politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS]
Source:
Ace Of Spades
URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525
Published: Apr 1, 2016
Author: Ace
Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 35095
Comments: 253
I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence!Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are
Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind
—Ace
The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed.
Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, SOSO, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, et al (#0)
ping
If the law hypothetically punished abortion, all parties to the crime should be punished. The President has no control over state abortion laws. You're so easily confused.
I'm just waiting for Trump to tell us that abortion should be made mandatory. Then Hope Hicks can come out again to Trumpsplain it all away. Comedy gold.
"Pro-life" is a convenient description given to those who want to make most, or all, abortions illegal. It says nothing about whether or not the individual considers it murder.
Of course we have to leave the laws that way. At least until the U.S. Supreme Court shifts their position. No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can change our abortion laws.
Oh, obviously that changes everything! LOL You can enjoy this gem of an interview on CBS on their Face The Nation show. And it will be fresh in the minds of WI voters for Tuesday's primary.
Could work in Trump's favor. It'd really be funny if exit interviews showed Democrats voting for Trump en masse because they thought he was pro-choice.
The interviewers sure do act as though he does.
So you think he should lie and tell them he will? And how will he do that, pray tell? By Executive Order?
You should count on it. How can Trump lose WI after hitting this one out of the ballpark?
Abortion is not a presidential issue, though everyone likes to pretend it is.
There you go! That's the attitude we like to see!
Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. Trump the uniter .He has untied both sides of the abortion issue in opposition to him. Well done ! "If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
Punish cunts who murder their offspring. You,really not provide life. Your position is murder your kid no consequences. I don't see how you consider yourself christian. Repent.
The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have. Either an unborn fetus is or is not a human being, a person entitled to every protection and right under the U.S. Constitution as is any other person. To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
are we talking the law or scripture ? "But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins "(Matthew 6:15). If God chooses to punish the mother then it is God's will .“Vengeance is mine, I will repay” (Romans 12:19). As for the law ,I don't believe that the woman should be held responsible for the crime . If abortion is illegal ,it is the abortionist who has profited from it .The abortionist should pay the price.
"If you do not take an interest in the affairs of your government, then you are doomed to live under the rule of fools." Plato
That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution. Returning the issue to the states allows each state to make that determination. If you don't like the decision reached by your state, at least you can move.
Odd. I was waiting for you to say the same thing, TooProAbort.
Only absolute centralized power is moral. /sarcasm
The interviewers want a dictator.
The interviewers want their dictator.
The meme of "I'm personally against abortion but believe it should be legal " has been the liberal talking point for at least 20 years. Amounts to: I'm personally against murder but think we need to keep it lawful for others. Trump has just embraced the NARAL platform. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Are you one of those hard shell Baptists? You probably want booze outlawed - it is in most Kentucky counties, including Bourbon County. I think some religions think dancing is sinful too. While you're at it, ban bacon too!
That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution. There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago. And abortion was illegal in the U.S. through the mid-1880s. If you are going to debate the issue at least bone up on the facts. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Only absolute centralized power is moral. /sarcasm Did I say that moron? But perhaps you are against the centralized power that did away with slavery or gave women the right to vote or establishes reasonable restrictions preventing the abuse of public natural resources or fights our wars. It hard to imagine that you can be any bigger of a dolt. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You probably want booze outlawed - it is in most Kentucky counties, including Bourbon County. I think some religions think dancing is sinful too. While you're at it, ban bacon too! You've lost it Fred. Better get back on those meds. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Gee, I wonder how much he thought about it when he decided to be pro-choice. And again how much he thought about it when he decided to be pro-life. His own words "now that I think about it" strongly suggest that he hadn't thought about either position before. But to his credit he is changing. But.......but........I wonder what other positions that he has espoused will change after he really thinks about them? There really is no hope for a Trump dupe. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yep. In the most stupid, illogical, immoral way possible.
I am certain that someone at the track can point you in the right direction. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The U.S. Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. They then used the 14th amendment to apply that right to the states. "And abortion was illegal in the U.S. through the mid-1880s. If you are going to debate the issue at least bone up on the facts." It was illegal at the state level. I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years. So what's your problem?
Yep. In the most stupid, illogical, immoral way possible. Then please have the courage to post my statement. If you can't you lose big time. But you are used to that, aren't you? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have." Did you forget already?
That's immoral! Only centralized government is good!
The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago. Do your homework. I even gave you a link which you obviously didn't read. Abortion was perfectly legal in ancient Rome and Greece and in England up to 1803 or so. It wasn't until the mid-;ate 1880s that it wasn't legal in the U.S. As for SCOTUS, it claimed that a fetus was not a person as applied under Amendment 14th and that right of privacy of the women was superior to any right of the fetus thereunder. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Did you forget already? LMAO. It appears that you did, loser. You must be a Trump dupe. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Returning the issue to the states allows each state to make that determination. If you don't like the decision reached by your state, at least you can move. Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it. Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?
Only to you and the voices in your head.
You fail again. Simply post my statement and perhaps this would be the first time you ever win.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment? Who cares? He likely will not be relevant in a few months. But if he is he will likely change his mind.....again......and again......and again. "Or work to change your state's law, or engage in civil disobedience against it." I have no inherent problem with either. But effectiveness always comes down to enforcement. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Again? It won't get any less stupid.
Again? It won't get any less stupid. Perhaps but it certainly would prove that you are not lying. Right now you act as a dickless wonder that doesn't have any balls either to defend himself. So if you do not post my statement proving you claim please just slink away and hope nobody else sh*ts on you. Over and out, eunuch. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You sure think about dick a lot.
I never said anything about the legality or illegality of abortions. You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years.
These latest several positions are consistent with the theory that The Donald never wanted to be the nominee. Just sayin' ...
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used.
How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion? Answer: They didn't.
Answer: They didn't. Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president. And by my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did you - or are you seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
Sure it does.
We'll have to agree to disagree. By my count, the last five includes Reagan. Did I get that wrong - or did misterwhite - or is he seriously claiming that Reagan didn't use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
You can count? Who knew. What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified when he was President?
