At 10:58 PM 11/27/2002 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In a message dated 11/27/2002 8:18:07 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>Please explain how issuing a ruling stating simply that "The US
>>Consitution is silent on the matter of abortion, therfore this is an
>>issue to be decided by Congress, or alternatively, the several States"
>>requires ignoring or rewriting the Constitution.
>>
>>
>>I am most curious in anyone's answer to this question.
>The constitution was written two centuries ago. Abortion was not an issue
>then. Neither was telecommunications baseball anti-trust exemptions or most
>of what we will deal with in the early 21st century. But the constitution
>provides general rules about which part of goverment does which things and
>what kind of things can be legislated.
Correct. Note the word "legislated." The abortion issue was being
discussed and considered n the Legislatures of the several States, until
the Supreme Court pulled the plug on the democratic process, and simply
legalized all abortions.
I simply do not see how a reasonable interpretation of the US Constitution
can lead you to conclude that it was intended for the US Supreme Court to
settle the abortion issue in 1973 based upon a "constitutional right to
abortion." The Constitution clearly never decided for the US Supreme Court
to settle this issue.
>So the supreme courts abortion
>ruling dealt with an unforeseen consequence of the constitution. The
>strength of the document is that it provides a balance between indiviudal
>and societal rights; between the roles of various aspects of government.
Forgive me, but I do not see how issuing a ruling stating simply that "The US
Consitution is silent on the matter of abortion, therfore this is an issue
to be decided by Congress, or alternatively, the several States"requires
ignoring or rewriting the Constitution. If you attempted to answer this
question, I honestly did not find your answer within your message.
You mention that "the supreme court ruling dealt with unforseen
consequences of the Constition." I don't think that you meant to say
this, but rather, meant "situations unforseen by the Constitution."
Please correct me if I am wrong - but I simply don't see how abortion could
be described as a "consequence of the Constitution," unforseen or
otherwise.
Anyhow, the Consitution actually addresses unforseen situations - and it
does not say that debates unforseen by the Constitution should be settled
by the US Supreme Court. Rather, it says:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people."
And it also says:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of
the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a
convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid
to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by
the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions
in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may
be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made
prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner
affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first
article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its
equal suffrage in the Senate."
Again, I do not see how saying that the abortion question must be resolved
by Congress or the several States requires ignoring or rewriting the
Constitution. In fact, I would argue that it is far more in keeping with
the Constitution than your proposal that unforseen circumstances should be
settled by the Supreme Court.
Indeed, if you believe that the abortion issue *should* have been settled
by the Supreme Court, then you have to believe that it would have been just
as proper for them to declare that Constitution guarantees "that no person
shall be.... deprived of life.... without due process of law", and
therefore every abortion is unconstitutional as it was proper for them to
find a right to abortion in the penumbra of the Constitution.
>As to your other statements about americans attitudes towards abortion. You
>said americans were against abortion and I challenged you on this.
No. I said that electorates wished to protect unborn human life. I
then stated that some electorates wished to provide total protection to
unborn human life, and also listed other examples of limited protections to
unborn human life that are supported by the general electorate, but have
variously been struck down by the US Supreme Court.
Moreover, you also missed the point that I know that some States wish to
ban abortion within their borders, and the US Supreme Court is apparently
violating these States' 10th Amendment Rights by forcing these States to
permit abortions within their borders.
>Your
>response was to list aspects of the abortion debate that different people
>find difficult to accept. These are complex issues (what are the rights of
>an underage pregnant women? Under what circumstances can second trimester
>abortions be performed? The debates about these questions are healthy and
>necessary since these are difficult ethical moral and legal questions. But
>concerns about some aspects of abortion does not imply rejection of all
>abortions
Yes, and all of these are debates that have been shut off by the Supreme
Court. Indeed, it sounds to me like you agree with me that "abortion is a
complex issue, and it should be debated and decided by democratic processes
in Congress, or ele the several States." Or do you disagree with this?
JDG
_______________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People everywhere want to say what they think; choose who will govern
them; worship as they please; educate their children -- male and female;
own property; and enjoy the benefits of their labor. These values of
freedom are right and true for every person, in every society -- and the
duty of protecting these values against their enemies is the common
calling of freedom-loving people across the globe and across the ages.
-US National Security Policy, 2002
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
