Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I post here precisely because no one agrees with me, here.

now you're just not making sense. first you say you're not trying to convince anyone-- that your posts are meant to serve as validation for those who already agree with you. then you say no one agrees with you here. so your posts are meant to neither convince nor validate any one here?

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

As far as being "cryptic": I can be as clear on something as the sun rising in the east; and there will be those that will call me "clueless," and say the sun doesn't rise at all in the east or west.

actually, the sun doesn't rise at all. our planet's rotation just makes it seem that it does. 8)

but seriously, of course what seems to you to be an absolute truth is not perceived by others as the same. that's natural.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

p.s. I still say that King Rush looks and sounds a lot like old King George, though. :wink:

you know, i never thought of it, but he does... he's fat and bulbous and tyrannical.... oh, wait, you mean brian rush, i was thinking of another rush. :wink:


TK

Interesting image, a few forbidden islands in a sea of rights. What is forbidden must be specifically spelled out. I don't recall who I am quoting-this is in reference to a Communist regime-but "whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory."

Interesting image, a few forbidden islands in a sea of rights. What is forbidden must be specifically spelled out. I don't recall who I am quoting-this is in reference to a Communist regime-but "whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory."

Interesting image, a few forbidden islands in a sea of rights. What is forbidden must be specifically spelled out. I don't recall who I am quoting-this is in reference to a Communist regime-but "whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory."

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Interesting image, a few forbidden islands in a sea of rights. What is forbidden must be specifically spelled out. I don't recall who I am quoting-this is in reference to a Communist regime-but "whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory."

Re: the interesting, scary phrase "Whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory".

Yes, that phrase was in my mind. It may well have been used to refer to a Communist regime. I first came acrosss it as a child in the book "The Once and Future King".

In the book, when Arthur is a boy, Merlin (knowing he will be the king one day) changes him into various animals as a way to teach him stuff. At one point, he is an ant. The ants are portrayed as Communists of a sort, and posted on the wall in the ant nest is the phrase "ALL THAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY" (or words to that effect).

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Interesting image, a few forbidden islands in a sea of rights. What is forbidden must be specifically spelled out. I don't recall who I am quoting-this is in reference to a Communist regime-but "whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory."

Re: the interesting, scary phrase "Whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory".

Yes, that phrase was in my mind. It may well have been used to refer to a Communist regime. I first came acrosss it as a child in the book "The Once and Future King".

In the book, when Arthur is a boy, Merlin (knowing he will be the king one day) changes him into various animals as a way to teach him stuff. At one point, he is an ant. The ants are portrayed as Communists of a sort, and posted on the wall in the ant nest is the phrase "ALL THAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY" (or words to that effect).

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Interesting image, a few forbidden islands in a sea of rights. What is forbidden must be specifically spelled out. I don't recall who I am quoting-this is in reference to a Communist regime-but "whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory."

Re: the interesting, scary phrase "Whatever isn't forbidden is compulsory".

Yes, that phrase was in my mind. It may well have been used to refer to a Communist regime. I first came acrosss it as a child in the book "The Once and Future King".

In the book, when Arthur is a boy, Merlin (knowing he will be the king one day) changes him into various animals as a way to teach him stuff. At one point, he is an ant. The ants are portrayed as Communists of a sort, and posted on the wall in the ant nest is the phrase "ALL THAT IS NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY" (or words to that effect).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

I do not in any way state this to argue a point of view, but rather to highlight what is perhaps the most bizarre spectacle we see in "conservatives" who argue in constitutional terms today. They often argue for the small constitutional government of the founders and then, ever embittered by Roe v. Wade, proceed to shout, "There is no right to privacy!" Oh, really? Then why did the founding fathers find it necessary to stipulate in the Fourth Amendment that law enforcement could only invade your privacy after obtaining a warrant from a judge? What that means is that government cannot invade your privacy willy-nilly anytime it likes. What that means is that the individual has an absolute right to privacy, except in those cases specifically dealt with in the Constitution.

