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.
HE does not believe what YOU believe.
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.
"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)
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.
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