Document that. You can't because it is likely not true. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so. More to your point, which is a valid one, I have tried to find authoritative sources as to what is now called fetal rights were legislated either at the federal or state level in the early 1800s and prior times in colonial America with not much success. So I concede that absent finding such documentation that your position is quite plausible but note the following: In 1821, Connecticut became the first state to enact abortion legislation for women who had reached quickening, but abortion before quickening did not become illegal in Connecticut until 1860. New York, in 1828, adopted legislation that was followed by many states between 1830 and 1850; most of these statutes dealt more severely with abortion after quickening than before. So it seems that whatever fetal rights that may have existed in law in the U.S. were based on the notion of quickening. Further, "These anti-abortion laws were enacted for three basic reasons: a Victorian obsession to discourage illicit sexual conduct; a health concern, because at the time abortions were dangerous; and a newfound interest in protecting prenatal life. By the end of the 1950s, however, a large majority of states had banned all abortion except for instances where the woman's life was in danger." So the evidence that I have be able to find suggests that interest in protecting prenatal life was not prevalent prior to the mid-late 1800s. Another reference states that, "at the turn of the nineteenth century most people in Western Europe and the United States did not believe human life was present until a pregnant woman felt the first fetal movements, a phenomenon referred to as quickening. In the United States and England, abortion was legal in the early 1800s as long as it was performed prior to quickening. During later stages of pregnancy, abortion was a crime, but distinct from other forms of murder and punished less harshly." But for the sake of discussion let's assume that you are correct. Doesn't a state of affairs where there are 50 different legal determinations of what a fetus is and what rights it may have seem absurd to you? At the minimum each state needs to adhere to Federal law as to the constitutional rights of the unborn fetus. A state may go beyond that but cannot diminish the constitutional rights of a fetus. For example, in 2007 SCOTUS upheld a nationwide ban on partial birth abortion, a form of late term abortion. "In its April 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court upheld the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and, in the process, set a major jurisprudential precedent. The federal law includes no health exception. Moreover, although the law does not include a precise medical definition of what is banned, the Court found the federal law’s definition sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The federal law is currently in effect and the Supreme Court precedent may bring consistency to state laws, which are still important as they allow for state and local law enforcement and, potentially, stiffer penalties. •32 states have enacted bans on “partial-birth” abortions. ◦13 state laws have been specifically blocked by a court and are not in effect. ◦ 19 state laws are in effect; 7 of them remain unchallenged but, because of the broad nature of their language, are presumably unenforceable under the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down a Nebraska ban. •The definition of what constitutes a “partial-birth” abortion varies from state to state. ◦11 states laws mirror the definition in federal law, with 10 of these laws in effect. ◦ 21 state laws have definitions not patterned after federal law, but only 9 of these laws are in effect. •All 32 state laws include some sort of exception. ◦3 states have bans that include a health exception. ◦1 state includes a broad health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion if necessary to protect against physical or mental impairment of the pregnant woman. ◦ 2 states include a narrow health exception that allows a physician to perform a “partial-birth” abortion to protect only against bodily harm to the pregnant woman. ◦ 29 states have bans that allow for an exception only when a woman’s life is in danger, with 16 of these bans in effect." IMO this is an unacceptable state of law that does not serve the character of our country well. As things stand what SCOTUS has foisted on us is a disgraceful abdication of judicial duty, as well as logic. RvW was an expedient construct for political reasons. The notion of viability is a totally illogical sham. So I will stand by my position that there were not 50 determinations as to the legal status of an unborn fetus for 200 years and there should not be. Human life is human life no matter where it happens to reside at the moment and the legal protections that life has should not be location dependent. I will go further, whether an unborn fetus is just a thing that can be discarded at will or human life with protected rights should not be at the sole discretion of the pregnant woman. Nor should be at the independent sole discretion of 50 different states. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges.
Your usual projection.
Roe v wade dissent, Justice William Rehnquist: Jurisdictions having enacted abortion laws prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868: 1. Alabama -- Ala. Acts, c. 6, § 2 (1840). 2. Arizona -- Howell Code, c. 10, § 45 (1865). 3. Arkansas -- Ark.Rev.Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, § 6 (1838). 4. California -- Cal.Sess.Laws, c. 99, § 45, p. 233 (1849-1850). 5. Colorado (Terr.) -- Colo. Gen.Laws of Terr. of Colo. 1st Sess., § 42, pp 296-297 (1861). 6. Connecticut -- Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn.Pub. Acts, c. 71, §§ 1, 2, p. 65 (1860). 7. Florida -- Fla.Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, §§ 10, 11, subc. 8, §§ 9, 10, 11 (1868), as amended, now Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965). 8. Georgia Pen.Code, 4th Div., § 20 (1833). 9. Kingdom of Hawaii -- Hawaii Pen.Code, c. 12, §§ 1, 2, 3 (1850). 10. Idaho (Terr.) -- Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments §§ 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863). 11. Illinois -- Ill.Rev. Criminal Code §§ 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill.Pub.Laws §§ 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867). 12. Indiana -- Ind.Rev.Stat. §§ 1, 3, p. 224 (1838). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind.Laws, c. L410I, § 2 (1859). 13. Iowa (Terr.) -- Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., § 18, p. 145 (1838). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 49, §§ 10, 13 (1843). 14. Kansas (Terr.) -- Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, §§ 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, §§ 9, 10, 37 (1859). 15. Louisiana -- La.Rev.Stat., Crimes and Offenses § 24, p. 138 (1856). 16. Maine -- Me.Rev.Stat., c. 160, §§ 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840). 17. Maryland -- Md.Laws, c. 179, § 2, p. 315 (1868). 18. Massachusetts -- Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845). 19. Michigan -- Mich.Rev.Stat., c. 153, §§ 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846). 20. Minnesota (Terr.) -- Minn. (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 100, § 10, 11, p. 493 (1851). 21. Mississippi -- Miss.Code, c. 64, §§ 8, 9, p. 958 (1848). 22. Missouri -- Mo.Rev.Stat., Art. II, §§ 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835). 23. Montana (Terr.) -- Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts § 41, p. 184 (1864). 24. Nevada (Terr.) -- Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, § 42, p. 63 (1861). 25. New Hampshire -- N.H.Laws, c. 743, § 1, p. 708 (1848). 26. New Jersey -- N.J.Laws, p. 266 (1849). 27. New York -- N.Y.Rev.Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit 2, §§ 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (1828). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N.Y.Laws, c. 260, §§ 1, pp. 285-286 (1845); N.Y.Laws, c. 22, § 1, p. 19 (1846). 28. Ohio -- Ohio Gen.Stat. §§ 111(1), 112(2), p. 252 (1841). 29. Oregon -- Ore. Gen.Laws, Crim.Code, c. 43, § 509, p. 528 (1845-1864). 30. Pennsylvania -- Pa.Laws No. 374, §§ 87, 88, 89 (1860). 31. Texas -- Tex. Gen.Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859). 32. Vermont -- Vt. Acts No. 33, § 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt.Acts No. 57, §§ 1, 3 (1867). 33. Virginia -- Va.Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (1848). 34. Washington (Terr.) -- Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, §§ 37, 38, p. 81 (1854). 35. West Virginia -- See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (1848); W.Va.Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863). 36. Wisconsin -- Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 133, §§ 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 164, §§ 10, 11; c. 169, §§ 58, 59 (1858).
You, trully, are a god-damed dumb fuck. Don't worry about it.
I told you before. I don't care. My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973.
He's lying anyway. "In colonial America, abortions were prosecuted under the common law. After the Revolution, the new American states adopted the common law of England as the basis of their own law, including common law crimes. Within a generation, the independent states began to outgrow the English common law, and state legislatures increasingly defined crimes in their states. However, common law crimes survived until superseded by legislative enactment, and in a few states common law crimes have survived into the present day."