The proper constitutional argument for a pro-lifer is to affirm that quite obviously there is an implicit right to privacy which undergirds the entire Constitution, but that abortion is not a privacy issue; rather it is a life issue. But unfortunately, "conservatives" invariably take the bait offered in Roe, the very decision they despise, and they deny the existence of the ever so critical and blatant right to privacy in order to get at abortion. It is absolutely unbelievable. Had Blackmun specifically desired to destroy the arguments of constitutionalists ever afterward, he could not have written a better opinion. And it is all so unnecessary! Yes, of course there is a right to privacy! But abortion is not a privacy issue (and Roe is necessarily bad law). This is all a pro-life constitutionalist ever need say!

there is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

The National Guard dates back to TR's time, and the first gun control law was not passed until 1968, if I am not mistaken. I do not think there was any semblance of a fanatical gun control movement in this country until Boomers came along. So why would the much earlier reorganization of the military which created the National Guard have been in any way, shape, or form, inspired by gun control arguments?

and an establishment of religion includes government endorsement of God -- among other things.

The Establishment Clause merely prohibited establishment of a state religion on the part of the federal government. That is why it is called the Establishment Clause. Unless something has recently changed, every session of Congress begins with a chaplain's prayer as it did at the beginning. The Establishment Clause was never intended to ban such activities in government, but merely to prevent establishment of an official state church as then existed in European nations (often up to the present day). Of course, I personally am sympathetic to your point of view, Brian. I just do not see how a legitimate, truthful constitutional argument to back it can be made on the basis of the Establishment Clause.

The bottom line is that you are defining a non-treasonous act of dissent as treason. The only persons who, endowed with power, do that, are tyrants. You advocate that this be done, and therefore you, Chris, are an advocate of tyranny.

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

I am with you, Brian, but let's face it. The bottom feeders in the White House feed off this stuff. They don't give a damn about anybody's rights. It is only going to get worse.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

I do not in any way state this to argue a point of view, but rather to highlight what is perhaps the most bizarre spectacle we see in "conservatives" who argue in constitutional terms today. They often argue for the small constitutional government of the founders and then, ever embittered by Roe v. Wade, proceed to shout, "There is no right to privacy!" Oh, really? Then why did the founding fathers find it necessary to stipulate in the Fourth Amendment that law enforcement could only invade your privacy after obtaining a warrant from a judge? What that means is that government cannot invade your privacy willy-nilly anytime it likes. What that means is that the individual has an absolute right to privacy, except in those cases specifically dealt with in the Constitution.

The proper constitutional argument for a pro-lifer is to affirm that quite obviously there is an implicit right to privacy which undergirds the entire Constitution, but that abortion is not a privacy issue; rather it is a life issue. But unfortunately, "conservatives" invariably take the bait offered in Roe, the very decision they despise, and they deny the existence of the ever so critical and blatant right to privacy in order to get at abortion. It is absolutely unbelievable. Had Blackmun specifically desired to destroy the arguments of constitutionalists ever afterward, he could not have written a better opinion. And it is all so unnecessary! Yes, of course there is a right to privacy! But abortion is not a privacy issue (and Roe is necessarily bad law). This is all a pro-life constitutionalist ever need say!

there is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

The National Guard dates back to TR's time, and the first gun control law was not passed until 1968, if I am not mistaken. I do not think there was any semblance of a fanatical gun control movement in this country until Boomers came along. So why would the much earlier reorganization of the military which created the National Guard have been in any way, shape, or form, inspired by gun control arguments?

and an establishment of religion includes government endorsement of God -- among other things.

The Establishment Clause merely prohibited establishment of a state religion on the part of the federal government. That is why it is called the Establishment Clause. Unless something has recently changed, every session of Congress begins with a chaplain's prayer as it did at the beginning. The Establishment Clause was never intended to ban such activities in government, but merely to prevent establishment of an official state church as then existed in European nations (often up to the present day). Of course, I personally am sympathetic to your point of view, Brian. I just do not see how a legitimate, truthful constitutional argument to back it can be made on the basis of the Establishment Clause.

The bottom line is that you are defining a non-treasonous act of dissent as treason. The only persons who, endowed with power, do that, are tyrants. You advocate that this be done, and therefore you, Chris, are an advocate of tyranny.

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

I am with you, Brian, but let's face it. The bottom feeders in the White House feed off this stuff. They don't give a damn about anybody's rights. It is only going to get worse.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

I do not in any way state this to argue a point of view, but rather to highlight what is perhaps the most bizarre spectacle we see in "conservatives" who argue in constitutional terms today. They often argue for the small constitutional government of the founders and then, ever embittered by Roe v. Wade, proceed to shout, "There is no right to privacy!" Oh, really? Then why did the founding fathers find it necessary to stipulate in the Fourth Amendment that law enforcement could only invade your privacy after obtaining a warrant from a judge? What that means is that government cannot invade your privacy willy-nilly anytime it likes. What that means is that the individual has an absolute right to privacy, except in those cases specifically dealt with in the Constitution.

