roamer_1 replies: I do not agree with you. Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort, which the court will then nationalize, and then here we go again.
One cannot ignore the plain words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically take Life beyond the reach of ALL branches of government, and lay it only in the hands of the Creator. Until that (Conservative) ideal is fully recognized and protected, there will be no end to the perversions that will occur, with 50 different states to use as legal testbeds.
roamer_1, thank you ever so much for your eloquent essay/post, and the ping!
Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.
The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that every human being has an unalienable right to life because life is the direct endowment of the Creator. From this “self-evident” truth follows another: In order for government to be legitimate under our Constitution, it must honor and defend life.
And that’s what makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional: It does neither.
The DoI’s declaration of the dignity and sanctity of human life is indispensable to a proper reading of the Constitution. The Constitution itself is silent on life issues; it makes no grant of power regarding life issues to the federal government. For the Founders understood that the proper authority regarding such matters is the sovereign states, for at least two reasons.
First, the Framers absolutely did not want to consolidate excessive power in the federal government; the several states had to have sufficient power to counterbalance the national government, and to check its excesses. This is part of the Framer’s “separation and balance of powers” doctrine that is often overlooked.
But what greater power could there be to vest in government than the power over life and death? The Framers would have had a collective stroke at the mere suggestion of such a monstrous idea.
One would think this is the very power you'd want to avoid vesting in the federal government! Jeepers, it ought to be obvious that the gummint already has it — though it took a flagrant usurpation of power to get it. And that was Roe v. Wade; and even more fundamentally, I’d argue, the Fourteenth Amendment. [which I also regard as a usurpation, on the grounds that there’s nothing in the Constitution that warrants the nationalization of citizenship. The Framers envisioned the United States as a republic, an association of sovereign states with a national government empowered to discharge very limited powers on behalf of all the states and the people. The Constitution intends that the people of the several states are citizens of the state in which they reside. But I digress....]
Second, state governments are closer to the people than the federal government. The people tend be well informed about the goings on of their state and local governments, and so are in a position to hold them accountable, while that would be impossible for most people vis-à-vis the national government. Thus state and local governments tend to be more responsive to citizen concerns. Put it this way, on the life issues, would you rather deal with Leviathan than with your own state legislature? Where are you more likely to get actual results?
I was troubled by your remark, “Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort.” But then you’ve seen that I think the Constitution invested that power in the states from the very beginning. So giving it “back to them” is simply a restoration of the status quo ante. It would not be an unconstitutional act; it would be a restoration of the original Constitution. (I confess I’m of the “constitutional originalist view” of the Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia school.)
What really troubled me about your statement is that it seems to imply that you simply don’t trust the people with life issues. Do you really think it better to trust the federal government, with its disgraceful, abominable record on this matter?
I say, bring it to the states and then, bring it on! Then maybe we’ll get to start arresting and prosecuting abortionists again.
Thank you for your beautiful post roamer_1 — beautiful, even though I did disagree with it a tad, here and there.
“Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.”
I agree! REVERSE Roe/Wade at the United States Supreme Court level BUT amke it include the STATE level otherwise you will NEVER, EVER ban it with all states. Forget giving it to the states. Yes, I know, I am violating core ideology but I consider the life of a baby to TRUMP that.
[roamer_1] I do not agree with you. Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort, which the court will then nationalize, and then here we go again.One cannot ignore the plain words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically take Life beyond the reach of ALL branches of government, and lay it only in the hands of the Creator. Until that (Conservative) ideal is fully recognized and protected, there will be no end to the perversions that will occur, with 50 different states to use as legal testbeds.
Hello betty boop! Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.
Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.
Yes, and I read your thoughts there with great interest, though I disagree with your conclusion. I also profoundly disagree with the notion that one cannot legislate morality, as all law is, by it's nature, a measure to govern lawlessness. It is merely a matter of whose morality one is going to legislate. But that is probably a sidebar for another day...
The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that every human being has an unalienable right to life because life is the direct endowment of the Creator. From this “self-evident” truth follows another: In order for government to be legitimate under our Constitution, it must honor and defend life.
That is precisely so, and sums up my argument perfectly. Without the defense of the God given rights, for which our government was established (and for which our founders called upon God as a witness to their intentions), and especially for those which are specifically enumerated (Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness), our government is in default of it's own charter, and has no legitimate reason for existence. It is made null, and is removed from it's authority and justice.
And that’s what makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional: It does neither.
That is true. But in only reversing RvW, simply reverting to what was before, the court maintains its farcical tyranny. ANY reading which does not put Life beyond the reach of all government, state and federal, not to mention world bodies, is unconstitutional and subverts the very reason for the existence and founding of our government in the first place.
It is not within the federal government's power to grant power over life to itself, or to the states. Any judge worthy of the name, wise and true to his calling, would have no other verdict. Life is decided in the most Holy of Courts, and no other should presume, without due process.
The DoI’s declaration of the dignity and sanctity of human life is indispensable to a proper reading of the Constitution. The Constitution itself is silent on life issues; it makes no grant of power regarding life issues to the federal government. For the Founders understood that the proper authority regarding such matters is the sovereign states, for at least two reasons.
In specifically joining itself to all documents having come before it, the Constitution's silence relies upon the precedence of the Declaration of Independence- It's silence is required in order for it to make the words within the DoI inalterable- The DoI precedes and supersedes the Constitution. It is what is meant to be immutable.
But what greater power could there be to vest in government than the power over life and death? The Framers would have had a collective stroke at the mere suggestion of such a monstrous idea.
This is where you misunderstand me. The power over life is *not* vested in the federal government. The protection of inalienable rights is vested therein. That is the first and primary job of the federal government- To protect the rights which are God given, and thereby, endowed in all mankind, before the fact of any form of governance. The federal government has no right or authority over these unalienable rights, but is charged with their protection. Therefore, having no right over them, they cannot delegate that right to the states, severally or otherwise, nor can they delegate the protection, or interpretation thereof to the states, as that protection is endowed to every American equally under the Constitution.
Your arguments to the contrary, while well meant, still do not resolve that most basic and fundamentally American proposition. It is *not* within their power to mess with life at all without due process of law. That means that they must have cause to remove the right to Life. That means there must be a criminal act before any governmental body may take the life of a man. This is one of the roots of our freedom.
So giving it “back to them” is simply a restoration of the status quo ante. It would not be an unconstitutional act; it would be a restoration of the original Constitution. (I confess I’m of the “constitutional originalist view” of the Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia school.)
It is close to an originalist view, Federalism is great, where it belongs, but the unalienable rights are meant to be beyond the reach of *all* government, and the protection thereof must lie in the federal government for them to be maintained equally among all Americans. I think there is a great case to be made by the states against the federal government for *not* upholding these fundamental rights, and for allowing these things to fall into the bailiwick of the law at all.
What really troubled me about your statement is that it seems to imply that you simply don’t trust the people with life issues. Do you really think it better to trust the federal government, with its disgraceful, abominable record on this matter?
No, I disagree with the premise in the first place (as outlined above). I also disagree with the use of any one of fifty courts, the law of reciprocity between the states, and the idea of equality under the law, being used to allow such abominations to gain ground in our society. That is what allowed legality of abortion in the first place, and it's subsequent ability to challenge the laws federally at all.
Thank you for your polite discussion. I look forward to your reply.
-Bruce
And of course, I very strongly agree. The question of abortion was never federal to begin with. Indeed, it was legislated from the bench over the "right" to privacy like birth control as if terminating a human life were a private matter.
At bottom, any authority not specifically granted to the federal government belongs to the state.