That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening. My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
I disagree. For three reasons. 1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime. 2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws. 3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked.
LMAO. Nice try ass wipe but no cigar. " VI It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a majority of States today are of relatively recent vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life, are not of ancient or even of common-law origin. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. [410 U.S. 113, 130] 3. The common law. It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy 20 - was not an indictable offense. Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. 23 But the later and predominant view, following the great common- law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited [410 U.S. 113, 135] passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman "quick with childe" is "a great misprision, and no murder." 24 Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view. 25 A recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however, that those precedents contradict Coke and that even post-quickening abortion was never established as a common-law crime. ...........(due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for post- quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus. 5. The American law. In this country, the law in effect in all but a few States until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common law. .................Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's Act that related to a woman "quick with child." 29 The death penalty was not imposed. Abortion before quickening was made a crime in that State only in 1860. In 1828, New York enacted legislation 31 that, in two respects, was to serve as a model for early anti-abortion statutes. First, while barring destruction of an unquickened fetus as well as a quick fetus, it made the former only a misdemeanor, but the latter second-degree manslaughter. Second, it incorporated a concept of therapeutic abortion by providing that an abortion was excused if it "shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such mother, or shall have been advised by two physicians to be necessary for such purpose." By 1840, when Texas had received the common law, 32 only eight American States [410 U.S. 113, 139] had statutes dealing with abortion. 33 It was not until after the War Between the States that legislation began generally to replace the common law. So sayeth verbatim MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN in the opinion he delivered for the Court. He continues to say in the opinion: VII Three reasons have been advanced to explain historically the enactment of criminal abortion laws in the 19th century and to justify their continued existence. [410 U.S. 113, 148] The third reason is the State's interest - some phrase it in terms of duty - in protecting prenatal life. Some of the argument for this justification rests on the theory that a new human life is present from the moment of conception. 45 The State's interest and general obligation to protect life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal life. Only when the life of the pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced against the life she carries within her, should the interest of the embryo or fetus not prevail. Logically, of course, a legitimate state interest in this area need not stand or fall on acceptance of the belief that life begins at conception or at some other point prior to live birth. In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone. [410 U.S. 113, 151] Parties challenging state abortion laws have sharply disputed in some courts the contention that a purpose of these laws, when enacted, was to protect prenatal life. 46 Pointing to the absence of legislative history to support the contention, they claim that most state laws were designed solely to protect the woman. ..............It is with these interests, and the weight to be attached to them, that this case is concerned. IX A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person."..............But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." I suggest that you find a competent adult to explain to you what Blackman said. If still have problems with it take them up with SCOTUS. I am done with you on this issue. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder. "2) The Founding Fathers established a federal republic and it was their intent that each state have it's own constitution and laws." True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights. "3) Prior to 1973, each state had laws on abortion -- either permitting it or prohibiting it. We did it before and it worked. All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery - enough said I trust. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Have fun with this one. "9. Murder for Hire (18 U.S.C. Section 1958) Why is murder-for-higher potentially a federal crime? Congress has legal jurisdiction over interstate commerce. Interstate commerce includes not only the paths that people can travel between states, but also the use of communication pathways such as the postal service, telephone lines, cellular towers, and other electronic communication. If the killing can only be accomplished by causing a person to travel over state lines (including the victim), or by communicating the request by phone, mail, or the Internet, the murder-for-hire could be a federal crime." So if you call, text or email to make an appointment with the abortionist you hire it could be a federal crime. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
2. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. Nice foot shot. You just proved yourself a liar.
Followed by a lame and disingenuous attempt to move the goal posts.
For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Congress can act using the 14Th amendment. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/816/text http://www.prolifealliance.com/end_roevwade.html A statement from Paul elaborated on both the timeliness and the subject matter of the bill: "As thousands of Americans prepare to participate in the annual March for Life, it is time for Congress to recognize the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the constitutional duty of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld,” Sen. Paul said. “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way." For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Have no idea what you are rambling on about. Morals are absolute. There's no getting around an innocent human life is terminated with abortion. It is premeditated murder. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
The States applied English Common Law to restrictions on abortion. At the adoption of the Declaration of Independence 236 years ago on July 4, 1776, abortion was banned in all of the 13 American colonies. The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier “knowledge” regarding human reproduction. In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she “felt life,” but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the “Offenses Against the Persons Act,” eliminating the above punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously : Even though states enacted laws in the 19th century, by the still used English Common Law in the US restricted abortion. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Most pregnancies were not confirmed until quickening. Quickening varies. What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception. Science is clear on that matter: Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page- 42#post-69092147 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/liberals-who-are-pro-choice-explain- why-a-womans-choice-is-more-important-than-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page- 10#post-69082245 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Science is clear on that matter: If that were the case RvW could not still be the law of the land. Read post #66, especially that part of the majority opinion that says: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person."..............But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] " Get back to me when you read the entire post. It is clear that the majority of SCOTUS disagreed with your references in 1972 and in spite of all the cases it heard on the subject subsequently SCOTUS still does not agree. Don't you think that if the science was clear that all the pro-life groups would by now have sued for the overturn of RvW, especially since the majority opinion specifically acknowledge that by stating "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment {14th}. The appellant {Roe} conceded as much on reargument." C'mon, Ram, you should know better. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
What has changed is that in recent years a substantial population has developed that is so calloused that it it regards pregnancy and partial birth abortion with the same degree of concern that it has for a bad bowel movement.
So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child? If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them.
First, they haven't acted in 43 years. Why not? Second, a future pro-choice Congress could simply reverse that decision. And I doubt we'll ever see a pro-life Republican Congress again. Maybe that's "why not".
Thank you for pointing out that .0001% of murders are federal crimes. It totally destroys the point I was trying to make. I give up. You win. "True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights." False. It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). "All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson.
Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. ""All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson." I'm not too surprised. Just because something in the past was tolerated or codified in law or was comfortable etc. etc. etc. doesn't make it right, much less a rational basis to continue it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
So why hasn't there been so much more action to overturn RvW on the basis that life begins at conception? Why hasn't personhood legislation proliferated in every state? You need to read the RvW majority opinion. It did not claim that a fertilized human egg was not life. It never addressed that question. The court concluded that a fertilized egg is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Science hasn't advanced nearly far enough to make the definitive claim that a fertilized egg is a person. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Amniocentesis, ultrasound, care standards for premature Yes, Roe is very overdue to be revisited by the Court strictly on the grounds of the advances in knowledge and technology since the Sixties. In no other area of medicine other than abortion has the Court imposed 1973 as the last year in which medical science should be considered.
The Due Process clause of the 14th amendment was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Go here (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html) and read under "Bar to Federal Action" and "Incorporation". It's short and to the point.
