Say Anything Blog

Finally,  Maybe this will begin to take back the morality that was once part of our heritage.  We should be free to buy just about anything we want with our money, but not to murder children.

I think it really exposes how extreme the pro-abortion folks are.   They aren’t happy enough to have a right to do what they want.  They want to force people who are opposed to that on clear moral grounds to pay for it.

rob,

I have to ask, have you ever read Gomez?

It doesn’t make abortions legal or illegal.

While I’m opposed to public funding, abortion rights activists have a point - attacks on various aspects of the right are indeed efforts to do away with it in entirely. 

ST. PAUL - Abortion opponents came one step closer to challenging a landmark Minnesota Supreme Court ruling Thursday, when a ban on taxpayer funding of abortions easily won approval in the House.

I thought I’d help you out Ep by picking out and highlighting the part of the post where they are only going after the public financing aspects of Gomez. 

Glad to be of service. 

Chief . . . you should really be more careful with what you say:

Finally,  Maybe this will begin to take back the morality that was once part of our heritage.  We should be free to buy just about anything we want with our money, but not to murder children.

Was that the morality that condoned and legalized slavery or the morality that encouraged wholesale slaughter of indigenous people, or the morality that prevented women from holding property, or the morality that kept minorities segregated and oppressed?  Which morality was that which was part of our heritage?  Or are you just picking an specific era for an isolated and secluded part of the populace? 

The Whistler,

How does that add clarity to anything?  It answers neither my question, nor does it undermine my statement that nibbling away at the abortion right is a way to eventually get rid of it entirely.  Its a stalking horse for larger matters. 

So obviously we can’t do away with public funding as that would take away the "right" to abortion.

Extremist. 

The Whistler,

Heh.  I’d favor its abolition actually (public funding of abortions).  Of course I made that clear in my first statement on this particular write-up. 

I do however agree with the general proposition that attacks on aspects of the right are geared towards ending the right entirely.   

So dropping public funding of abortions is going to end abortions.  

I think you’re an alarmist in addition to an extremist. 

The Whistler,

It is analagous to the gay marraige issue.  I acknowledge that proponents of propositions which would make state constitutions require that legally sanctioned marraiges be only between a man and a woman are bigots and are attempting to get such passed as a means to write their own discriminatory views into law.  At the same time I don’t really favor a specific law which expands the right to marry to gay people.  I’d much rather the government got out of the marraige sanctioning business altogether.  Similarly, I favor a general abortion right free of government aid or interference.

The important here is that people be free to make decisions for themselves without the heavy hand of the government in activities which are essentially non-coercive, and to create compacts, engage in activities, etc. to that end.   

The Whistler,

If you’re not going to read what I write, what is the point of responding to my posts?

Indeed, can you tell the difference between a "general proposition" and a "specific proposal?"

Epi:  If you want "a general abortion right", you will have to amend the Constitution.  Have you ever asked yourself why the gays don’t simply create and name their type of union?  I’m sure it would get public support, even though gays are only a small fraction of the population.  The reason there is so much resistance, IMO, is that they are trying to appropriate the institution of marriage.

robert108,

If you want "a general abortion right", you will have to amend the Constitution.

And here I thought we were discussing state constitutional law.  Who was it that was arguing it was a state issue the other day, and that any overturning of the Casey decision would simply drop this back to the states?  Hmmm…

Have you ever asked yourself why the gays don’t simply create and name their type of union?

In several states, such a union would at this point be legally void; indeed, most of the recently passed referendums eviscerate the right to create a private contract that even remotely looks like a marraige. 

Here is a look at the text of the law in Virginia:

§ 20-45.3. Civil unions between persons of same sex.

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable.

robert108,

The reason there is so much resistance, IMO, is that they are trying to appropriate the institution of marriage.

Which explains why civil unions are opposed by many of those who also oppose gay marraige.  Basically its all the fault of gay people and their temerity in challenging the status quo. 

Ep Said 

It is analagous to the gay marraige issue.

Changing the subject? 

The Whistler,

No, I am providing you with an analogy.  If I were "changing the subject" I wouldn’t have ended the paragraph with a word on abortion.

I have to ask though, is that really the best that you can do?  A ham-handed effort like that? 

The Whistler,

An analogy about the way I think about such things in other words. 

Ok, flat out, are you saying that ending public funding of abortions is going to take away the "right" of having an abortion?

CV-- I visited your blog.  It appears to be biased in favor of one point of view and political.  I will reply to your points in bold. 

Was that the morality that condoned and legalized slavery no, by some and was and still engaged in by African countries.  or the morality that encouraged wholesale slaughter of indigenous people  the Indian Wars in the US did not encourage the wholdsale slaughter.  I read Bury my Heart at Wounded Knee. All wars, unfortunately involve killings., or the morality that prevented women from holding property this was also a continuation of the status at the time and changed as you know in the 1920s, or the morality that kept minorities segregated and oppressed? There were laws that segregrated peoples, just like Japan, Africa, Europe, Asia and South America.  We fought a Civil War in 1860-65.  Which morality was that which was part of our heritage?  All of these historical truths were and are part of our history.  We made changes,  other countries have not.  Or are you just picking an specific era for an isolated and secluded part of the populace? 

Now, the morality I was talking about was and is:  Following the rules of law, the respect for life, respect for others ideas, voting, the value of education, the sancitity of life, marriage, leaving others’ property alone, hard work, following the constitution and changing laws in congress, not by the courts.  The courts made the Dred Scott decision.  Our constitution has been amended by the states as per the constitution.

