Say Anything Blog

Yeah but Mitt was for abortion before he was against it.

Or was it the other way around.  I get confused.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

Even though I don’t bill myself as pro life, I can’t see backing any other candidate.  I have looked at all of them, and most of them elicit either a goan, or outright fear.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

The reasons for Thompson being pro-life are the most important for me.  It is not because he is a pandering politician, but becaus4e he has a consistent record of being pro-state’s rights.  And it extends to most areas including his desire to scale back the Commerce Clause.

I think he is more Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia than he is like Bush.  These are the folks that I think can make a difference, not a President.  And expect that Thompson will appoint a justice that is along these exact same ideological lines.

That is what scares me about Rudy, McCain, and Romney.  You know what kind of justice Thompson is going to appoint.  The other folks prefer to pander and go according to polls.  Rudy doesn’t even support the 2nd Amendment.  How do we expect him to support a Constructionist SCOTUS nominee?

Roe has got to be overturned for the right reason.  And the only right reason is Federalism.  That it is not a Federal power.

Justin: I only disagree with you to this extent: I think Roe should also be overturned because it was based on a right of privacy and I do not believe that was a solid or correct constitutional basis. If we are to have the rule of law, we must not allow Justices to construct Law out of whole cloth outside the Constitution and thereby amend the Constitution absent the constitutional amendment process. If abortion on demand is to be based on the Constitution, it requires the Constitution be amended with the consent of the people via the proper amendment process.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Roe was only decided that states cannot make laws that violate that “right to privacy” and that this trumps the 10th Amendment.

The right to privacy is moot if we recognize that it is not within the Federal government’s jurisdiction to even decide these issues.  We really need to scale back the Federal government’s reach, especially with the Commerce Clause.  We see that is one of the first things that Robert’s Supreme Court is changing. 

I am less concerned about just abortion than I am about the bigger picture that the Federal government is destroying the rights of the individual states.  things like highway funds, the war on drugs, abortion, and so on.

Simply saying that a right to privacy doesn’t exist does little to stop the Feds from finding another obscure reason to keep abortion legal.  As long as it is in the Federal government’s hands, not handled at the state level, we will never be able to override the wishes of Liberal Blue staters and decide these issues on a state by state basis.  I know that abortion opponents want a Federal ban, but the only way to achieve this and not allow the Federal government to simply reverse it when the SCOTUS majority changes again is to ban it at the Constitutional Amendment level.  However, if the SCOTUS rules that it is not a Federal issue to regulate this procedure and that the states have the right to do so, admittedly, we may not get all states to ban it.  But this furthers the difference between states that have high taxes and kill babies and those that don’t.

Justin: I said ”ALSO!” Not other than, I understood and did not disagree with you, I added an also because I feel it goes to the heart of judicial activism, wherein the Justices are admonished that they cannot make up law out of nothing, unless it is clearly covered in the Constitution they are restricted from addressing the issue.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Right to privacy.  Interesting how soon and how many different ways this supposed right is violated by liberals:  The right to keep one’s purchase of a gun private, what one reads, rents, owns, believes, and even thinks have all been attacked by those on the left--communists.

Communism is evil

I know that abortion opponents want a Federal ban, but the only way to achieve this and not allow the Federal government to simply reverse it when the SCOTUS majority changes again is to ban it at the Constitutional Amendment level.

Why is the Federal government considered to have too much power when they allow abortion, but if they were too ban it at the federal level, that’s not too much power? This is an honest question to you, I could be misinterpreting what you’re saying.

That is what scares me about Rudy, McCain, and Romney.  You know what kind of justice Thompson is going to appoint.  The other folks prefer to pander and go according to polls.  Rudy doesn’t even support the 2nd Amendment.  How do we expect him to support a Constructionist SCOTUS nominee?

I’m not debating that Rudy is more pro choice than the other republican candidates, but I’m curious, what in his past makes you think he’s outright lying about his stance on appointing constructionist justices? You really think, if elected, he would turn around and start appointing activist judges, thereby alienating the entire conservative base? And I also don’t see where Rudy is against the 2nd amendment, either. He’s against criminals and people on the terrorist watch list having guns, maybe, but saying he’s anti the right to bear arms is a tad extreme.

