|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 6, 2008 13:32:05 GMT -5
.....moved from another board.
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 8, 2008 12:56:54 GMT -5
What's the debate?
All I see is liberals attacking someone over a view that will never come to pass. Abortion was made legal, is currently legal and will remain legal forever in this land.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Sept 8, 2008 17:44:54 GMT -5
Bloverk, the debate is how abortion was made legal. It was never debated in a legislature or voted on by the people. It was decided by the Supreme Court and then handed down as law. This is a clear contravention of the Constitution.
While the liberals - oops, I mean "progressives" - are running around with their hair on fire, screaming, "He'll reverse Roe v. Wade!" think about what would actually happen. First, someone would have to file suit in a federal court, alledging that Roe somehow violated their civil rights. Then, someone else would have to bankroll that person in order to get the appeals heard all the way to the Supreme Court. If a heavily-conservative Supreme Court decided to ignore the doctrine of stare decisis and overturn Roe, does that mean that abortions would become illegal the next day?
More likely, the Supremes would decide that a woman does not have a constitutional right to a government-funded abortion. Abortions would still be legal, just not free. The 50 states would then take up the debate of what they wanted to fund with their health care dollars. Given the liberal bent of our dear legislators in Sacramento, I think we would be drilling off our coast before we would be outlawing abortions in California.
|
|
Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 8, 2008 20:16:34 GMT -5
Heck, I'd vote for that. I believe it is not a good government that funds the killing of future, potential taxpayers. It's just a bad business model. But we part company as there is no debate on "how" it was made legal. It's the law. It's a fact. Facts can't be debated. Even if there was a "penumbra" of privacy that never existed prior.....our Constitutions does point to other rights, though not enumerated.....and other early writings do point toward "privacy" as being a right. But I still like your approach. Bloverk, the debate is how abortion was made legal. It was never debated in a legislature or voted on by the people. It was decided by the Supreme Court and then handed down as law. This is a clear contravention of the Constitution. While the liberals - oops, I mean "progressives" - are running around with their hair on fire, screaming, "He'll reverse Roe v. Wade!" think about what would actually happen. First, someone would have to file suit in a federal court, alledging that Roe somehow violated their civil rights. Then, someone else would have to bankroll that person in order to get the appeals heard all the way to the Supreme Court. If a heavily-conservative Supreme Court decided to ignore the doctrine of stare decisis and overturn Roe, does that mean that abortions would become illegal the next day? More likely, the Supremes would decide that a woman does not have a constitutional right to a government-funded abortion. Abortions would still be legal, just not free. The 50 states would then take up the debate of what they wanted to fund with their health care dollars. Given the liberal bent of our dear legislators in Sacramento, I think we would be drilling off our coast before we would be outlawing abortions in California. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 10, 2008 12:09:52 GMT -5
Per Fact Check:
McCain :
He has said he favors a Constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion. He would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.
________________________________________________
So, if there was a "Constitutional amendment" how long would it take before it was activated, and doesn't sound more and more like it be sooner rather than later?
|
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 10, 2008 12:48:59 GMT -5
I some how doubt that you will see a Constitutional Amendment that bans the practice of abortion. I am personally pro-choice, however, my choice is life. Just because a baby has not fully deveolped yet does not mean that I believe it does not have rights. I just feel that with the number of people seeking to adopt, there are far greater options then just ending a life that never quite qot started.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 10, 2008 14:43:17 GMT -5
bolverk, I hope you're right! And, I agree with your post 100%!
I give you an exalt...
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 10, 2008 15:19:19 GMT -5
While I am very much against abortion, I am just as dead set against amending the Constitution to ban it. That is NOT a matter for the Constitution, it has nothing to do with how our federal government runs. Abortion is a matter for the legislative branch. And preferably the legislative branches of the several states.
As for the capons supporting or not supporting an amendment to ban abortion, I have to believe it is all political posturing. The chance of any amendment to the Constitution about abortion passing is about the same as me being able to swim from Jenner to Healdsburg in mid-winter.
On a side note, the Constitution of the US, or of any of the states is NOT the place to put something like this. Or flag burning, or fishing rights, or what kind of lamps to use. Those are strictly legislative matters. The Constitutions should only be about how the government functions, its powers, and its limits.
