
For instance, i agree in part of Bork, and i disagree in part re his views on Stare Decisis/Precedent (he discusses this on pages 155 to 160).
He wrote "Many people have the notion that following precedent (sometimes called the doctrine of stare decisis) is an ironclad rule. It is not, and never has been."
i agree. I also agree that non-the-less a judge has to choose wisely which precedents should be overturned, and which are a bit more complicated.
But i disagree with Bork that only the SCOTUS should set aside the precedent. in some rare cases (such as in obvious, clear violations of a person's right to life, liberty, etc., as in abortion) i believe judges like Gonzalez should rule according to the 14th amendment.
Whether or not Bork, or past judges realize the logical implications and principles that the 14th amendment has.
The 14th amendment forbids the government from denying life, liberty, or property to persons.
The unborn are persons. Therefore they are protected.
He believes the issue of abortion is not addressed in the constitution
But you are referring to a particular stage at which a person is killed. That is a entirely different issue than the fact that a person IS killed in an abortion. The person is deprived of life. This is CLEARLY addressed in the constitution.
and it is up to the people's representatives in the Legislatures to craft laws on the topic.
The legislatures should craft the penalties, but the unborn are protected by the constitution whether or not most understand this.
This whole issue is why i support a pro-life federal constitutional amendment
The only crime specified in the Constitution of the United States is treason. Everything else is left to the states.
The courts can no longer "allow" the murder of innocent unborn persons than they can "allow" the murder of innocent already born persons.
The unborn are explicitly OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment. That's a defect of the wording. You will need to correct that defect.
but it would be okay, (i.e., legally permissable) for any joe to do it?
That would be a matter for the state to adjudicate under its laws.
False analogy. an exception (which the framers of the said amendments most certainly distinguished in their original meaning) is not a rule. self defense is not contrary to the principles found in the amendments. self defense is consistent with them.
But there is imposed, by judicial fiat, a requirement for "substantive due process" before I deprive that person of his life.
Quite the contrary. my position is consistent WITH the principles of the constitution. YOUR position is the one that is expansive, even to the point of allowing the death of innocent children.
Once again, due to a defect of language in the 14th Amendment, the unborn are explicitly outside the protections granted by the Constitution. You're going to have to rewrite that amendment. Doing it by judicial fiat is not an option.
On your #277, you have my name and italicised comments after it, making it appear that these are quotes from me...they are not, they are what you wrote.
If the law permitted, yes you can. Legally (not morally), murder is simply prohbitied by the law. As I said, duels are now classified as murder, but were formerly not so classified, even though a homocide resulted.
The constitution forbids only the state from taking your life without due process.
btw, the constitution was not written in religiously neutral (i.e., secular) preconditions. Theism was the presupposition of most of the framers.
Theism is religiously neutral. Secularism is not.
btw, it is entirely irrelevent to our debtate whether or not Bork applies the principles of the 14th amendment to abortion. the principles DO apply.
So you have no worthwhile legal authority for this claim outside your own opinion.
The principles of the 5th 14th amendments Do apply, even if judge Bork were to reason otherwise.
Then you believe in the same substantive due process interpretation that brought us Roe in the first place. In other words, you are really on the legal side of the abortionists, you just disagree with the outcome of the case. Congratulations on keeping such company!
The 14th amendment forbids the government from denying life, liberty, or property to persons.
Name a single instance where the US or any State government has forced an abortion.
The unborn are persons. Therefore they are protected.
Agreed, the government is not allowed to force their abortion. But your point does nothing to address states permitting elective abortion by the mother.
This is CLEARLY addressed in the constitution.
No, the only crime treated in the constitution is treason. The 5th and 14th Amendments are procedural notices that the US or States may not execute a person without a fair, public trial following the norms of the constitution and common law. They are safeguards of freedom, not codifications against murder or theft.
This whole issue is why i support a pro-life federal constitutional amendment
Such an amendment is an admission that the topic is not really addressed in the constitution at all.
There is a far simpler way - remove the courts from jurisdiction over rulings on state abortion laws.
petitio princippi. that's the very point you're assuming. Everything else is NOT merely left to the states. The 9th and 10th amendments are precious, and dangerously ignored, to be sure. But there ARE enumerated powers in the constitution.
No state is allowed to deprive a person of life, etc., without due process of law. Now, the states have the power re the 10th amendment to define certain crimes, set penalties, etc., etc., etc., but the states MUST act consistent with the constitution and the bill of rights.
Again, you're employing the false-disjunct fallacy.
The unborn are explicitly OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment.
That is incorrect. Here's a simply syllogism:
innocent people are protected by the 14th amendment.
the unborn are innocent people.