In no other area of medicine other than abortion has the Court imposed 1973 as the last year in which medical science should be considered. So why hasn't it happened? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Thanks for the link. There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights and thereby deny those rights to anyone within the state jurisdiction. The position of Hamilton and Madison re: the the Alien and Sedition Act: "As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional." What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will? Are you claiming that since the end of the Civil War and the 1960s any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote? There is an awful lot of nuance that is ignored in your reference. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Constitution-haters, such as yourself, always spew some variation of the ignorance.
I believe you mean to ask, "What then is the value of a constitutional federal law if any state can ignore it at will?" The value is that the federal government cannot violate it. The states, however, are not required to enforce it (which is what Madison and Jeffersom were alluding to). "any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?" Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I was only referring to the Bill of Rights. My link only addressed the Bill of Rights. Let's stay with that, shall we? If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you see that they were written as a limitation of the federal governent only. No such limitation applies to other amendments.
Or, it's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
You have more patience than I do.
Like any of them have ever read the Preamble.
No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can, acting alone,change our abortion laws. ---- misterwhite No President ... no Congress ... no SCOTUS... no State ... can, acting alone,change our abortion laws. ---- Under our constitution, acting as a republican form of government with divided powers, --- no single branch of government has that power...
I do know better. I debate pro life issues daily on another forum which has thousands of active posters. Up thread I posted a link to the efforts of Rand Paul in the Senate reference the life at conception act. It is not my imagination. Pro Life conservatives like Paul know the weaknesses of Roe and are now using the Blackmund loop hole to drive legislation. What is missing is not a legal argument but political backbone. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Indeed. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them. I think this has been answered many times. The pro life movement is focused on preserving innocent human life and that means shutting down those who provide the service. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
misterwhite posted on 2016-04-03 12:44:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #91. To: Roscoe (#89) Or, it's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. There is no such 'preamble to the bill of rights'... The actual preamble is titled; -- --- Amendments to the Constitution --- THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.
See the post on the life at conception act. Senator Rand Paul leading the effort.
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child? If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them. ---- misterwhite Yep, in his own bumbling way, Trump has thrown light on a major flaw in the 'abortion is murder' voting bloc. No jury in the USA is ever going to convict a mother for early term abortion/murder.
What is missing is not a legal argument but political backbone. I agree. But again I remind you that the issue decided in RvW was personhood not life. Science and medicine do not have much too contribute with respect to the issue of personhood and likely never will. That is why I am not surprised that little of a significant consequence has been attempted to force a revisit of RvW on this point. As for political backbone to take on this issue, where are you going to find that? Dollar Donald squealed like a pig after he screwed the pooch on his consequences for women comment. IDM that some women might be a victim as well, but all are not and other than in forced abortion they are a consenting party, if not the prime mover for the abortion. Do you think that anyone could elected to any public office with a campaign position of let's make abortion illegal again AND let's have some punishment for women that, save for medical and rape reasons, initiate the process of abortion and freely consent to it? I don't think that you are living in a different reality than mine on the stae of mind of voters on those questions. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The issue on RvW is not, nor ever has been a question of life but personhood.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
A chip off the old block, not too surprising. Ron Paul had similar bills. The GOPe doesn't like being forced on the record necessarily but you can't ever progress if you don't start. The Pauls have some courage and constituents that are willing enough to support them.
Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I Correct, slavery is embedded in the body of the original text of the Constitution which passed by the convention and sent to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights was added after the fact of the convention and was not part of the original document. "Article. I. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Do you contest that at in and around the late 1780s when the Constitution was passed and ratified that black slaves were not considered citizens of the U.S.? "Article 1 Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Are you contesting that the Articles of the U.S. Consitution permitted the continued importation of slaves through 1806? "Article III. Section. 2. The judicial Power {off SCOTUS} shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What do you think Section 9 means? It seems clear that the judicial power of SCOTUS extends well into the workings of the respective laws of the states. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place specific limits on government power, not just federal government power. Here's the full text of the BoR "The Bill of Rights – Full Text Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V 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. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X 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." Only Amendments 1, 7, 9 and 10 are solely addressed to the Federal government. For example, it seems pretty clear in Amendment 5 prohibits a state from waiving habeas corpus or waive protection against double jeopardy. And it seems pretty clear that Amendment 6 prohibits a state from denying the accused of the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. All of these protections against a state denying these rights to a person were in effect when the BoR was ratified. They didn't have to wait until the 14th Amendment was ratified. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
The actual preamble is titled; -- --- Amendments to the Constitution --- Correct. It's hard to deal hold a rational dialogue with uneducated, ignorant, mental midgets, isn't it. I will not bother any more with the moron called. Roscoe. Please see post #104. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yet the Wizard Paul advocates that there should be 50 independent state laws governing the status of an unborn fetus and abortion. A totally absurd, illogical, immoral position. Either an unborn fetus is a human life, a person subject to the protection of the U.S. Constitution or it isn't. The states can determine what constitutes Due Process for the killing of an unborn fetus but it would have to pass Constitutional muster before depriving the unborn fetus of life. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR. "Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) {N.B. - well before Amendment 14.} потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. : ) You can't get there from here if no one takes the first step. It is a way to keep faith with pro-life voters and to keep your ideology brand alive. The marketplace of ideas has a limited shelf life. You have to keep your issues going and in the minds of your voters. You have to keep challenging the reigning orthodoxy you wish to overturn.
Ah, by fooling them. Got it. Thanks. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion?
So why did you bring up murder?
Nope. Only interstates activities (or those actions that affect interstate activities).
Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? --- rlk You're confused. --- Corruption and degeneracy have always been a national sport. Religion? --- Various kinds of religions have always been treated like sports in America. --- That's why it was necessary to specify: --- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Nope. Only interstates activities (or those actions that affect interstate activities). It is obvious that you did not read the link. The words interstate activities are not in the Constitution but the words interstate commerce are, and as with the word person the Constitution does not define what is meant by commerce. But the definition seem to get more and more broad as time went by. We can not have a rational dialogue if you do not even ready what the Constitution says. So here it is: "Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" That is all is says. So from git-go differing interests have advocated all sorts of means of these few Constitutional words. ""The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family- owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964)." So tell me, what does interstate commerce mean as used in Art 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Please tell us. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Bzzzzt. Wrong. As always.
*Sigh*
For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
In his own bumbling way, Trump has thrown light on a major flaw in the 'abortion is murder' voting bloc. No jury in the USA is ever going to convict a mother for early term abortion/murder. Yep, Trumped again...
Please tell us. You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation.
You're confused. --- Corruption and degeneracy have always been a national sport. Religion? --- Various kinds of religions have always been treated like sports in America. --- That's why it was necessary to specify: --- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And now, sports fans, we have the celebrated (in some circles?) RLK, answering himself: --- "Lands sake!" - My old aunties used to rave; -- "This new generation is going to hell in a handbasket"..
