Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
I don't think that's a very reasonable claim, considering it was legal in some states (and illegal in others) at that time.
I gave up on him after that statement. :)
Sure it does. The Constitution demands that every state have a republican form of government. To claim that that wouldn't include protection of the most basic unalienable rights is to reduce words to utter meaninglessness.
I’m unaware of any Case where the Court ruled that way. Please provide the case that backs up your assertion.
Rather, I find many writings defining a republican form of government simply as one that derives its power and authority from the people.
Also in reading the debate the Founders engaged in concerning this provision there is much debate against giving the federal government the power to homogenize the laws of the sovereign States. Indeed on July 18, Gouverneur Morris (Pennsylvania) objected to the proposed provision and the proposed language on the ground that ‘’[h]e should be very unwilling that such laws as exist in R. Island ought to be guaranteed to each State of the Union.’’
Madison argued (with several other speakers making the same point) that the purpose of the provision ‘that the Constitutional authority of the provision was needed (to prevent a) “monarchy being created peacefully necessitates the provision.”
It appears from both the debates over inclusion and wording of this provision, and the Court cases I can find, that this provision is to keep a state from setting up a monarchy.
In deed, since as already pointed out, the definition of what constitutes murder of the born varies greatly between the States, how can you assert that the Constitution mandates that murder of the unborn should be treated differently? Other than Roe, can you name a case that agrees with that position?
You are exactly right. Murder and crimes in general are States’ issues to be dealt with by each state. This concept of being for states rights except for certain cherry-picked issues doesn’t seem consistent to me.
In any event it seems it would be better to have some states against abortion than what we have now which is all 50 states allowing legalized abortion.
“Perhaps that’s why my Pro-Choice Liberal Democrat friend is so supportive of him. He doesn’t seem to care about the Constitution or Federalism.
By his (il)logic, why isn’t all murder a Federal crime?
Does he really not understand the American system, or does he just not care?”
A human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring personhood from fertilization until natural death doesn’t violate states’ rights since it would be in line with the 14th Amendment. Huckabee is right on this point; he upholds the RNC platform and goal too.
He did, however, miss the problem with the SCOTUS decision on partial birth abortion. The court upheld the ban (which isn’t really a ban because it has exceptions) and Kennedy instructs abortionists how to get around the ban with other diabolical methods.
Then why are murder cases tried in state courts? If it's a federal constitutional crime, then the states have no jurisdiction and every single person on death row that was put there by a state court can walk out the door tomorrow.
Please stop trying to stretch the clear language of the constitution which limits federal powers and state powers into something it's not. There's no right to have an abortion guaranteed in the constitution, just as there's no forbidding of it. The constitution is silent on the matter, so it is an issue reserved to the states, or the people, as the 10th very clearly states.
Then why are murder cases tried in state courts? If it's a federal constitutional crime, then the states have no jurisdiction... Please stop trying to stretch the clear language of the constitution which limits federal powers and state powers into something it's not.
The wording of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution has no such limitation.
Amendment 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Your argument is with the wording of the Constitution not me.
I think the issue should only arrive at the Federal level if the Local and State laws and courts fail to make murder a crime. The only example of this any time and anywhere in this country that I know of, is abortion.
Your continued underlining and ignoring all the direct text in between is as moronic as the finding of the right to an abortion within the constitution. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime... How about we take ‘No person shall be held to answer...without just compensation.’? Salaries for prisoners, retirement plans as well...
Sorry, the argument does not fly with a clear reading. No person shall be is directly tied to being held for charges.
Your personal attacks are not appreciated, immature and distract form whatever validity is in your argument. However, I'll attempt to continue with you.
I've cited the entire 5th Amendment. What part of it is being "ignored" or "unclear" to you? Its a compound sentence. To be a little more precise, the phrase "nor shall any person be.." ties to succeeding series of phrases including "...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
What do you want it to say? Again, you seem to be arguing with the very wording of the Constitution, and like the liberal judges, seem to want it to mean what suits you, whatever that is.
That could very well be the case, but that would put the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision right in the cross hairs of the 5th Amendment. They should have refused to hear the case (if the 5th only applies to government perpetrators). Instead, we all know the story of how the whole case was a phony set up, the pro-abortionists knowing they had a majority of Justices who were sympathizers. The Supreme Court's involvement and decision I believe is at odds with the 5th Amendment.
oh, did you write it.
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.