The Federal Government is the creation of the State, not vice versa. The Constitution clearly articulates what the role of the Federal Government is *limited* to. This is the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8.
The current legality of abortion is due to liberal justices abusing the Constitution and finding powers for the Federal Government that do not exist.
The Constitution is silent on abortion, therefore it is a State issue.
It's a ridiculous claim to say that they Rand and Ron Paul condone tyranny at the State level. Rand is a US Sentator, and he's trying to make sure the body he is a part of is following the Constitution, that's his job.
Were he a State Senator I am sure he'd be working against abortion there, but he's not.
And, sadly, States hands are tied because of Supreme Court decisions made by justices who have an expansive view of what it permits. They are wrong.
I love watching libertarians go out on a limb.
The Federal Government is the creation of the State, not vice versa.
Actually, it was created by WE THE PEOPLE, but I'll play along.
The Constitution clearly articulates what the role of the Federal Government is *limited* to. This is the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8.
Actually, Article 1, Section 8 articulates the powers of Congress, not the Federal Government. However, it also concludes with this:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This means that the Government is empowered to protect the due process RIGHTS of the citizens under the 5th and 14th Amendments.
The current legality of abortion is due to liberal justices abusing the Constitution and finding powers for the Federal Government that do not exist.
No, it's due to governments bowing before judges and not obeying their oaths to uphold the Constitution.
The Constitution is silent on abortion, therefore it is a State issue.
No, it twice states that a person cannot be deprived of life without due process, this is even reiterated in the Roe opinion.
It's a ridiculous claim to say that they Rand and Ron Paul condone tyranny at the State level.
Ridiculous to whom? I honestly don't care what basement-dwelling potheads who spray paint bed sheets to hang from highway overpass promoting the Pauls' "Revolution" think is ridiculous.
Rand is a US Sentator, and he's trying to make sure the body he is a part of is following the Constitution, that's his job.
As best I can tell, he is following what his maniacal father and a Russian atheist THINK is the Constitution. Keep in mind that ALL mad men believe they are doing what is right.
Were he a State Senator I am sure he'd be working against abortion there, but he's not.
He's already made it clear that he's "personally opposed, but thinks there should be loopholes."
And, sadly, States hands are tied because of Supreme Court decisions made by justices who have an expansive view of what it permits. They are wrong.
Nonsense. The Founding Fathers were careful to insure that SCOTUS had zero power to enforce their mandates. Moreover, the opinion in Roe has already made it clear that abortion violates the 14th Amendment rights of the baby.
Is your argument not substantially damaged by the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment and its restrictions on state government's alleged power to deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law?
The Fourteenth Amendment was obviously enacted well after the Tenth Amendment and therefore limited the Tenth Amendment as necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such is the uniform analysis of conflicts between prior and subsequent enactments.
Like it or not, the Fourteenth Amendment is broad and sweeping in its scope and, as to abortion being permitted by the states after 1865, seems to be a dispositive prohibition of any power of states (to allow abortion) and another praiseworthy restriction of government powers and that amendment does not grant to the federales any new power to approve much less mandate abortion on a federal level.
Libertarians should applaud and support a constitutional provision that prohibits state governments from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
To the extent that it may be claimed that there is a conflict between the right to life of the child in utero and the liberty interest of that child's mother, it would seem fairly obvious that both mother and child are persons and that, without life, there can be no liberty or property interest. Life is the primary right.
It is no solution to do as Herod Blackmun did and define the unborn out of the human race and thereby deny the personhood and rights of the unborn for the convenience of the adults. Blackmun reached his conclusion by relying on the ancient pagan Roman law of paterfamilia under which the father (not the mother) had the sole right to order his offspring killed without due process and without interference by government up until the offspring reached the age of 21 years.
Federal officials and judges are likewise constrained by the Fifth Amendment (enacted simultaneously with the Tenth as parts of the Bill of Rights). The unborn are guilty of nothing but being perceived as an inconvenience to some related adults which is no excuse for giving the mother the sole right to order the child killed.
The understanding that our God-given, unalienable rights, starting with our supreme individual right, the right to live, precede and supersede all man-made laws and constitutions, and the clear words of the Ninth Amendment, precludes that argument.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Notwithstanding what I said about natural law and the Ninth Amendment in my last post, the Constitution is not silent on abortion. Abortion violates every single clause of the stated purposes of the Constitution, most vividly its crowning stated purpose:
"...To secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity."
And the only way to argue that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection requirements for the right to life of every person do not apply to the unborn is to argue what the Blackmun Roe v. Wade court argued, that the unborn person is not a person.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Even the Blackmun court admitted as much in the written Roe v. Wade opinion:
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment...If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."-- Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Roe vs. Wade, 1973
Or "The People".
Which is why the overturned vote of the people by the black robes is such an egregious violation of the US Constitution.