You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation. I don't know if the Constitution actually licenses the corruption and degeneracy. It's more that We The People do. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
People are born with antisocial or stupid capabilities, that may be enjoyable temporarily, but are counterbalanced by childrearing practices, by aquisition of morality and prudent adulthood, by social stigma, and by legal punition. Some people refer to these capabilities as original sin. Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.
Then why did you use the phrase "state activities"? I was simply following your lead. If I phrased it I would say, " Only interstate commerce (or those activities that affect interstate commerce). Better? Doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong.
Not throwing someone in jail is "a pat on the head"? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I am wrong that the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to allow federal intervention in civil rights issues? Can you find that federal power in the wording of the Interstate Commerce Clause? I can't. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Another nutcase waving phoney exaggerations.
So what exactly were you referring to as "a pat on the head from the law of the land" if not the "legal punition" you mentioned?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
It was, but not directly. Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)
Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question.
So what exactly were you referring to as "a pat on the head from the law of the land" if not the "legal punition" you mentioned? Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question. So your grandiloquent rhetoric was empty of meaningful content ... why am I not surprised? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? My point is that de facto the activities that the Fed claims fall under the ICC have gone far beyond what the FFs intended it to be. But more to the point, within this expanded grab by the Fed it is entirely within the likely that the Fed will use the ICC to regulate abortion activities in general, the enforcement of consequences for the woman in particular. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Yes. The President doesn't make abortion law. Neither does the Congress. The Supreme Court does. Trump will appoint three Scalias, and abortion law will change, in time, maybe. And I support Trump's foreign and military and health care policies. If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices. For all of the skulduggery on the Republican side to deny the nomination to Trump,. he's the only one who can win.
Yes. But in later applications of the Commerce Clause, Congress used the power of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) to make laws allowing them to enforce other powers. For example, in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates.
That rotten FDR!!!!!
Seems to me that if someone was really pro-life they'd vote for Trump. Otherwise they'll end up with pro-choice Hillary.
The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used, namely preventing state-versus-state battles (which does not include all nonuniformity among states): "Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Imaginative. The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extended to matters having "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority.
Yes. Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
"The fact that carriers are instruments of intrastate commerce, as well as of interstate commerce, does not derogate from the complete and paramount authority of Congress over the latter, or preclude the Federal power from being exerted to prevent the intrastate operations of such carriers from being made a means of injury to that which has been confided to Federal care. Wherever the interstate and intrastate transactions of carriers are so related that the government of the one involves the control of the other, it is Congress, and not the state, that is entitled to prescribe the final and dominant rule, for otherwise Congress would be denied the exercise of its constitutional authority, and the state, and not the nation, would be supreme within the national field." [emphasis added]
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
What's the connection to interstate commerce?
The full passage: "Its authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
"To regulate" does not mean "to promote". If the Founders meant "to promote" they would have written "to promote".
If you're suggesting that even Shreveport gave excessive leeway to the feds, I'm open to that argument - but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Even your deceptive truncation, "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," would mean a narrower test - "close and substantial" is by definition less inclusive than "substantial."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Nice foot shot!
Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all. Do you ever stop to think about what you're typing?
So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat?
So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
More of your deceptive truncation. "all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Beat me by 22 seconds.
Watching you try to post an intelligible thought is like watching a dog trying to dance on its hind legs.
What are you babbling about? Even the Wickard ruling acknowledged previous narrower restrictions: "questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. [...] But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Straw man. Each farmer producing wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
You're running out of feet to shoot.
You've never read the case, have you?
Yay me! They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it.
Didn't say that. The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Producing their own means they don't purchase wheat interstate.
You'll never run out of idiocies to spew. I never disagreed that Wickard so ruled.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
What do you imagine that the Court ruled, given that you've never read the decision?
And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Yeah. They do that sub silentio stuff with anechoic tiles.
Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]
Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Incorrectly? Sorry. There was Supreme Court precedent for intrastate regulations. We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases.
The "sub silentio" didn't give you enough? Thought it would. Sorry.
In other words, you haven't read it. I thought so. Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules. No tickee, no washee.
So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply?
Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad than the Wickard ruling pretended. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
In the course of so ruling the Court made statements that it worded broadly and that many subsequent rulings have interpreted broadly - notably, "even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
2. Add I showed in posts 137, 140, and 143 that the Shreveport ruling was less broad So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."
The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program. Surprise!
Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions. So if the next interstate case involves cabbages, Wickard v Filburn wouldn't apply? Since that's a howling non sequitur as it stands, I'll try to move the conversation forward by guessing what you're really asking - feel free to clarify your meaning. Was the Wickard ruling broad? Yes, it was - much broader than the Shreveport ruling on which it pretended to (at least in part) be based. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
No, that in no way follows from anything I've posted - but thanks for the fascinating albeit disturbing insight into what passes for "reasoning" in your fevered mind. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Bully for him - what would you have us conclude from that? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about.
I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Enter an agreement, abide by its rules.
And here comes the ankle biter.
If you want to know what I think, ask me, coward. Wickard was an appalling farce - Shreveport much more defensible. And I'm confident that you and maybe misswhite are the only ones willing to pretend I haven't already made that view crystal clear. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted. Logic ain't your long suit.
Is the imaginary cheering throngs in your head.
Not at all - for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation. Wickard, by contrast, loosened limitations on Congressional authority and did so with broad language. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
IOW, no restrictions. I almost feel sorry for ya.
I'm only in a formal sense addressing him - my real audience is anyone who might mistake his posts as in any way valid. I can't imagine that anyone is interested in what the asshole has to say, even if on the surface he agrees with them for the moment. He reinforces the notion that there is no limit to the number and type of strawmen a moron can conjure. He is a master weasel. He is the poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Dunning-Kruger
IOW, no restrictions. No, silence does not imply no restrictions. Who here do you think is stupid enough to be fooled by your hamhanded nonsense? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Yes, silence imposes no restrictions.
The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution, which does impose restrictions.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Zero signal to noise ratio.
Quote.
Correct. The natural state of commerce is free and open. Any regulation of that commerce is a restriction.
"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."
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Commerce clause
The power to regulate commerce among the several states is delegated - while the power to regulate that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is not. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Necessary and proper Have you ever read it?
Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper for regulating commerce among the several states. Feel free to so establish. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Backwards. Until proven otherwise. The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions.
Quote. The idea that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to determine the limits on Congress' authority is ludicrous even for you - and that's saying something. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try.
A swing and a miss by you. The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Of course it does. "Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914) Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try. Don't be such a coward.
"PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it." --Ambrose Bierce
Of course it does.-- roscoe The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary,proper, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL. As usual, roscoe doesn't have a clue...
No help for you there - it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate for the protection and advancement of interstate commerce, either. Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Yet another of your straw men - I never said a word about "to my satisfaction." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
to enact "all appropriate legislation"
You have failed to identify any other party.
