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.