I’m as yet undecided here, so this is not some spam in support of Guliani. But I just don’t see where you’re drawing these conclusions about him from.

Why is the Federal government considered to have too much power when they allow abortion, but if they were too ban it at the federal level, that’s not too much power?

First of all, the issue of abortion was rigthfully a states issues until the Roe decision. i.e. read the 10th amendment to the Constitution.  Secondly, the Roe decision was not directly in support of abortion but in support of a womens unconditional right to make decisions concerning her unborn.  Lastly, the Roe decision was largely based on the status of the unborn.  The court wrongly decided that the unborn did not the constitutional rights of a fully born infant thus opening up the apportunity for a women to abort her fetus.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Looking only at the idea that privacy was made up out of whole cloth, you might want to base your arguments on fact, and not on the propaganda of the right (while I am usually found on the right, I won’t allow them to control my views).  There is, and has been for much more than a hundred of years, a right to privacy.  It was discussed by the Supreme Court in 1890 and in the early 20th century, but it has bee around longer than that.
This is a good read on the subject
Social Science Research paper

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

T-Rex: If you are going to challenge me on the facts, okay, I could be wrong on many occasions; but please make sure you are right first, lest you make yourself appear a fool.

“The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment.”

9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” 1) Sorry, I don’t see massive feticide included in the 9th Amendment; that is, unless you believe a basic human right is to deny a human fetus the right to live and thereby murder over one million innocent human beings each year qualifies. 2) Plus, these other rights must be retained (kept) by the people, which is why we have an Amendment process to allow the people to decide, not the Supremes or a rogue Congress.

The fact the Supreme Court has established such a right exists, when that right does not appear in the Constitution is to legislate from the bench and to amend the Constitution outside the mandated Amendment process. In both cases, the Supreme court have exceeded their authority and they have depended upon Stare decisis, the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere — “ to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.” Which is a disreputable way to amend and pervert the Constitution outside the Amendment process and it should be ended as a legal doctrine.

It may satisfy you to allow nine people and sometimes the Congress to Amend the Constitution outside the constitutionally mandated process; but I believe that either we are a nation of law or we are not and to pervert the Constitution and amend it outside the mandated process is destructive of liberty.

Let us say a right to Privacy is a basic human right and the Court, despite perverting the Amendment process, was right in recognizing that right: a) All rights have some limits, none are absolute. b) While you and others might like to say that the Court only decided women have a right to privacy over what happens to their bodies, no matter how you want to make it appear to be fair and right, sweet and innocent, no matter how you slice this rotted loaf, it still results in the state sponsored and funded murder of over one million innocent human beings each year in this country. So, whether it is a right to privacy or a woman’s right to choose, no matter what sweet sounding words and phrases you apply, it is still cold blooded mass murder and changing its name will not alter that simple fact.

So, you were wrong to accuse me of not having my facts straight, the facts are on my side, wilful perversion of the Constitution is on your side.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

WOW!
I certainly didn’t expect you to make it so easy on me, or to make me see so clearly how deluded this “right to life” cult is.

I certainly never expected you to actually quote the applicable phrase from the Constitution, and the correct underpinning of the Judicial System.  And I never expected you to, in the same writing, pretend the first does not read in English and whine that the other should be done away with.

I did expect you to continue the retoric about the rights of the unborn, something that isn’t legally established (except in a few recently passed laws state laws many of which may come under challenge by the courts) and is not established by the Bible (the Bible never addresses “rights” of the unborn. In Biblical times the rights of children, including the rights of life and death, were almost entirely at the discreasion of their parents.  I have never found anything in the Bible to directly refute this phylosophy).  It is mearly an outflow of the retoric that life begins where you want it to begin, at conseption.  Why not begin it at frist breath (Breath of Life), as was the law for centuries? (I will admit, you could possibly find, somewhere in the law to argue this point) Or with sperm, as the Roman Catholics seem to?

This is addressed only tangentally in the Bible, and I could argue from science (which would be a reasonable under pinning of secular law) that human life begins as late as 3 years of age, since that is the earliest an adult has consious memories of.