Which, to chew your food for you, disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Poor you.
to enact "all appropriate legislation" --- Roscoe To enact 'all constitutionally appropriate legislation'.
Cling fiercely to your moronic disinterpretations - maybe you'll fool somebody besides yourself.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The powers in the constituion are delegated powers. Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution. Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?
And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent. If you think judicial review is constitutionally grounded - do you? - then quite plausibly the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is "necessary and proper." No, only of federal law - state laws exist and have their validity independent of the federal constitution (which was ratified by the states). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Actual language of the Constitution. Of course, you Constitution-haters prefer judicial activism.
Your moronic disinterpretation is "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions".
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Is that a word?
So who should decide their extent?
The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Yep
That would be ConservingFreedom, silly. Just as the Constitution clearly says in a penumbral emanation.
It's a malapoop.
Are we agreed on that point? As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Quote the "check." [crickets]
[DECEPTIVELY OMIITED BY ROSCOE: Your moronic disinterpretation is "]The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions". Yep For the record, you're a liar and a clumsy stupid one to boot - not that anyone on this forum doesn't already know it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Quote the "check." [crickets]
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7 "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
2. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison 1. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. Poor you. 2. And the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to determine what the laws should be regarding commerce among the states, and to enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying those laws into execution. Another nice foot shot.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. Poor you.-- roscoe Poor roscoe, attempting to prove that the legislative power to override a presidential veto negates the checks and balances inherent in our constitution.. Weird fella.
It must be some sort of compulsive behavior - he can't possibly think his posts fool anyone (although his little buddy is at least willing to pretend). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
Not only is Congress authorized to determine the laws necessary, it may do so without the President's signature. Another epic fail for CF.
It must be some sort of compulsive behavior ---- Obsessive compulsive, as we see in his grandiose 'epic fail' howler.
The parallel? They both start with dis-. Other than that, I see no parallel at all.
Poor you.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The voices in his head all got it.
Not in the least. "As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative." Wrong. Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions.
ConservingFreedom (#225) ----- "As a matter of proceszs, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative." Exactly, although majority rule communitarians, like Paulsen/misterwhite, insist that Congress can prohibit damn near anything, using the commerce clause. There is no power to prohibit in our Constitution.
Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
You've got it exactly backwards. What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?
Roscoe Poor backward roscoe, can't read or understand the 10th Amendment.
Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent? You've got it exactly backwards. What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them? Move those goalposts. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
You don't know what move the goalposts means. Figures.
The extent of the law is limited in that it must be necessary and it must be proper.
That's a limit only if it's false that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
I notice you didn't contradict the statement you quoted.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
No, you didn't.
Gobbledygook. You concede that Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", but you say that Congress cannot decide what is necessary and proper. That's like saying a city has the power to set speed limits, but they're not allowed to decide the speed.
Well, that's because the Constitution says in section ____________ that ______________ is actually authorized to make the decision.
That's like saying a city has the power to set speed limits, but they're not allowed to decide the speed. No, it's like saying a city has the power to set speed limits on public roads, but they're not allowed to 'expansively' decide that the local racetrack is a "public road". A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
The local public road racetrack in Long Beach, California. Long Beach raises the speed limit on race day.
#2. To: TooConservative (#1)
#3. To: Roscoe (#2)
#4. To: TooConservative (#0)
"You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder."
#5. To: TooConservative (#0)
"I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way."
#6. To: misterwhite (#4)
"Pro-life" is a convenient description given to those who want to make most, or all, abortions illegal. It says nothing about whether or not the individual considers it murder.
#7. To: TooConservative (#6)
"And it will be fresh in the minds of WI voters for Tuesday's primary."
#8. To: Roscoe (#2)
"The President has no control over state abortion laws."
#9. To: TooConservative (#0)
"On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws."
#10. To: misterwhite (#7)
Could work in Trump's favor.
#11. To: TooConservative (#0)
#12. To: TooConservative (#10)
"How can Trump lose WI after hitting this one out of the ballpark?"
#13. To: TooConservative (#0)
On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg.
#14. To: tomder55 (#13)
(Edited)
#15. To: TooConservative (#10)
#16. To: TooConservative, All, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, (#1)
"I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states............."
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#18. To: SOSO (#16)
"To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground."
#19. To: TooConservative (#3)
I'm just waiting for Trump to tell us that abortion should be made mandatory.
#20. To: SOSO (#16)
The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have.
#21. To: misterwhite (#8)
The interviewers sure do act as though he does.
#22. To: Roscoe (#21)
"The interviewers want a dictator."
#23. To: TooConservative (#0)
#24. To: redleghunter (#23)
#25. To: misterwhite (#18)
"To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground."
#26. To: misterwhite (#25)
#27. To: Roscoe (#20)
The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have.
#28. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
Are you one of those hard shell Baptists?
#29. To: SOSO (#28)
#30. To: TooConservative, A K A Stone, misterwhite, Roscoe, vicomte13, ConservingFreedom, sneakypete, tomder55, redleghunter, GarySpFc, Fred Mertz, buckeroo, All (#1)
Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It...............
#31. To: SOSO (#27)
Did I say that moron?
#32. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
Villanova will win it all too. I'm not sure where to make that bet.
#33. To: SOSO (#25)
"There was no 14th Amendment 200 years ago."
#34. To: Roscoe (#31)
Did I say that moron?
#35. To: SOSO (#34)
post my statement.
#36. To: misterwhite (#33)
I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years.
#37. To: misterwhite (#33)
It was illegal at the state level. I said it was a state-level decision for 200 years. So what's your problem?
#38. To: Roscoe (#35)
"The most stupid, illogical, immoral position to have."
#39. To: misterwhite, SOSO (#18)
That's the way it was for 200 years until an activist court looked into a penumbra of an emanation and found the right to murder an unborn child in the U.S. Constitution.
#40. To: SOSO (#38)
It appears that you did
#41. To: Roscoe (#40)
#42. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite (#39)
#43. To: SOSO (#41)
Simply post my statement
#44. To: Roscoe (#43)
Simply post my statement
#45. To: SOSO (#44)
#46. To: SOSO (#37)
"The problem is that it was not at all illegal at the state level 200 years ago."
#47. To: TooConservative (#0)
The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway?
#48. To: ConservingFreedom (#39)
"Dare we ask where Trump stands (today) on a federal abortion-restricting amendment?"
#49. To: misterwhite (#48)
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
#50. To: misterwhite (#48)
Why would you? The President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process.
#51. To: ConservingFreedom (#49)
"The presidency is a bully pulpit. I'd like to know how it will be used."
#52. To: misterwhite (#51)
How did the last five Presidents -- both pro-life and pro-choice -- over the last 40 years use the bully pulpit when it came to abortion?
#53. To: ConservingFreedom (#52)
Doesn't make the question irrelevant as regards the next president.
