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.