But getting back to the legal issues at hand, the phrase in the 9th amendment reads “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” By the people. Not by the state. This means We The People have the rights, including privacy, that are established in Common Law.  And the courts recognised it under “Stare decisis” (cut from your text, I didn’t bother to check and see if you got it right).  Why wouldn’t they?  Why are you whining that such an underpinning of the courts should be done away with?  Without such interpretations, you would have the right for the feds not to read your papers or search your person, but they could search your home. You would have the right to own and carry arms, but not ammunition, and no right to use such arms for any purpose.  Ridiculous.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

It is mearly (sic) an outflow of the retoric (sic) that life begins where you want it to begin, at conseption (sic).  Why not begin it at frist (sic) breath

Why do I remain strangely unmoved by your argument?

Barack Obama: All hat and no cattle since 1997!

Yeah, my spelling aint all that good, but if you can’t get past that, then I am not interested in debating you, let alone moving you.  After all, I am not here to move the rock, just to push on it.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman’s right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant’s arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman’s sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court’s decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one’s body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court’s decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past [see Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) re. vaccination; Buck v. Bell (1927) re. sterilization].

So we have the following:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And we have the following:

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 “Right to Privacy” is an elusive thing.  Free Speech and Bearing Arms are relatively easy because the wording is the wording.  Using Stare decisis to create a right and then define it as the SCOTUS sees fit is judicial activism.  First, if the right is absolute, it should be included in an Amendment.  If the Feds choose not to do so, then the power to enforce this right belongs to the states themselves or to the people.

This issue should have been decided at the Constitutional level to codify the “right to privacy” as an amendment to ensure that it is defined or should have been decided as an amendment to ensure that the “right to an abortion” or to “not have abortions happen” is also codified.

I do not believe that the Federal government would have jurisdiction to make this a Federal area of control.  It is not Interstate Commerce, is not a delineated right as defined in the Constitution, and if we go down the road of making up rights because the 9th Amendment seems to allow it, we get into the situation of made up rights taking on the same importance and meaning as those codified in the BOR.  Things like the “right to an education” or the “right to free healthcare”.

You throw the word “right” before damned near anything and it allows the SCOTUS to force their unelected opinion onto it using the 9th Amendment.

First, I want to thank you for meeting me on logical grounds here, with a minimum of partisan rhetoric. 

You have captured the essence of the arguement, and how both sides stand on it, and your arguments are at least, if not more well thought out than mine.  (I consider this a trivial issue in the grand scheme of things, and worry more about growing Muslim and Atheist movements that might bring Christianity back under persecution.)

I do want to point out what I feel is one flaw in the logic above.  You state “Using Stare decisis to create a right and then define it as the SCOTUS sees fit is judicial activism.” Well that is a sticking point.  From my point of view, the right to privacy existed for many years past (the article I quote above shows its roots extend back for possibly more than 400 years) and under Stare decisis the Supreme Court simply stated its standing, as a right “retained by the people” per the 9th Amendment.

That is the bulk of my arguement, and if it had been codified one way or another, in the Constitution, this might have been much easier.  If the State can show reasonable interest in the medical practice then it has a case for regulation of that practice.  Makes little difference to me, though with the law the way it is, the State must now show an over riding intrest beyond any resonable doubt.

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

The requirements is that the state have a “compelling interest” in regulating the procedure.  A compelling enough interest to override the “right to privacy” as defined by stare decisis.  So what we have is that the SCOTUS arbitrarily determines what is a compelling government interest, what the definition of the right to privacy is, and how the 9th Amendment and 10th Amendment relate to the issue of abortion.  Where do the voters come into this picture?  Last I saw, no state ever ratified an amendment that defined a right to privacy, nor did any state cede sovereignty allocating a right to privacy back to the Feds.  The people did not allocate protecting the “right to privacy” to the Federal Government either.  And the SCOTUS can change their definition of compelling government interest at any time they want, changing stare decisis and opening the entire process up to reinterpretation via a new ruling on the entire issue--which in fact is what the pro-lifers are hoping for.

We have a system of laws that are written by the Legislative Branch, enforced by the Executive Branch, and interpreted by the Judicial.  In these cases, the Judicial has struck down the laws written by the people of the states in favor of their own lack of laws by the Feds, therefore invalidating all of the state laws and forcing the Legislative Branch to write new ones at the Federal level instead of the state level.