#54. To: Roscoe (#53)
#55. To: ConservingFreedom (#54)
By my count, the last five includes Reagan.
#56. To: misterwhite (#46)
You said "To have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections ..." and I responded that there WERE different determinations at the state level for 200 years.
#57. To: Roscoe (#55)
What anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution was ratified
#58. To: ConservingFreedom (#57)
Your usual deceptive straw-man subterfuges.
#59. To: SOSO (#56)
#60. To: Roscoe (#59)
#61. To: SOSO (#56)
"No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so."
#62. To: misterwhite (#61)
#63. To: misterwhite (#61)
My entire point was that the states had the power to ban or permit abortions until 1973.
#64. To: SOSO (#63)
But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening.
#65. To: SOSO (#63)
"My original statement stands, i.e. - to have 50 different determinations of the nature of the unborn fetus and the legal protections it is due is indefensible on any ground. Do you agree or not?"
#66. To: Roscoe, misterwhite (#59)
#67. To: misterwhite (#65)
1) If abortion is murder, then that's a state crime, not a federal crime
#68. To: misterwhite (#67)
#69. To: SOSO (#66)
1. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so.
#70. To: SOSO (#66)
It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy - was not an indictable offense.
#71. To: misterwhite (#4)
Pro-life" is a convenient description given to those who want to make most, or all, abortions illegal. It says nothing about whether or not the individual considers it murder.
#72. To: misterwhite (#5)
No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can change our abortion laws.
#73. To: Fred Mertz (#24)
#74. To: SOSO (#56)
#75. To: SOSO (#56)
#76. To: SOSO (#63)
That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening.
#77. To: redleghunter (#76)
What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception.
#78. To: SOSO (#77)
#79. To: redleghunter (#75)
And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously :
#80. To: redleghunter (#71)
(Edited)
"Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life."
#81. To: redleghunter (#72)
"Congress can act using the 14Th amendment."
#82. To: SOSO (#67)
"Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder."
#83. To: misterwhite (#82)
It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment).
#84. To: redleghunter (#78)
Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses.
#85. To: redleghunter, SOSO (#78)
Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses.
fetuses infants which has lowered the age of viability outside the womb by months, abortion for sex selection, etc.
#86. To: SOSO (#83)
"Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.'
#87. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#85)
Yes, Roe is very overdue to be revisited by the Court strictly on the grounds of the advances in knowledge and technology since the Sixties.
#88. To: misterwhite (#86)
#89. To: SOSO (#88)
There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights
But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
#90. To: SOSO (#88)
"What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will?"
#91. To: Roscoe (#89)
#92. To: misterwhite (#90)
Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights.
#93. To: misterwhite (#91)
#94. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite, redleghunter (#5)
#95. To: SOSO (#77)
#96. To: rlk (#79)
What has changed is that in recent years a substantial population has developed that is so calloused that it it regards pregnancy and partial birth abortion with the same degree of concern that it has for a bad bowel movement.
#97. To: misterwhite (#80)
So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child?
#98. To: misterwhite, roscoe, spreading r (#91)
If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you see that they were written as a limitation of the federal governent only. No such limitation applies to other amendments.
#99. To: SOSO (#84)
#100. To: redleghunter, Y'ALL, misterwhite, gatlin, grandisland (#71)
For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. --- redleghunter
#101. To: redleghunter (#95)
Pro Life conservatives like Paul know the weaknesses of Roe and are now using the Blackmund loop hole to drive legislation.
#102. To: redleghunter (#99)
#103. To: redleghunter (#99)
See the post on the life at conception act. Senator Rand Paul leading the effort.
#104. To: misterwhite (#90)
"any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?"
#105. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe, (#98)
There is no such 'preamble to the bill of rights'...
#106. To: TooConservative, redleghunter, misterwhite, tpaine (#103)
The Pauls have some courage and constituents that are willing enough to support them.
#107. To: misterwhite (#104)
#108. To: SOSO (#106)
Yet the Wizard Paul advocates that there should be 50 independent state laws governing the status of an unborn fetus and abortion.
#109. To: TooConservative (#108)
It is a way to keep faith with pro-life voters and to keep your ideology brand alive. The marketplace of ideas has a limited shelf life. You have to keep your issues going and in the minds of your voters. You have to keep challenging the reigning orthodoxy you wish to overturn.
#110. To: SOSO (#104)
Amendment I
#111. To: redleghunter (#97)
"The pro life movement is focused on preserving innocent human life and that means shutting down those who provide the service."
#112. To: SOSO (#107)
"You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR."
#113. To: rlk, Y'ALL (#110)
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
#114. To: misterwhite (#112)
"You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR."
#115. To: rlk (#110)
Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion?
#116. To: SOSO (#114)
the words interstate commerce are
#117. To: misterwhite (#111)
#118. To: redleghunter, y'all (#117)
For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. --- redleghunter
*Sigh*
#119. To: SOSO (#115)
Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion?
#120. To: rlk, Y'ALL (#119)
Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? --- rlk
---- You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation.
#121. To: rlk (#119)
Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? Please tell us.
#122. To: SOSO (#121)
(Edited)
I don't know if the Constitution actually licenses the corruption and degeneracy. It's more that We The People do.
#123. To: SOSO (#114)
"The words interstate activities are not in the Constitution but the words interstate commerce are"
#124. To: rlk (#122)
a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.
#125. To: misterwhite (#123)
Better? Doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong.
#126. To: ConservingFreedom (#124)
Not throwing someone in jail is "a pat on the head"?
#127. To: rlk (#126)
#128. To: SOSO (#125)
"I am wrong that the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to allow federal intervention in civil rights issues?
#129. To: ConservingFreedom (#127)
(Edited)
#130. To: rlk (#129)
#131. To: misterwhite (#128)
Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
#132. To: vicomte13 (#0)
I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg.
#133. To: SOSO (#132)
ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws?
#134. To: SOSO (#131)
"So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? "
#135. To: misterwhite (#134)
Shreveport Rate Cases
#136. To: Vicomte13 (#133)
"If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices."
#137. To: misterwhite, SOSO (#134)
in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates.
#138. To: ConservingFreedom (#137)
The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates
#139. To: misterwhite (#134)
"So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? "
#140. To: Roscoe (#138)
#141. To: ConservingFreedom, misterwhite, All (#137)
"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"
#142. To: SOSO (#139)
"Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?"
#143. To: Roscoe (#138)
#144. To: SOSO (#141)
"AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?"
#145. To: SOSO (#141)
AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?
#146. To: Roscoe (#143)
#147. To: ConservingFreedom (#143)
in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic
#148. To: ConservingFreedom (#145)
Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication
#149. To: ConservingFreedom (#145)
"but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did)."
#150. To: rlk (#122)
Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.
#151. To: Roscoe (#147)
#152. To: Roscoe (#148)
#153. To: SOSO (#150)
So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system.
#154. To: Roscoe (#148)
Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all.