Not to say that just because other countries continue to enslave people means that because we stopped the practise means anything, but it does say quite a bit about our morality.  We all fall short....   at least we in the USA can face, debate and vote for issues without being put in jail.  Been to any former Communist countries?  How about present ones like China, North Korea or Cuba?   

To you:  Is your morality that which condones or legalizes tobacco smoking by children?  How about incest?  or illegal drug use?  What is your moral compass?  My point is that the state should not be involved with paying for killing children, or gambling, or allowing criminals to continue to kill or rob people.

The Whistler,

No, I am not saying that at all.  Again, I am not in favor in public funding. 

I am merely agreeing with the general argument that attacking the abortion right little by little will end it in its entirety.  The specific proposal here will not do this; there is a critical mass of limitations that must be met first.  As that is the case I can support the ending of public funding and the continued existance of the abortion right.  As a libertarian its a virtuous combination of goals.

The Whistler,

For similar reasons I take no issue with laws which create penalities for assailants who kill a fetus.  Its not an attack on the abortion right per se, its a furtherance of the protection of individual choice.  Providing monies from the state for abortion also attacks individual choice by forcing taxpayers to pay for what they don’t want; as does, in an analagous fashion, the public funding of political candidates.

Whistler-  No.  Flat out—those who kill babies should be charged with murder which would usually be a doctor.  The citizens of that state, county or city would try them for murder.  This is not much different than the doctor, Jack Kevorkian.  Personally, I thought it would be OK for him to suggest to a person how to die, but not "pull the switch".  As you man know, he was tried and convicted and is serving 10-25 for assisted suicide.  What is the difference?  The baby can not request that it be killed.  Thanks for cutting to the chase.

I wonder why Epi is even arguing.  He has no problem with taking away public funding for abortion, but he gets up in arms about what he feels is a "chipping away" at abortion as a right.

Well, he is correct.  That is what is being done, because abortion is not a right.  Abortion is the ending of a human life without affording that life due process under the 5th amendment.

You’d think that someone who carries on as though he were some sort of constitutional scholar (which, from what I’ve read of Epi’s writings he is not), would recognize that a) there is no constitutional right to an abortion and b) there is a constitutional right to life. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Chief,

Your entire argument seems to consist of "Two Wrongs make a Right."  There was not a time in our history of blessed moral uprighteousness as you seem to want to indicate by your first post in this thread.  Every era of our history is defined by moral justifications and the rights struggle between classes (whether economic, social, sexual, or racial) for the upper hand in moral definitions. 

Furthermore, your morality isn’t my morality.  Your moral definitions aren’t anything I’d live my life by, nor are my moral choices and character less in any way than are yours.  

Live in the present and quit harkening back to a time that never was. 

Chief RZ,

Personally, I thought it would be OK for him to suggest to a person how to die, but not "pull the switch".

What gives you the right to tell an individual when and in what way they wish to die?  Do you own the bodies and minds of other people?

To me it is not so much a moral issue (though that plays a part) but one of individual rights.

An unborn child is a life, and when an abortion takes place that life is taken without due process.  I see no reason why some made-up "right to an abortion" (which exists nowhere in the Constitution) should trump an unborn child’s 5th amendment right to life (which is written into that document explicitly).

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I wonder why Epi is even arguing. 

In part because one of the denizens of this blog is accusing me of holding a position which I don’t hold.   

He has no problem with taking away public funding for abortion, but he gets up in arms about what he feels is a "chipping away" at abortion as a right.

Apparently you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that they are two seperate issues. 

Abortion is the ending of a human life without affording that life due process under the 5th amendment.

The 5th Amendment alone doesn’t help you by itself; here we are discussing a state matter, so you’d want to look to the 14th Amendment to make such a claim. 

You’d think that someone who carries on as though he were some sort of constitutional scholar (which, from what I’ve read of Epi’s writings he is not)

Oh yes, and as we’re all aware of, you have all the expertise to determine that issue.  And people call me arrogant.  Heh.  

b) there is a constitutional right to life. 

No, there is no constitutional right to life.  What one has is a due process right against government actions taken to end your life.   Indeed, your claim is a bit like those who claim that there is a right to vote, but in fact what one has is right not to be discriminated against in the voting process (e.g., based on race, gender, etc.) if the states choose to hold elections.  Anyway, we see now who and who is not the constitutional scholar here.  Hoisted by your own petard.  Heh. 

CV-- Your reply is a bit simplistic and really, in my opinion is a bit dishonest.  You have made up a position that I do not embrace:  Two wrongs make up a right.  In my post, I was merely pointing out facts at the time.  You must agree, then that the Roman Empire was immoral.  Were/are there any governments or forms of government that, in your opinion are morally right?  You did use the word and admit that you have some morals. 

 blessed moral uprighteousness ?  There was a time where it was immoral to kill children in the USA.  There was also a time where children did not curse, have sexual intercourse before marriage or had three children before they finished the seventh grade.  I am speaking about the normal (66.7%) bell curve, not the deviants.  There will always be exceptions to the rules.  I can remember going to many public schools and having freedom to learn without worrying about gangs, rapes, bad language, robberies, and intimidation.  The teachers before 1969 taught knowledge, wisdom and practical application of facts.  They were morally straight people, not like those today.  Just to remind you, there have been numerous females who have raped children in their classrooms.  They show no remorse.  That is an example of not having morals.

The normally accepted mores of those times werre not divided by class.  Almost all people accepted the sanctity of life.  Women and men, various shades of skin color, rich and poor, old and young, Christians and Buddists, workers and retired people.  Almost all.