So let’s take Abortion off the table and look at Medicinal Marijuana which is a very similar issue.  The Feds cannot demonstrate that a homegrown product sold solely within a single state and grown within the same state, prescribed by doctors licensed by said state, and done so under state law somehow constitutes “Interstate Commerce” and therefore becomes a Federal Issue under the Commerce Clause.  But that is more or less what they said when the struck down the Cali and AZ medicinal MJ acts. 

This is a serious encroachment of the Federal Government upon state’s rights.  It is not done by the Legislative Branch or the Executive Branch where the folks doing it are subject to popular votes and are representatively elected, it is done by appointed folks that serve lifetime appointments.  It cannot be undone by the will of the people at any level because the SCOTUS ruling is absolute unlike laws that can be repealed.  I can understand someone’s “Right to Choose” or “Right to Privacy” or whatever rights you want to construe.  But I have a right to live under a system of laws that actually empowers the people to pass flawed laws and then empowers them to repeal the flawed laws when the times change.  The only way to change stare decisis is to pass a Constitutional Amendment by supermajority of both Houses of Congress and then a supermajority of 3/4 of the states.  A burden that is higher than that of ending a filibuster or of overriding a veto or EVEN OF IMPEACHING A PRESIDENT.  We can impeach a President easier than we can as voters and citizens change Roe v. Wade. 

And maybe next time it isn’t Roe.  Maybe next time it is another “right to privacy” or First Amendment issue that is completely out of step with the will of the American people.  And looking at the ACLU’s agenda and the fact that Bader Ginsbergh was the former lead counsel for the ACLU, voted to strike down the MJ acts in Cali, and then voted to uphold Kelo, it seems that the SCOTUS does not even come close to representing the American people.  This is dangerous ground.  And why toy with fire on this as opposed to saying the Feds have no business doing any of this, that the Legislatures of the states do and need to decide it according to their Constitutions?

Well, I can see you are both passionate about your aguments, and they are fairly well thought out.  On some of this, we will just have to agree to disagree.  On other parts, such as the medical MJ issue, I think the feds are completely wrong (I didn’t know the Supreme Court had gotten involved).

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not

The medicinal MJ case is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich

Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v. Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled on June 6, 2005 that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which allows the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce… among the several States,” Congress may ban the use of cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.

John Ashcroft was in the case’s name because he was Attorney General when the case was filed. The case was renamed when Alberto Gonzales became Attorney General.

The dissenting opinions of O’Connor and Thomas are worth reading, but nuggets here:

Relying on Congress’ abstract assertions, the Court has endorsed making it a federal crime to grow small amounts of marijuana in one’s own home for one’s own medicinal use. This overreaching stifles an express choice by some States, concerned for the lives and liberties of their people, to regulate medical marijuana differently. If I were a California citizen, I would not have voted for the medical marijuana ballot initiative; if I were a California legislator I would not have supported the Compassionate Use Act. But whatever the wisdom of California’s experiment with medical marijuana, the federalism principles that have driven our Commerce Clause cases require that room for experiment be protected in this case.

It is interesting the many of the same folks that support medical MJ (you know, pothead college kids) also favor the Feds to force the states to allow abortion.  Voters of the states are incapable of making their own decisions because the Feds are SO MUCH SMARTER than us, especially us red staters.

Thomas said:

Respondent’s local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce ... among the several States.”

Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

The more interesting arguments seem to often be in the dissenting opinions.  Maybe this is because they don’t rely on being the majority, and feel they must be better or they will look foolish for dissenting.

One nugget I remember is:

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” — Justice Louis Brandeis

Another thing I recall is a Judge asking a prosecuter persuing an anti 2nd Amendment case about the commerce clause. He asked, under the definitions put forth in the prosecuters arguments if there were any limits on what could be legislated by the federal government, and got an answer that in the prosecuters view, the commerce clause basically gave them all encompassing power.  (I guess at least he was honest, in his desire to deprive the people of their rights.)

My view can usually be summed up as: if there is any doubt, the right remains in the hands of the people, and niether the state nor the federal government may make law against it.

TRex

I also write on http://www.combateffective.us
Where dissent is encouraged - But the amoral
liberal collective appeasement mindset is not