From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 19:52:44 EST
Subject: Fwd: Verifying the US Constitution Re: religion is evil, why it
must be era...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230
I
>
>
>>
>>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.
Of course the constitution did not guarentee the right to abortion. It
guarenteed certain individual rights and abortion was deemed to be
included in these rights. That was how the supreme court decided. So if
one assumes for the moment that the justices were at the very least
intelligent and well versed in the law it is clear that at least some
people believe that it is reasonable to interpret the constitution in this
manner. I think your arguement that abortion is not included in the
constitution is incredibly concrete and not in any way a real opinion. The
constitution is not a compendium of all possible rights.
>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.
The justices have the duty to interpret the constitution when making
rulings. The current court is being very creative in assigning rights to
states that are nowhere in the constituion (except when it comes to the
election of right wing republican candidates for president).
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.
So when pornography laws are brought before the court it should say that
this is not in the constitution so we can't deal with it. But of course
the role of the Supreme Court is not ironically in the Constiution at all.
It was John Marshall who invented the court's jurisprudence in deciding if
laws are constitutional. So for the past 200 years the court has been
doing precisely what it did in the abortion ruling, overturning laws that
it deems to be unconstutional even though nowhere does the constituion
prescribe this power.
e 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.
But of course that is your opinion not the opinon of the supreme court.
During some periods the court is activist in some it is not. The current
course is extremely activist. It is bent on changing the way govenment
works. It is promulgating a theory of state rights that goes beyond
anything that is implicit or explicit in the constitution. I disagree with
this theory but this is what the supreme court does. This is why
controlling the court is so important to each party.
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.
They could have decided that but they did not. They chose not to address
the complex ethical and moral issue of when a fetus can be considered a
human being entitled to the rights of all humans. Let me just say that
your formulation of when an individual has these rights would have some
very bizzare consequences. Mothers could immediately apply for assistance
and insurance for the new life. A woman who drinks could be arrested for
child abuse, every spontaneous abortion would require an investigation to
see if the mother had committed involuntary manslaughter or murder.
>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.
The electorate may surprise you on this issue. The late term abortion
issue is bogus. With rare exceptions these are performed only when the
health of the mother is endangered. The OB/YN societies have strong
stances on circumstances when these can be performed. It is typical of
right to lifers to use these rare cases to produce an emotional response
to abortion. It is disengenuous at best, cinical at worst.
>
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?
It is a complex issue but not a complex legal issue. Debates about when to
do abortion and parental notification can be debated in the public and
individuals and organizations can try to influence (not coerce) pregnant
women to behave in certain ways. This is such a personal issue that it
cannot and should not be legislated.But aspects may debated. The issue of
parental consent or notification it seems to me could be decided by the
court since it can be framed within laws determine the rights and
responsibilities of minors and their parents.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