You wouldn’t like to live in a city, school or office where people do not steal your property?  I don’t believe it.  You wouldn’t want a person to take your car, or kidnap your family, would you?  Sanctity of life begins with conception--otherwise, murder can be rationalized along the way as was taught in NAZI Germany.  I am positive that we would agree on several rules of living, mores and laws.

Epi:  By definition, a "general abortion right" would be something that applied to the entire country, therefore a Constitutional amendment would be necessary to establish such a general right.  Is that so hard to understand?  Your words, not mine.  Absent such a "general right", the states would have jurisdiction on abortion within their borders, according to the voters.  Once again, not difficult to understand. 

As far as "gay marriage" is concerned, it is funny that you would support a small, special interest group forcing its will on the vast majority.  If they want to establish their own version of marriage for their own selfish interests, they certainly went about it the wrong way.  In the ‘50s, the gay people I knew despised "married straights"; now they want to be married.  Strange.  Maybe there is a hidden agenda here. 

Epicurus spits, I acknowledge that proponents of propositions which would make state constitutions require that legally sanctioned marraiges be only between a man and a woman are bigots and are attempting to get such passed as a means to write their own discriminatory views into law.

Epicurus is a bigot because he disagrees with me.

Nice way of thinking Epicurus! Bigot.

By the way - discrimination is not a bad thing in and of itself. Until you start to rail against driving laws that prevent nine year olds from taking the wheel (age discrimination), you really shouldn’t rail against discrimination.

5th Amendment:

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.

14th Amendment (in pertinent part):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

______________________

As one can readily see one does not have a right to life; what one has is a right to due process so as to protect one’s life from various evils.  Those are very different concepts.  The first is a positive right, the second is a negative one. 

There are other issues involved with this as well obviously, including the privileges and immunities clause (basically defunct after the Slaughterhouse Cases) and that concerning the equal protection of the laws (where a right to life is also very unlikely to exist).

likwidshoe,

I assure you that no spitting was involved in that statement.

I seem to have touched a nerve.  Good.

robert108,

By definition, a "general abortion right" would be something that applied to the entire country...

Not if the context of the discussion is a state law, as it is here.  It was a freudian slip on your part I am sure. 

As far as "gay marriage" is concerned, it is funny that you would support a small, special interest group forcing its will on the vast majority. 

I believe in individual liberty, not group liberty. 

I seem to have touched a nerve.  Good.

Not really. I see you as a laughable diversion in my life. At times you bring up some good points, other times you drone on about things about which you know little about.

Abortion is the ending of a human life without affording that life due process under the 5th amendment.

The 5th Amendment alone doesn’t help you by itself; here we are discussing a state matter, so you’d want to look to the 14th Amendment to make such a claim. 

I assume you’re referring to the equal protection clause?  That just plays into my argument.  The 14th amendment requires that the law be applied equally.  That means unborn children as well.

You’d think that someone who carries on as though he were some sort of constitutional scholar (which, from what I’ve read of Epi’s writings he is not)

Oh yes, and as we’re all aware of, you have all the expertise to determine that issue.  And people call me arrogant.  Heh. 

I’m not a constitutional scholar nor have I claimed to be.  I’ve never claimed to be anyting more than a concerned citizen.

That being said, I can spot a pretentious boob when I see one. 

Apparently you can’t wrap your mind around the fact that they are two seperate issues.

 You’re the one who started the argument.  I said there was no good reason for taxpayers to provide funding for medical procedures like abortions.  You’ve said that you don’t have a problem with this position, the rest of your comments have been pointless, self-aggrandizing blather.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Ep:

 did you get your message at 2:57?

Ep-  You just about make your own case.  nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law 

I think you missed my point:  I am not saying that a person should not be free to live (or die) by their own hand.  In the case of Dr. Kevorkian, a court convicted him of introducing a drug that killed another person.

The point from this thread is that the state, in this case, Minnesota, has passed a law.  In your extreme case, a person is free to move, live, visit, or just go to another country or territory and do that which is legal in that jurisdiction.  Another jurisdiction can make a law allowing driving autos by persons who are 9 if they wish.  I would be free not to live there.

As one can readily see one does not have a right to life; what one has is a right to due process so as to protect one’s life from various evils.  Those are very different concepts.  The first is a positive right, the second is a negative one.

Split hairs if you must, but they are one in the same thing.

Some of my constitutionally-protected rights can be taken away from me should I be imprisoned.  This fact does not make them something other than rights.  The 5th amendment guarantees that my right to life cannot be taken away from me without due process of law.  Same as any other right. 

I seem to have touched a nerve.  Good.

Oh please.  Much like your comment made the other day about only being able to "teach so much," you think far too much of yourself.  You seem reasonably intelligent, and people here would be more likely to take you seriously if you dropped some of the arrogance. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

I assume you’re referring to the equal protection clause? 

No, the due process clause of the 14th amendment.  Its only with the 14th Amendment that one gets due process language from the Constitution applied to the states.  This is first semester law school stuff. 

The 14th amendment requires that the law be applied equally. 

The law can be applied equally and you can still have an abortion right.      

I’m not a constitutional scholar nor have I claimed to be.  I’ve never claimed to be anyting more than a concerned citizen.

That being said, I can spot a pretentious boob when I see one. 

(A) I can spot someone way out of their league (as you are).

(B) You are indeed claiming expertise, and you do it all the time.

(C) Your judgment about my skills in this area are not to be taken seriously given your poor knowledge of how the constitutional legal machinery actually works. 

You’ve said that you don’t have a problem with this position, the rest of your comments have been pointless, self-aggrandizing blather.