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Sept 10, 2008 16:14:19 GMT -5
But we part company as there is no debate on "how" it was made legal. It's the law. It's a fact. Facts can't be debated. Even if there was a "penumbra" of privacy that never existed prior.....our Constitutions does point to other rights, though not enumerated.....and other early writings do point toward "privacy" as being a right. But I still like your approach. The fact is that the Supreme Court created law when they handed down the Roe decision. And, that, my friend, is a clear contravention of the Constitution. The Consitution was very clear that laws originated in the Legislature, not the Judiciary. That's what the debate is about. At the same time, I don't agree with the folks who deny that there is a "right" to abortion because that right was not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear (again) that it is not an exhaustive list of rights for the individuals, just a list of rights for the government. The Tenth Amendment says: |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Sept 10, 2008 18:49:34 GMT -5
Bloverk, the debate is how abortion was made legal. It was never debated in a legislature or voted on by the people. It was decided by the Supreme Court and then handed down as law. This is a clear contravention of the Constitution. While the liberals - oops, I mean "progressives" - are running around with their hair on fire, screaming, "He'll reverse Roe v. Wade!" think about what would actually happen. First, someone would have to file suit in a federal court, alledging that Roe somehow violated their civil rights. Then, someone else would have to bankroll that person in order to get the appeals heard all the way to the Supreme Court. If a heavily-conservative Supreme Court decided to ignore the doctrine of stare decisis and overturn Roe, does that mean that abortions would become illegal the next day? More likely, the Supremes would decide that a woman does not have a constitutional right to a government-funded abortion. Abortions would still be legal, just not free. The 50 states would then take up the debate of what they wanted to fund with their health care dollars. Given the liberal bent of our dear legislators in Sacramento, I think we would be drilling off our coast before we would be outlawing abortions in California. Abortion is a done deal. I am not going to rail against a lossing issue. That would be just like a Democrat using the issue to keep people from voting for a candidate. |
|
Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 13, 2008 8:42:31 GMT -5
The fact is that the Supreme Court created law when they handed down the Roe decision. And, that, my friend, is a clear contravention of the Constitution. The Consitution was very clear that laws originated in the Legislature, not the Judiciary. That's what the debate is about. In my ignorance of civics I still put forth the idea that the Supremes didn't "create law" so much as used precedence based on decisions from previous court cases. They built the law step by step for 200 years, starting with Marbury v. Madison which kind of says the law is what the judge says it is. At the same time, I don't agree with the folks who deny that there is a "right" to abortion because that right was not enumerated in the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear (again) that it is not an exhaustive list of rights for the individuals, just a list of rights for the government. The Tenth Amendment says: Prepositions have always confused me, like "for the" and "of the". As I understand it, the Constitution is a blueprint for the government to run upon (see? Ending in a preposition STILL makes me not to clear! Rats!). The Constitution does not "touch" the people, except in the Amendments which are TO the Constitution. These Amendments define the relationship between the government (Constitution) and US folks. It's kind of like the Constitution is an internal document telling those rascals "how" the government should run itself, and the reaching out to US from that document are The Amendments, or changes from the internal machinations of the government out to we, the people. The Amendments are mostly a list of DON'TS directed TO the government. So if folks want to have abortions and claim it as a "right" because the government said "No abortions", then the Supremes weigh in (with precedent case law) and agree with the people and not the government laws saying "no abortions", the government cannot stop them. It's wrong and stupid to have an abortion, but then so is voting for Obama. But folks are able to do that. Anyway, maybe this makes sense, but I won't read it again, even after my first cuppa. |
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on Sept 13, 2008 9:14:55 GMT -5
Actually, Len, your post is pretty good. I see the Constitution as We the People telling the government (state) what powers it has (or maybe better, what powers we have ceded to the State) and what it is allowed to do and how to do them. The Bill of Rights is the "coin" by which the State pays for those power by being told "No, you can't tell us not to assemble peaceable, you may not set up a national religion, you may not house your soldiers in our homes, you may not take our arms of any sort, you may not imprison us without warrant, you may not take our property without just and legal cause and without compensation, etc." I really like the 9th & 10th amendments: Ninth Amendment –
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment –
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The preamble is pretty good, too: PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
|
|