Therefore, unborn people are protected by the 14th amendment.
That's a defect of the wording. You will need to correct that defect.
i think the wording of the 14th amendment is starightforward enough to extract the applicable principle.
This is even easier than applying the principles of commerce among the to the internet.
non-the-less, i totally support a federal constitutional human life amendment protecting the unborn, so the point cannot be missed.
tame:but it would be okay, (i.e., legally permissable) for any joe to do it?
pooh:That would be a matter for the state to adjudicate under its laws.
That's my point. your whole argument makes the 5th and 14th amendments null and void, and of no effect.
But there is imposed, by judicial fiat, a requirement for "substantive due process" before I deprive that person of his life.
No, there is not, for the reasons already stated. it is imposed by the 5th and 14th amendments, NOT judicial fiat.
Once again, due to a defect of language in the 14th Amendment, the unborn are explicitly outside the protections granted by the Constitution. You're going to have to rewrite that amendment. Doing it by judicial fiat is not an option.
Wrong. see above answer. original meaning PROTECTS innocent people, it does NOT deprive them of life. it would be judicial fiat to suggest otherwise.
innocent people are protected by the 14th amendment. the unborn are innocent people. Therefore, unborn people are protected by the 14th amendment.
"Innocent people" are not protected by the 14th Amendment.
The relevant text is as follows:
"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.
Unborn persons do not meet the criteria above. It is a structural defect.
If you're going to argue the 14th Amendment, you would be well-served to actually read the damn thing, rather than searching for penumbras and emanations of it.
Hermann: If the law permitted, yes you can. Legally (not morally), murder is simply prohbitied by the law. As I said, duels are now classified as murder, but were formerly not so classified, even though a homocide resulted.
that is clearly incorrect. 1) i do not believe there was ever a time in american constitutional law where, say, a baby could be killed at the whim of the state's laws.
2) you might want to reconsider when the 14th amendment was ratified. Are you really arguing that murdering someone is permissable and consistent with the 14th amendment's prohibition of depriving a person of life just in case a given state were to allow it?
Are your really arguing that it would be absolutely constitutional (fed) if a state were to pass laws allowing people to kill other innocent people just because, say, they were republicans, or they just feel like it?
With all due respect, that is strange.
The constitution forbids only the state from taking your life without due process.
This above statement seems to contradict the your other statement which i will reprint here:
tame:...by YOUR own reasoning, you can kill your own children so long as the states allow it REGARDLESS of the reasons early Americans used against it.
Hermann: If the law permitted, yes you can.
Hermann, you said the states cannot take life without due process of law, and then you said they can make laws which would deprive people of life without due process of law. who actually does the killing is incidental.
You've already granted that the states can make it legal for people to be deprived of life without die process. Isn't this an example of the state acting to deny due process?!?
Theism is religiously neutral. Secularism is not.
Wrong. While there may be common ground, there is no neutral ground. Please see the authors Cornelius Van Till, and Greg Bahnsen on this point.
tame: btw, it is entirely irrelevent to our debtate whether or not Bork applies the principles of the 14th amendment to abortion. the principles DO apply.
Hermann: So you have no worthwhile legal authority for this claim outside your own opinion.
Watch the logical fallacies. when i wrote what i did, i figured you would commit an "inappropriate, unwarranted appeal to authority" (see logic texts such as Irving Copi's "intro to logic").
The argument is not won by who can cite the most sources, but by who can demonstrate the truth of his position based on evidence, and reason.
Since you brought it up, though, the answer is yes i do have a worthwhile legal authority: the 5th and 14th amendments.
Also, if i gave you a list of attorneys, legal scholars, etc., who agree with me, would that prove my case correct? No. Nor would the reverse prove YOUR case correct.
Incidentally, many conservatives do not agree with Bork's understanding of the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms". That hardly means that either they OR Bork are bad people. Nobody will be correct on everything. Everyone is wrong somewhere.
the you believe in the same substantive due process interpretation that brought us Roe in the first place. In other words, you are really on the legal side of the abortionists, you just disagree with the outcome of the case.Congratulations on keeping such company!
Straw man fallacy. also, even your attempt at the fallacy of "guilt by association" on that last sentence was fallacious since there is no legitimate association. Please watch those fallacies. it doesn't speak well for a position when the advocate keeps retreating to fallacies.
My position is the one consistent with the original meaning of the 5th and 14th amendments. YOUR position is symptmatic of the same "substantive due process" the pro-aborts use it to secure their "right to an abortion".
You and the roe v. wade supporters both reject the proposition that the original meaning of the 14th amendment protects the life of innocent persons. Watch the company you keep. Congratulations on the company you keep.
tame: The 14th amendment forbids the government from denying life, liberty, or property to persons.