If that’s how you feel then stop commenting on it then.  For someone who sees my comments as being that unimportant you certainly get rather exercised over them.  Hah. 

rob,

Split hairs if you must, but they are one in the same thing.

No they are not.  A right to life would entail all manner of government efforts to sustain your life, including all manner of payment of medical treatments, etc.  One must think through the implications of one’s claims.

The 5th amendment guarantees that my right to life cannot be taken away from me without due process of law. 

It does not guarantee you a right to life though.   

rob,

Anyway, I’m glad that I could teach you that the due process clause at issue here (because it is a state law) is the one contained in the 14th amendment.   

Chief RZ,

I think you missed my point:  I am not saying that a person should not be free to live (or die) by their own hand.  In the case of Dr. Kevorkian, a court convicted him of introducing a drug that killed another person.

And again, I should be able to take up the services of such a doctor if I so choose. 

The point from this thread is that the state, in this case, Minnesota, has passed a law.  In your extreme case, a person is free to move, live, visit, or just go to another country or territory and do that which is legal in that jurisdiction.  Another jurisdiction can make a law allowing driving autos by persons who are 9 if they wish.  I would be free not to live there.

Sorry, you’re going to have to tease this out a bit more. 

rob,

Are you now feverishly googling the 14th amendment’s application to the states?  

(A) I can spot someone way out of their league (as you are).

(B) You are indeed claiming expertise, and you do it all the time.

(C) Your judgment about my skills in this area are not to be taken seriously given your poor knowledge of how the constitutional legal machinery actually works.

I think it is hilarious how often you resort to the "appeal to authority" fallacy when you’re losing an argument.  You can’t debate the issue on the points, so you claim that you’re smarter than everyone else and change the subject.

Its only with the 14th Amendment that one gets due process language from the Constitution applied to the states.  This is first semester law school stuff.

The 14th amendment the language of the 5th amendment to the states.  So, I’m right. 

If that’s how you feel then stop commenting on it then.  For someone who sees my comments as being that unimportant you certainly get rather exercised over them.  Hah.

You’re the one who says that I’m "way out of my league."  If I’m so dumb, why do you bother to comment here all the time?  Maybe because you enjoy debating?  That’s why I do it.

How about you just admit that your problem with me is not that I’m dumb or don’t know as much as you but simply that we disagree?  But then, that’s probably expecting too much maturity out of you. 

The law can be applied equally and you can still have an abortion right.    

How does that work?  Currently, in some states, if I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach I can be convicted of murder.  Yet if that same woman were to get an abortion, that’s all well and dandy.  How is that an equal application of the law?

Or how about the kids in Oklahoma (or somewhere like that)?  The girl and her boyfriend didn’t want their baby, so she got him to walk on her stomach.  They got caught, now the boy is in jail for murder and the girl is off scott free thanks to her "right" to an abortion.

And speaking of abortion rights, which you mention often, where exactly does that one fall in the Constitution?  I’m sure a self-styled Thomas Jefferson like yourself can come up with some phoney-baloney, twisted interpretation of the documents text that suggests it...but I don’t get how you can recognize that the right to life (or the right to not be killed without due process if that suits you better) is explicitly in the constitution (twice even!) yet seem to think it is trumped by some "right" that isn’t explicitly named at all and only exists thanks to a rather tortured interpretation by some unelected judges? 

It does not guarantee you a right to life though.

But it certainly suggests that a woman has to "right" to end the life in her womb unilaterally. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Anyway, could anyone imagine what a government mandated right to life would be like?  How intrusive, expensive, etc. such a government sponsored right would be?  Not only would it entail free medical care, it would also entail free room and board probably, a government mandated job, etc. 

Are you now feverishly googling the 14th amendment’s application to the states?

Actually, I’m having a nice cool glass of water while laughing about how upset you’re getting.  I mean, for all your disdain for my constitutional knowledge you certainly seem to take my opinions pretty seriously. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Anyway, could anyone imagine what a government mandated right to life would be like?  How intrusive, expensive, etc. such a government sponsored right would be?  Not only would it entail free medical care, it would also entail free room and board probably, a government mandated job, etc.

One can always tell when Epi is trying to draw attention away from his losing arguments.  He posts a bunch of comments in a row, usually linking to other sites and focusing on minor-side issues.

Quite funny, once one notices the trend. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

rob,

I think it is hilarious how often you resort to the "appeal to authority" fallacy when you’re losing an argument.  You can’t debate the issue on the points, so you claim that you’re smarter than everyone else and change the subject.

The problem is that I have been debating the issue and on the points, and you’re the one dragging in these attacks on my ability to do constitutional analysis.  I suppose I should simply ignore these attacks and let them stand as they are, eh?  Damned if I do, damned if I don’t I suppose. 

The 14th amendment the language of the 5th amendment to the states.  So, I’m right. 

Dude, that’s not even a coherant sentence.  Anyway, the 14th amendment stands alone; it doesn’t depend on the 5th amendment to work.  And whether it uses the same language or not is not the point.  You claimed that the vehicle at play here was in the 5th amendment. You didn’t mention the due process language (indeed, you didn’t even apparently realize that it existed) until I mentioned it.  You can’t just deny that now without looking, well, silly. 

How about you just admit that your problem with me is not that I’m dumb or don’t know as much as you but simply that we disagree? 

You don’t know as much as I do generally in the area of the law (and probably a lot of other areas as well).  Indeed, implying that your knowledge is wholly equal to mine seems a rather strange thing to claim.  You’ve clearly demonstrated this with your ignorance regarding the 14th amendment.  There’s no shame in that for a person interested in truth and wisdom. 