#155. To: misterwhite (#149)
(Edited)
So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat?
#156. To: ConservingFreedom (#154)
it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce
#157. To: ConservingFreedom (#155)
Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce.
#158. To: misterwhite (#152)
Beat me by 22 seconds.
#159. To: ConservingFreedom (#155)
"Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce."
#160. To: Roscoe (#156)
#161. To: ConservingFreedom (#160)
#162. To: misterwhite (#159)
The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce.
#163. To: Roscoe (#158)
"They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it."
#164. To: misterwhite (#163)
#165. To: Roscoe (#157)
You've never read the case, have you?
#166. To: ConservingFreedom (#162)
And - more significantly, and incorrectly - that this fact made their production properly subject to federal regulation.
#167. To: Roscoe (#164)
"Okay, I had to look up anechoic tiles. [grumble]"
#168. To: ConservingFreedom (#165)
(Edited)
I've read it closely enough
#169. To: ConservingFreedom (#165)
"Opposite - I've read it closely enough to note its acknowledgment of previous narrower restrictions."
#170. To: misterwhite (#166)
We just discussed the Shreveport Rate Cases.
#171. To: Roscoe (#168)
Roscoe filed suit because he wanted a federal marketing card guaranteeing limited liability for liens on the wheat sold to his buyers. The federal government told him if he wanted to join the subsidy program for protection against the prevailing "ruinously low prices resulting from excess supply" he would have to abide by the rules.
#172. To: ConservingFreedom (#170)
1. The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates
#173. To: ConservingFreedom (#171)
#174. To: misterwhite (#169)
#175. To: Roscoe (#172)
So Wickard was broader and more restrictive, limiting a wider range of Congressional controls. By your "reasoning."
#176. To: Roscoe (#173)
The appellee was suing to join the regulatory program.
#177. To: misterwhite (#169)
#178. To: ConservingFreedom (#171)
#179. To: ConservingFreedom (#176)
Bully for him
#180. To: SOSO (#178)
#181. To: Roscoe (#177)
So does he prefer Wickard or the Shreveport Rate Cases? It's hard to tell with all his wild thrashing about.
#182. To: SOSO (#178)
I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.
#183. To: ConservingFreedom (#181)
Shreveport much more defensible.
#184. To: ConservingFreedom (#182)
my real audience
#185. To: Roscoe (#183)
Even though it restricted a very narrow range of Congressional authority, at least according to you. So by your "reasoning," virtually all Congressional regulation of commerce should go unrestricted.
#186. To: ConservingFreedom (#185)
for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation.
#187. To: ConservingFreedom (#182)
I am surprised that you are trying to piss up a rope. The guy is an incoherent ass.
#188. To: SOSO (#187)
Dunning Kruger
#189. To: Roscoe (#186)
for the Court to say that Congressional regulation of intrastate shipping rates is subject to certain limitations is not per se for it to say anything at all about other Congressional regulation.
#190. To: ConservingFreedom (#189)
No, silence does not imply no restrictions.
#191. To: Roscoe (#190)
(Edited)
#192. To: ConservingFreedom (#191)
The silence of the Court does not muzzle the Constitution.
#193. To: ConservingFreedom (#191)
"which does impose restrictions." [Edit addition]
#194. To: Roscoe (#190)
"Yes, silence imposes no restrictions."
#195. To: Roscoe (#193)
#196. To: ConservingFreedom (#195)
The powers not delegated
#197. To: Roscoe (#196)
Commerce clause
#198. To: ConservingFreedom (#197)
#199. To: Roscoe (#198)
Necessary and proper
#200. To: ConservingFreedom (#199)
Relevant only upon establishing that regulating that which is not commerce among the several states, but substantially affects commerce among the several states, is both necessary and proper
#201. To: Roscoe (#200)
The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions.
#202. To: ConservingFreedom (#201)
Quote.
#203. To: Roscoe (#202)
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
#204. To: ConservingFreedom (#203)
The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.
#205. To: misterwhite (#194)
The natural state of commerce is free and open.
#206. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#203)
ConservingFreedom (#203) ---- The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper.
#207. To: Roscoe (#204)
"Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914)
#208. To: Roscoe (#204)
requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction.
#209. To: ConservingFreedom (#207)
it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate
#210. To: ConservingFreedom (#208)
"to my satisfaction."
#211. To: Roscoe (#207)
[CF:] Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius
#212. To: ConservingFreedom (#211)
disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions"
#213. To: Roscoe, Y'ALL (#209)
ConservingFreedom (#207 --- it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate
#214. To: Roscoe (#212)
#215. To: ConservingFreedom (#214)
#216. To: A K A Stone (#215)
The powers in the constituion are delegated powers.
Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.
Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?
#217. To: ConservingFreedom (#214)
moronic disinterpretations
#218. To: Roscoe (#217)
#219. To: Roscoe (#217)
"disinterpretations"
#220. To: ConservingFreedom (#216)
"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."
#221. To: misterwhite (#219)
Is that a word?
#222. To: ConservingFreedom (#218)
The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions
#223. To: misterwhite (#220)
So who should decide their extent?
#224. To: misterwhite (#219)
Is that a word?
#225. To: misterwhite (#220)
"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."
So
who should decide their extent?
#226. To: ConservingFreedom (#225)
exercising their checks
#227. To: Roscoe (#222)
#228. To: ConservingFreedom (#227)
#229. To: Roscoe (#226)
Quote the "check."
#230. To: ConservingFreedom (#229)
1. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7
#231. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#229)
Article 1 Section 7
#232. To: tpaine (#231)
Weird fella.
#233. To: ConservingFreedom (#232)
#234. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#232)
#235. To: ConservingFreedom (#221)
"The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't."
#236. To: misterwhite (#235)
#237. To: misterwhite (#235)
#238. To: ConservingFreedom (#225)
"Are we agreed on that point?"
#239. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#238)
Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions. --- misterwhite
#240. To: misterwhite (#238)
Not in the least.
#241. To: ConservingFreedom (#240)
Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?
#242. To: Roscoe, --- constitutionally backward (#241)
What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?
#243. To: Roscoe (#241)
#244. To: ConservingFreedom (#243)
Move those goalposts.
#245. To: ConservingFreedom (#240)
"Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?"
#246. To: misterwhite (#245)
The extent of the law is limited in that it must be necessary and it must be proper.
#247. To: ConservingFreedom (#246)
That's a limit only if it's false that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper.
#248. To: Roscoe (#247)
#249. To: ConservingFreedom (#248)
#250. To: ConservingFreedom (#246)
"That's a limit only if it's false that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper."
#251. To: misterwhite (#250)
You concede that Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", but you say that Congress cannot decide what is necessary and proper.
#252. To: misterwhite (#250)
You concede that Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", but you say that Congress cannot decide what is necessary and proper.
#253. To: ConservingFreedom (#252)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]