Hermann: Name a single instance where the US or any State government has forced an abortion.
i don't have to. your statement falsely assumes that the government can be negligent/refuse to protect innocents and still comply with the 14th amendment.
if the police, and all levels of state and federal authority refused to protect a black man from a certain lynching by the KKK, would the government be wrong ACCORDING TO THE 14th AMENDMENT? I mean, after all, by your reasoning, the state or fed governments did not COMPEL anyone to lynch the black man. Bad argument, Hermann.
...the government is not allowed to force their abortion. But your point does nothing to address states permitting elective abortion by the mother.
Yes, it absolutely does. See the above. Also see my comments/ syllogism to pooh (my last post before this one).
No, the only crime treated in the constitution is treason.
Not true. There are many "illegalities" covered in the constitution (charges for impeachment, etc.)
The 5th and 14th Amendments are procedural notices that the US or States may not execute a person without a fair, public trial following the norms of the constitution and common law.
Again, false disjunct. It's not either/or, it's both/and. The 5th and 14th amendments are not merely "procedural".
They are safeguards of freedom, not codifications against murder or theft.
How could they be safeguards of freedom, if they allow freedom (even murder)???
tame: This whole issue is why i support a pro-life federal constitutional amendment.
Hermann: Such an amendment is an admission that the topic is not really addressed in the constitution at all.
That's a classic non-sequitar. That ssure doesn't follow logically. the amendment would strengthen the protections of the unborn against judges, and people who are tooo obtuse to understand that
innocent people are protected by the 14th amendment
the unborn are innocent people
therefore the unborn are protected by the 14th amendment.
The mere fact, for instance, that i KNOW the 2nd amendment does not mean what the ACLU argues re "seperation of church and state" (as they, and many courts have applied it), would not stop me from supporting an amendment that makes the point even more clearly to weaken the ACLU's case even further.
There is a far simpler way - remove the courts from jurisdiction over rulings on state abortion laws.
There's a far simpler, and far more just way--have the SCOTUS rule to apply the 14th amendment to ALL people (not just already born people).
no. it DOES forbid the government from denying innocent people life without die process of law. the unborn are innocent people. therefore no state has a "right" to allow abortion.
re dueling, the states can set the penalties, etc.
tame:innocent people are protected by the 14th amendment. the unborn are innocent people. Therefore, unborn people are protected by the 14th amendment.
pooh: "Innocent people" are not protected by the 14th Amendment... Unborn persons do not meet the criteria above. It is a structural defect.
wrong. you have yet to demonstrate as invalid the premises or the conclusion in my syllogism.
If you're going to argue the 14th Amendment, you would be well-served to actually read the damn thing, rather than searching for penumbras and emanations of it.
How ironic. i was thinking the same thing--much more accurately in reference to you.
It takes "penumbras and emanations" on your part to define "person" as not referring to persons.
btw, since you brought it up, the 14th amendment says:
...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
both you and Hermann need to really take note of that clause. That means that the state of california cannot "allow" (referring to something you wrote, Hermann)--even though it does not "force"--the abridgement of the priviledges or immunities of the citizens of the U.S.
Gee, i guess a state does NOT have a right to allow murder, etc.
btw, the technology we have re the unborn today (which was not available to the framers of said amendments) amply demonstrates them as fitting the description of "persons" (yes, even citizens), etc.
My interpretation is absolutely consistent with the orginal MEANING of the 14th amendment.
The fact that the framers may not have thought it through completely, or understood what we now know by way of technology, does not deny the PRINCIPLES found in the original meaning.
Neither could the framers foresee the internet. That hardly means we cannot extract the constitutional principles of commerce among the states, and apply those principles consistent with the original meaning.
no. it DOES forbid the government from denying innocent people life without die process of law. the unborn are innocent people. therefore no state has a "right" to allow abortion.
re dueling, the states can set the penalties, etc.
tame:innocent people are protected by the 14th amendment. the unborn are innocent people. Therefore, unborn people are protected by the 14th amendment.
pooh: "Innocent people" are not protected by the 14th Amendment... Unborn persons do not meet the criteria above. It is a structural defect.
wrong. you have yet to demonstrate as invalid the premises or the conclusion in my syllogism.
If you're going to argue the 14th Amendment, you would be well-served to actually read the damn thing, rather than searching for penumbras and emanations of it.
How ironic. i was thinking the same thing--much more accurately in reference to you.
It takes "penumbras and emanations" on your part to define "person" as not referring to persons.
btw, since you brought it up, the 14th amendment says:
...No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States...
both you and Hermann need to really take note of that clause. That means that the state of california cannot "allow" (referring to something you wrote, Hermann)--even though it does not "force"--the abridgement of the priviledges or immunities of the citizens of the U.S.