How does that work?  Currently, in some states, if I punch a pregnant woman in the stomach I can be convicted of murder.   Yet if that same woman were to get an abortion, that’s all well and dandy.  How is that an equal application of the law?

Because we live in a federalist system.  This is why gay marraige is legal in Massachusetts and not so in Alabama.  Apparently you want selective application of state laws nationally. 

And speaking of abortion rights, which you mention often, where exactly does that one fall in the Constitution? 

I think you’re making an assumption that I agree with the reasoning in Roe and its progeny.  I don’t. 

rob,

One can always tell when Epi is trying to draw attention away from his losing arguments.  He posts a bunch of comments in a row, usually linking to other sites and focusing on minor-side issues.

Apparently thought commentary which you can’t refute is something bothers you.  Hah.  Instead of directly attacking my statement you’d rather engage in commentary about my person and make claims about my ‘style.’   

could anyone imagine what a government mandated right to life would be like?  How intrusive, expensive, etc. such a government sponsored right would be?

LoL.  I’m watching my stock in SA-Land skyrocket.  Thats some funny stuff right there.

 Not only would it entail free medical care, it would also entail free room and board probably, a government mandated job, etc.

A "Right to Life" is NOT a "Right to a Free Living with No Job and someone pays your way" 

FreeRepublicans,

A "Right to Life" is NOT a "Right to a Free Living with No Job and someone pays your way" 

The way rob describes it is.

Embrassing public funding for abortion is an imposition that is demeaning! To inflict public funding is a kick in the face to those who recognize and respect life. It is bad enough to know that millions of abortions are performed. Abortion being legal is not my choice and I want to remain independent of funding it in anyway possible!

The problem is that I have been debating the issue and on the points, and you’re the one dragging in these attacks on my ability to do constitutional analysis.  I suppose I should simply ignore these attacks and let them stand as they are, eh?  Damned if I do, damned if I don’t I suppose.

You’re the one who started talking about people’s scholarly qualifications.  Surprised that you reap as you sow?

Dude, that’s not even a coherant sentence.

That was actually two sentences, dude.  And I’m still right because we have progressed far beyond Minnesota and the Gomez ruling.  We have been talking about Abortion in general, which has been declared a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court.  To me, the 5th amendment clearly prohibits any constitutional right to an abortion.

You claimed that the vehicle at play here was in the 5th amendment. You didn’t mention the due process language (indeed, you didn’t even apparently realize that it existed) until I mentioned it.  You can’t just deny that now without looking, well, silly.

I have cited the due process language in the 5th amendment as part of my opposition to abortion long before you got to this blog.  The only one looking silly is you.  But even in this thread I was the first to mention due process, not you.

You don’t know as much as I do generally in the area of the law (and probably a lot of other areas as well).  Indeed, implying that your knowledge is wholly equal to mine seems a rather strange thing to claim.  You’ve clearly demonstrated this with your ignorance regarding the 14th amendment.  There’s no shame in that for a person interested in truth and wisdom.

Again, the appeal to authority fallacy.

Just close your eyes and keep telling yourself that you’re smarter than everybody else.  Maybe if you do it long enough people will start buying your arguments. 

Because we live in a federalist system.  This is why gay marraige is legal in Massachusetts and not so in Alabama.  Apparently you want selective application of state laws nationally.

I’m not talking about state laws, I’m talking about the right to an abortion.  This is what we’ve been talking about all the time.  The 5th amendment guarantees a right not to have your life taken away without due process, and the 14th amendment guarantees that all people should get equal protection under the 5th.  Nice try at confusing the issue to draw attention away from your losing arguments once again, but that’s just how it works.

How can you say that unborn children should be denied their lives without due process of law based on a "right" that does not exist explicitly in the Constitution? 

I think you’re making an assumption that I agree with the reasoning in Roe and its progeny.  I don’t.

And yet your comments indicate that you believe there is a right to abortion.  What else grants that right other than Roe?

The way rob describes it is.

Really?  Where did I describe it as such?  I call the 5th amendment protection of life as a right to life.  I have a right not to be killed without due process of law.  That is a right to life.  I said nothing about there being a government responsibility to provide for that life.  That’s a lie you made up to draw attention away from your losing arguments on the larger issue here.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

rob,

BTW, as far as state law is concerned, the 14th amendment only applies in areas where the states have given the federal government the power to regulate their activities.  The question would be then whether the 14th amendment was ever meant to apply to the issue of abortion when it was brought into being?  For both pro and anti-Roe types this is an equally problematic issue. 

Accordingly, you can’t hang your hat on the 5th amendment (or any of the other bill of rights) if the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the states in the area of abortion, because the 5th amendment (though it would be redundant) can only be applied to the federal government if the 14th amendment didn’t exist.

Epi, more attempts to confuse the issue and draw attention away from your losing arguments.

But, just to be clear, this is my stance on abortion:  It is unconstitutional.  A woman cannot end the life in her womb unilaterally without the due process of law afforded by the 5th amendment.

Got it? 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

BTW, as far as state law is concerned, the 14th amendment only applies in areas where the states have given the federal government the power to regulate their activities.

When has a state EVER given the federal government power?

The Civil War was fought because the Federal Government claimed a power that was no given to it in the constition, visa vis the 10th Amendment any power not specificly given to the Federal Government, or prohibited to the states by the Constituion, is defaulted to the power of the state.

The Feds blackmail the states into "giving" power away by threatening to hold back funding.

 Accordingly, you can’t hang your hat on the 5th amendment (or any of the other bill of rights) if the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to the states in the area of abortion, because the 5th amendment (though it would be redundant) can only be applied to the federal government if the 14th amendment didn’t exist.

