Re: For JPaul, especially...
On state rights, and not to start a "moral debate" even though the subject probably will.
Do you j2k4 think the supreme court should continue to hold as unconstitutional the federal government ban on late term abortions (I can't imagine why they don't just put the exception for the mothers health into it, but hey that's a different matter).
It is not a question on the rights or wrongs of abortion at any level, we have covered that ground over and over, but of "state rights" or "powers".
If Roe was wrongly decided for "state powers" reasons then surely the federal ban must also be wrong.
Re: For JPaul, especially...
"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."
It's actually a fabulously interesting concept.
My reading is that, if something is not Constitutionaly the remit of the United States and the Constitution does not specifically preclude something from being legislated by Individual States, then it falls to the Individual State to make it's own laws. (I capitalised "Individual" for effect).
That's a feckin' minefield and I can see why your administration would want to stfu about it.
POTUS - I've made a new law
State - The Constitution doesn't say that's your business so STFU.
POTUS - But I'm in charge.
State - You'd think that, but apparently not.
POTUS - Shit.
State - :naughty:
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
On state rights, and not to start a "moral debate" even though the subject probably will.
Do you j2k4 think the supreme court should continue to hold as unconstitutional the federal government ban on late term abortions (I can't imagine why they don't just put the exception for the mothers health into it, but hey that's a different matter).
It is not a question on the rights or wrongs of abortion at any level, we have covered that ground over and over, but of "state rights" or "powers".
If Roe was wrongly decided for "state powers" reasons then surely the federal ban must also be wrong.
The different matter...They purposely left out "health" because they say "health" encompasses physical, MENTAL, and any type of "health".
They didn't want the bother of what is considered "health".
I've known for some time about the "whatever powers the feds don't, the states do" but that hasn't been followed for...ever or when it's convenient for the feds.
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Do you j2k4 think the supreme court should continue to hold as unconstitutional the federal government ban on late term abortions (I can't imagine why they don't just put the exception for the mothers health into it, but hey that's a different matter).
I do think that, if the Fed further pursued the ban, it ought to have included a caveat for life/death/health in some fashion, but I also think something else:
It may have been this was omitted as a means of insuring the issue eventually made it back to the Court.
The hoped-for result would be (I imagine) that the Supremes would overturn Roe and lay the issue before the states, as would be proper.
The master plan (if indeed there is one) might be along these lines.
Without taking the time to bore you with the documentation (which you may be aware of, anyway), Roe v. Wade was an orchestrated effort to achieve the resultant "right".
It is not a question on the rights or wrongs of abortion at any level, we have covered that ground over and over, but of "state rights" or "powers".
Correct.
This has been the basis of any debate here I have ever participated in.
If Roe was wrongly decided for "state powers" reasons then surely the federal ban must also be wrong.
In my opinion, this would also be correct; the federal "ban" was a situational reaction to a misbegotten law, calculated to prompt a re-examination of Roe.
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPaul
"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."
It's actually a fabulously interesting concept.
My reading is that, if something is not Constitutionaly the remit of the United States and the Constitution does not specifically preclude something from being legislated by Individual States, then it falls to the Individual State to make it's own laws. (I capitalised "Individual" for effect).
That's a feckin' minefield and I can see why your administration would want to stfu about it.
POTUS - I've made a new law
State - The Constitution doesn't say that's your business so STFU.
POTUS - But I'm in charge.
State - You'd think that, but apparently not.
POTUS - Shit.
State - :naughty:
:) I understand your compulsion, but haven't a clue as to your point. :huh:
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In my opinion, this would also be correct; the federal "ban" was a situational reaction to a misbegotten law, calculated to prompt a re-examination of Roe.
Be interesting then to see the conservative outrage if the new boys say it is constitutional. I won't hold my breath though.
I think Roe has had enough challenges without this bill. An interesting theory though.
Btw.
I support the ban (but only if the health exception is included) and believe, given that I agree with Roe, federal procedural control and limitations would be constitutional. I wouldn't go as far as banning abortion altogether though.
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by vidcc
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
In my opinion, this would also be correct; the federal "ban" was a situational reaction to a misbegotten law, calculated to prompt a re-examination of Roe.
Be interesting then to see the conservative outrage if the new boys say it is constitutional. I won't hold my breath though.
I think Roe has had enough challenges without this bill. An interesting theory though.
Btw.
I support the ban (but only if the health exception is included) and believe, given that I agree with Roe, federal procedural control and limitations would be constitutional. I wouldn't go as far as banning abortion altogether though.
I don't believe a ban on abortion would result from an overturn of Roe.
Regardless of my personal beliefs (I am Pro-Life) my only objection is the issue never having been decided rightfully by the states.
If the Court finds Roe unconstitutional, the states can have their referenda, the issue will be decided, and we can stop talking about it.
Certainly, if this happens, there will be a variety of qualifications/restrictions/what-have-you, but I sincerely don't believe there will be an outright ban anywhere; in fact, in California, they'd probably make it mandatory, or at least give you a tax credit for doing it.
If the people get the chance to decide, there is no gripe left; the system will have worked, no matter the result, and even that can be revisited down the road.
I don't see how anyone could ask for more.
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I don't believe a ban on abortion would result from an overturn of Roe.
Regardless of my personal beliefs (I am Pro-Life) my only objection is the issue never having been decided rightfully by the states.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Re: For JPaul, especially...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I don't believe a ban on abortion would result from an overturn of Roe.
Regardless of my personal beliefs (I am Pro-Life) my only objection is the issue never having been decided rightfully by the states.
For the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Why the edit?