Gee, i guess a state does NOT have a right to allow murder, etc.
btw, the technology we have re the unborn today (which was not available to the framers of said amendments) amply demonstrates them as fitting the description of "persons" (yes, even citizens), etc.
My interpretation is absolutely consistent with the orginal MEANING of the 14th amendment.
The fact that the framers may not have thought it through completely, or understood what we now know by way of technology, does not deny the PRINCIPLES found in the original meaning.
Neither could the framers foresee the internet. That hardly means we cannot extract the constitutional principles of commerce among the states, and apply those principles consistent with the original meaning.
Sorry. The original meaning indicates that only those persons born or naturalized in the United States are covered by that amendment. It is a structural defect.
The fact that the framers may not have thought it through completely, or understood what we now know by way of technology, does not deny the PRINCIPLES found in the original meaning.
Your argument is the exact mirror image of the pro-abort argument. As long as you argue beyond the stated text of the 14th Amendment, you are arguing solely on the grounds of whatever the judge happens to like. That is, good sir, how Roe v. Wade happened in the first place. Roe v. Wade is absolutely abhorrent constitutional law.
BTW, abortion was outlawed in the several states in the 19th century solely as a public health measure--the procedure had a tendency to kill both the baby and the mother with 19th century medical technology. The argument was never about when life begins.
Neither could the framers foresee the internet. That hardly means we cannot extract the constitutional principles of commerce among the states, and apply those principles consistent with the original meaning.
When the original meaning comes into conflict with those principles, the plain text is the final authority. The 14th Amendment is one such example.
You want the Constitution changed, then change it.
Change jurisprudence to suit your fashion at your own risk.
The wording could have been better, but the MEANING is clear. for instance, i do no think that wording was meant to allow innocent tourists from another country to be deprived of life without due process, or of unborn babies, say in the 8th month of pregnancy, EVEN IN THAT TIME PERIOD.
Your argument is the exact mirror image of the pro-abort argument.
Quite the contrary. I am arguing for original meaning. You are arguing against original meaning. You might want to read Scalia's book on federalism, wherein he makes a strong case against LETTERISM/"strict constructionism" and the original meaning.
yes, believe it or not, scalia argued AGAINST "strict constructionism", if what is meant is a wooden literal interpretation that ironically veered from the original MEANING.
Now, i don't remember how he APPLIED that, but i agree with the principle. It i on this point that the evidence demonstrates that YOU are the one who has veered into "judicial fiat" (wherein a judge's "preference" ironically is allowed to carry the day under your doctrine), and AWAY from orgininal meaning.
That is, good sir, how Roe v. Wade happened in the first place. Roe v. Wade is absolutely abhorrent constitutional law.
As i've already stated in posts to you and Hermann, you have it bass-ackwards. Roe v wade is abhorrent precisely BECAUSE the judges embraced a view of the 14th amendment similar to yours.
btw, Justice Blackmun was correct on one crucial point in that decision: if the unborn is a person, then that person is protected by the 14th amendment.
Unfortunately, Justice Blackmun made the mistake of defining the unborn as a non-person.
and, no, the word "born" in the 14th amendment was not MEANT to EXCLUDE unborn children in the original understanding as you might think. Rather "born" was want to draw distinctions between foreigners. Granted this wording had some severe problems, or "defects as you say, but that hardly means we should take the meaning that is most hostile to the unborn, ESPECIALLY since the original meaning was to protect any person from experiencing what the slaves experienced.
So, while you are correct that there are defects, the defects are not such that they would allow the very principle of protecting innocent life to be countervened.
BTW, abortion was outlawed in the several states in the 19th century solely as a public health measure--the procedure had a tendency to kill both the baby and the mother with 19th century medical technology. The argument was never about when life begins.
That seems an arbitrary argument. what makes you think that abortion was outlawed merely because it could threaten the health of the mother?
When the original meaning comes into conflict with those principles, the plain text is the final authority. The 14th Amendment is one such example.
No, it's not an example of denying a person the right to life. READ THE WHOLE AMENDMENT. (Also, the 5th amendment). See my above comments re original MEANING/Scalia.
You want the Constitution changed, then change it.
let's just interpret the amendments according to their original meaning. if you can't deny former slaves a right to life, liberty or property, then you sure cannot deny anyone else (like the unborn).
Change jurisprudence to suit your fashion at your own risk.
You're ignoring the original meaning of the amendments, by latching on to what you consider a loophole in the language that had nothing to do with aloowing abortion.
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.