I didn’t know it was possible to type out of both sides of a person’s mouth.

Clearly you believe that the Constituion grants power to the government state or federal. 

If you don’t realize the Constitution is a limiting document on what the government can do, then you are wasting your time. 

I realize I contradicted myself there a bit, but anyone who has any knowledge understands what I was saying.

rob,

You’re the one who started talking about people’s scholarly qualifications.  Surprised that you reap as you sow?

No, you’re the one. 

Dude, that’s not even a coherant sentence.

That was actually two sentences, dude. 

Which is merely a way of eliding past the point of my statement.   

We have been talking about Abortion in general, which has been declared a Constitutional right by the Supreme Court.  To me, the 5th amendment clearly prohibits any constitutional right to an abortion.

How?  The 5th amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, only applies to the federal government if the 14th amendment didn’t exist?  I swear, your efforts to ignore your own ignorance get stranger and stranger. 

You claimed that the vehicle at play here was in the 5th amendment. You didn’t mention the due process language (indeed, you didn’t even apparently realize that it existed) until I mentioned it.  You can’t just deny that now without looking, well, silly.

I have cited the due process language in the 5th amendment as part of my opposition to abortion long before you got to this blog. 

Why are you selectively quoting me? 

Here’s what I wrote (and I am clearly referring to the 14th amendment’s due process language when I critcize your lack of knowledge concerning it):

Dude, that’s not even a coherant sentence.  Anyway, the 14th amendment stands alone; it doesn’t depend on the 5th amendment to work.  And whether it uses the same language or not is not the point.  You claimed that the vehicle at play here was in the 5th amendment. You didn’t mention the due process language (indeed, you didn’t even apparently realize that it existed) until I mentioned it.  You can’t just deny that now without looking, well, silly.   

 But even in this thread I was the first to mention due process, not you.

Of the 5th Amendment.  Again, the 5th Amendment cannot apply to the states without the 14th Amendment, and in this instance the 5th Amendment’s language is wholly redundant.  This is basic constitutional law here.

Again, the appeal to authority fallacy.

Oh my goodness.  *rolls eyes*  I see, so you can claim that you know as much as me, etc. etc., but when I counter that claim, its an appeal to authority?  Heh.  You are by far one of the most absurd people I’ve ever met in my life. 

I’m not talking about state laws, I’m talking about the right to an abortion.

Then why did you mention state laws then? 

The 5th amendment guarantees a right not to have your life taken away without due process...

By the federal government.  The 5th amendment has no application to the states without the 14th amendment. 

...and the 14th amendment guarantees that all people should get equal protection under the 5th. 

No, the language of the equal protection clause is clear; it applies to state laws and state actions, not to federal laws or federal actions.  Anyway, its nice to see that you’re finally starting to see that the 14th amendment is what brings federal power to bear down on the states, and not the Bill of Rights. 

BTW, how exactly do you explain the due process language in the 14th amendment, and how it has been used, by itself (meaning without the 5th amendment), in all manner of case law? 

Nice try at confusing the issue to draw attention away from your losing arguments once again, but that’s just how it works.

Ha ha ha.

How can you say that unborn children should be denied their lives without due process of law based on a "right" that does not exist explicitly in the Constitution? 

The problem is that you are confusing two seperate constitutional doctrines; equal protection of the laws and due process of law.  They do intersect, but not in the way that you claim that they do. 

As to your question, I do not see a fetus as a person, and therefore the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to them.  In other words, your query merely begs the question: is a fetus a person for 14th amendment purposes? 

And yet your comments indicate that you believe there is a right to abortion.

You assume that since I am not opposed to abortion that I find Roe to be a useful, constitutional, well reasoned, etc. decision, but I don’t.  Indeed, lots of folks who are not opposed to abortion find the decision deeply flawed.  Maybe you should expand your intellectual horizons a but more if you think the Roe decision is a controversy between binary camps.

I call the 5th amendment protection of life as a right to life. 

And that by itself, without further explication, is where you get into trouble. 

Of the 5th Amendment.  Again, the 5th Amendment cannot apply to the states without the 14th Amendment, and in this instance the 5th Amendment’s language is wholly redundant.  This is basic constitutional law here.

And yet, we stopped talking about Gomez long ago.  We have been talking about the "right" to an abortion, which has been a national issue since  Roe.  Thus, the 5th amendment does apply here.

I know that pretending that we’re really talking about something else is a good way to avoid my arguments, but do try to follow along. 

Oh my goodness.  *rolls eyes*  I see, so you can claim that you know as much as me, etc. etc., but when I counter that claim, its an appeal to authority?  Heh.  You are by far one of the most absurd people I’ve ever met in my life.

Why, because i won’t let you wriggle out of arguments by simply saying that you know more than I do?  Maybe you are smarter than me.  I’m certainly not in the mood for a weenie-measuring contest, but I do have my opinions about the abortion issue and you certainly haven’t done anything to change my mind or even prove me wrong. 

As to your question, I do not see a fetus as a person, and therefore the 14th amendment doesn’t apply to them.  In other words, your query merely begs the question: is a fetus a person for 14th amendment purposes?

The 5th amendment requires that no person be denied life without due process of law.  A fetus is a life.  Unless it is chopped up and sucked out of a womb by a doctor (or miscarried through natural happenstance) it will live.  It is a human.  That you conveniently decide that it is not a "person" is a cop out.  It is a person.  Not a fully developed person or one who can talk and defend its own rights, but a person none-the-less.

But this is all you had to say several comments ago.  All your pompous lecturing on constitional law (and I’d point out that I have been consistently right in my analysis all along, despite your claims to the contrary) has been for naught.

Instead of obfuscation and water-muddying, why not just try to state clearly what you actually mean? 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Epi: So, by "general right" you meant a right specific to the State of Minnesota?  That is a stretch, but it would still necessitate an amendment to the State constitution, I believe.

Rob,

He just doesn’t get it.

We just need to get the word "Person" better defined and the problem will be solved. 

rob,

We’re all aware of what your stance is, it would be just nice if you apply the proper legal framework that’s all.

docdave,

I’d rather see something substantive from you rather than lazy personal attacks. 

FreeRepublicans,

When has a state EVER given the federal government power?

Lots of times.  The states gave the federal government a whole series of powers when the Constitution was ratified.  The 14th Amendment is another example.

The Civil War was fought because the Federal Government claimed a power that was no given to it in the constition, visa vis the 10th Amendment any power not specificly given to the Federal Government, or prohibited to the states by the Constituion, is defaulted to the power of the state.

What power did the federal government claim specifically that started the war? 

Clearly you believe that the Constituion grants power to the government state or federal. 

Because it clearly states that it does in the opening statements of Articles I, II and III. 

If you don’t realize the Constitution is a limiting document on what the government can do, then you are wasting your time. 

Yes, it clearly does limit the power of the government, but to say that it grants no power to it is bizarre.

I realize I contradicted myself there a bit, but anyone who has any knowledge understands what I was saying.

If it’s so right and true and supported by the people, why should abortion need govt subsidy?

rob,

Here’s my suggestion.  If you don’t believe me and wish to have your theory tested, present it to Prof. Volokh and see what he says about your constitutional analysis.  I am sure that he will concur with me that the reason the states are prohibited under Roe and Casey from completely prohibiting abortion is due primarily to the reach of the 14th amendment as that was applied in those two cases.

We have been talking about the "right" to an abortion, which has been a national issue since  Roe.  Thus, the 5th amendment does apply here.

Roe concerned a state statute, specifically a Texas statute criminalizing abortion.  Apparently you’re confused here about how our federalist system works.  So yes it is a national issue because of Roe, but it remains the case that Roe’s findings were applied to the states through the 14th amendment (if you would read Roe you’d realize this).  Roe didn’t just erase the place of the states when it comes to abortion law after all. In other words, it doesn’t matter whether we’re discussing that particular Minnesota case or not; the 14th amendment is going to apply if we’re talking about state abortion laws, and it was a state abortion law which started this conversation. 

I’m certainly not in the mood for a weenie-measuring contest...

You could have fooled me.  After all, you are the one constantly attacking my intellectual abilities and the like. 

...but I do have my opinions about the abortion issue and you certainly haven’t done anything to change my mind or even prove me wrong. 

Who said you couldn’t have your opinions?  Not I.  I just wish they were informed ones that’s all.

The 5th amendment requires that no person be denied life without due process of law. 

Again, as applied to the federal government. 

A fetus is a life

Is it?  Did the 5th Amendment, or the 14th, when they written contemplate that it would be protecting a fetus from abortion?     

All your pompous lecturing on constitional law (and I’d point out that I have been consistently right in my analysis all along, despite your claims to the contrary) has been for naught.

I can only teach; I can’t make you learn.

Instead of obfuscation and water-muddying, why not just try to state clearly what you actually mean? 

I’ve been very clear.  By itself, the 5th amendment cannot be applied to the states (where most abortions happen and the factual example that Roe was applied to), one must depend on the 14th amendment.  Also, its not clear that the 14th amendment was ever meant to protect a fetus.

Epi,

The states gave the federal government a whole series of powers when the Constitution was ratified.

Yes, and it was a volluntary contract as well. 

 What power did the federal government claim specifically that started the war?

To place tariffs on goods leaving southern ports.

To regulate the width of railroad tracks.

To enforce the fact that all men are created equal.

Yes, it clearly does limit the power of the government, but to say that it grants no power to it is bizarre.

The 10th Amendment clearly states that the writing is meant to be taken literally.  Meaning, there is no interperatation other than to people who can not read. 

docdave,

So you can chop it to bits, no thanks. 

Heh, what are you afraid of? 

If you don’t believe me and wish to have your theory tested, present it to Prof. Volokh and see what he says about your constitutional analysis.

Funny.  You get to pick the Prof.

The 5th amendment requires that no person be denied life without due process of law. 

Again, as applied to the federal government.

The 5th Amendment is a protection to all citizens of the United States.  

You can quibble over the definition of "a person," or even say that until someone is born they are not a citizen; but to sit there are blatantly twist the meaning of the writing is silly.

The Bill of Rights are protections ‘the people" have FROM government.  Not powers the government has over people.

A fetus is a life

Is it?  Did the 5th Amendment, or the 14th, when they written contemplate that it would be protecting a fetus from abortion?    

The founders were too busy trying to populate a continent to ever imagine anyone would want to commit infanticide.

I’ve been very clear.  By itself, the 5th amendment cannot be applied to the states…

It’s not applied to the states.  It’s a protection all citizens have from their government. 

...one must depend on the 14th amendment.

Why does the 14th carry more weight than the 5th?  In the eyes of the document, each Amendment is equal.

 Also, its not clear that the 14th amendment was ever meant to protect a fetus.

Of course not.  People weren’t killing their children cause it got in the way of their career back then! 

FreeRepublican,

Yes, and it was a volluntary contract as well. 

Which made the Constitution within its purview the supreme law of the land.   

To place tariffs on goods leaving southern ports.

The federal government quite clearly has the power to place tarriffs on goods in this way. 

To regulate the width of railroad tracks.

The federal government only started regulating railroads after the Interstate Commerce Commission came into being after the Civil War (to my knowledge).

To enforce the fact that all men are created equal.

Something which Confederacy did not adhere to.

The 10th Amendment clearly states that the writing is meant to be taken literally.  Meaning, there is no interperatation other than to people who can not read. 

Here’s the text:

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.

And how, pray reveal, does this language conflict with what I wrote? 

Funny.  You get to pick the Prof.

Prof. Volohk is a well recognized constitutional scholar, and he blogs regularly as well.  He’s also quite conservative. 

The 5th Amendment is a protection to all citizens of the United States.

Ok, I know this is a weird concept, but you do realize that you are both a citizen of the U.S. and of the state where you domicile, right?   And that we have a federalist system of government in which many things which check the federal government do not check state governments, right?  So, like, when the 5th amendment was ratified was not expected to apply to the states (neither were most of the Bill of Rights for that matter).  So yes, as citizens of the U.S., when it comes to federal actions, the 5th amendment applies, but not when it comes to state actions.  It is truly bizarre; you guys claim to be federalists but you don’t know what that means. 

The Bill of Rights are protections ‘the people" have FROM government.  Not powers the government has over people.

Which did not apply to the states prior to the 14th amendment.  Hell, they really weren’t applied until the Supreme Court started doing so via various incorporation doctrines during the 20th century.     

The founders were too busy trying to populate a continent to ever imagine anyone would want to commit infanticide.

That’s wrong as well.  Abortion prior to the stage known as "quickening" was common and legal in colonial and revolutionary America.

It’s not applied to the states.  It’s a protection all citizens have from their government. 

From the federal government. 

Why does the 14th carry more weight than the 5th?  In the eyes of the document, each Amendment is equal.

Because that is how our system of government works.  Prior to the 14th amendment most of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state actions!  This was clear in the case law right up to the 14th Amendment’s enactment!

Of course not.  People weren’t killing their children cause it got in the way of their career back then! 

Abortion before quickening was common well into the 19th century.

____________________

This conversation has been a sobering example of just how poorly educated people can be about our Constitutional framework.  It is rather worrisome I must admit.

Have a nice day folks.

____________________

rob,

BTW, I do hope you take me up on my challenge.

Epi: If you’re going to use the f-word(fetus), at least be correct and refer to it as a human fetus.  It’s not a cocker spaniel, after all.

robert108,

You know if rob is right and its merely the 5th Amendment which is at issue here, then that would do away with your contention that the issue should be left to the states. 

Of course rob is wrong.  Even if the SCOTUS were to overturn Roe and at the same time state that having an abortion is a violation of the federal constitution whether committed by the federal government or thestates (an unlikely scenario given the statements of abortion opponents on the Court - namely folks like Scalia), they would still have to go through the 14th amendment’s due process clause to get to the states. 

Epi: You stated that you thought there should be a "general right" to abortion.  I disagreed, stating that it would require amending the Constitution.  My beef with Roe v Wade is that it bypassed the correct procedure for amending the Constitution, which is through amendment.  Quibbling about fine points of law is not my area, since I’m not a lawyer.  I think a "right to abortion" is an obscenity.  My position is to let the people decide about abortion, preferably on a community basis.  It could easily be a zoning matter.  No abortion mills.

Ok, I know this is a weird concept, but you do realize that you are both a citizen of the U.S. and of the state where you domicile, right?

No.

I’m a Citizen of the United States.

I’m a Resident of North Dakota.

 And that we have a federalist system of government in which many things which check the federal government do not check state governments, right?

Your wording is odd there.  But if you are saying the Federal Government was meant to act as a Check and Balnce on State Government - I would say you’ve got things bass ackwards.  

Powers not given to the Feds are defaulted back to the States, making the States the check on the Feds.

 So, like, when the 5th amendment was ratified was not expected to apply to the states (neither were most of the Bill of Rights for that matter).

You make no sense.  Who else was it supposed to cover?

 It is truly bizarre; you guys claim to be federalists but you don’t know what that means.

Actually, I would prefer a modified confederation where the Federal Government only takes care of national security issues, making sure the money supply is approiately back with hard currency, and dealing with other nations.

Frankly, if it were up to me we’d move back towards, but not all the way, to the Articles of Confederation.

So, no, I would not be concidered a Federalist.

Which did not apply to the states prior to the 14th amendment.  Hell, they really weren’t applied until the Supreme Court started doing so via various incorporation doctrines during the 20th century.    

They applied to "citizens" which in the begining were landowning males.  Gradually it opened up.

But the document has always protected whomever were classified as citizens at the time. 

Abortion prior to the stage known as "quickening" was common and legal in colonial and revolutionary America.

If you say so oh great historian of infanticide.

 Because that is how our system of government works.  Prior to the 14th amendment most of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state actions!  This was clear in the case law right up to the 14th Amendment’s enactment!

Again, who did it cover?  There was no FBI or other agencies.  All there was were tax collectors. 

 You know if rob is right and its merely the 5th Amendment which is at issue here, then that would do away with your contention that the issue should be left to the states.

The Constitution protects all citizens regardless of residency.

It’s always interesting to listen to people who are for the war in Iraq in which thousands of babies have died (never met a terrorist baby) are also anti-abortion.  I don’t call this bunch pro-life because their support of killing babies in Iraq disqualifies them; I simply refer to them as anti-abortion.   They are certainly not pro-life.

As an anti-Iraq war person, I am consistent in that I am also pro-life for unborn humans.

And one of the few consistent people I’v