The proper constitutional argument for a pro-lifer is to affirm that quite obviously there is an implicit right to privacy which undergirds the entire Constitution, but that abortion is not a privacy issue; rather it is a life issue. But unfortunately, "conservatives" invariably take the bait offered in Roe, the very decision they despise, and they deny the existence of the ever so critical and blatant right to privacy in order to get at abortion. It is absolutely unbelievable. Had Blackmun specifically desired to destroy the arguments of constitutionalists ever afterward, he could not have written a better opinion. And it is all so unnecessary! Yes, of course there is a right to privacy! But abortion is not a privacy issue (and Roe is necessarily bad law). This is all a pro-life constitutionalist ever need say!

there is no well-regulated Militia and the National Guard is the nation's excuse not to overtly repeal the Second Amendment which has been obsolete and unrecognized in practice since the Civil War,

The National Guard dates back to TR's time, and the first gun control law was not passed until 1968, if I am not mistaken. I do not think there was any semblance of a fanatical gun control movement in this country until Boomers came along. So why would the much earlier reorganization of the military which created the National Guard have been in any way, shape, or form, inspired by gun control arguments?

and an establishment of religion includes government endorsement of God -- among other things.

The Establishment Clause merely prohibited establishment of a state religion on the part of the federal government. That is why it is called the Establishment Clause. Unless something has recently changed, every session of Congress begins with a chaplain's prayer as it did at the beginning. The Establishment Clause was never intended to ban such activities in government, but merely to prevent establishment of an official state church as then existed in European nations (often up to the present day). Of course, I personally am sympathetic to your point of view, Brian. I just do not see how a legitimate, truthful constitutional argument to back it can be made on the basis of the Establishment Clause.

The bottom line is that you are defining a non-treasonous act of dissent as treason. The only persons who, endowed with power, do that, are tyrants. You advocate that this be done, and therefore you, Chris, are an advocate of tyranny.

We should all offer a prayer of thanks that you, personally, do not possess the power to put your despicable notion into practice, i.e., that you are merely an advocate of tyranny and not, yourself, a tyrant.

I am with you, Brian, but let's face it. The bottom feeders in the White House feed off this stuff. They don't give a damn about anybody's rights. It is only going to get worse.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

I do not in any way state this to argue a point of view, but rather to highlight what is perhaps the most bizarre spectacle we see in "conservatives" who argue in constitutional terms today. They often argue for the small constitutional government of the founders and then, ever embittered by Roe v. Wade, proceed to shout, "There is no right to privacy!" Oh, really? Then why did the founding fathers find it necessary to stipulate in the Fourth Amendment that law enforcement could only invade your privacy after obtaining a warrant from a judge? What that means is that government cannot invade your privacy willy-nilly anytime it likes. What that means is that the individual has an absolute right to privacy, except in those cases specifically dealt with in the Constitution.

The proper constitutional argument for a pro-lifer is to affirm that quite obviously there is an implicit right to privacy which undergirds the entire Constitution, but that abortion is not a privacy issue; rather it is a life issue. But unfortunately, "conservatives" invariably take the bait offered in Roe, the very decision they despise, and they deny the existence of the ever so critical and blatant right to privacy in order to get at abortion. It is absolutely unbelievable. Had Blackmun specifically desired to destroy the arguments of constitutionalists ever afterward, he could not have written a better opinion. And it is all so unnecessary! Yes, of course there is a right to privacy! But abortion is not a privacy issue (and Roe is necessarily bad law). This is all a pro-life constitutionalist ever need say!

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest the pro-life constitutionalist advocate a reversal on Roe without running afoul of the Ninth Amendment, among other arguments? A strict reading of the word "retain", or reliance on the Tenth Amendment, perhaps? More importantly, do you regard any of the other unintended uses for the Fourteenth Amendment similarly?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

I do not in any way state this to argue a point of view, but rather to highlight what is perhaps the most bizarre spectacle we see in "conservatives" who argue in constitutional terms today. They often argue for the small constitutional government of the founders and then, ever embittered by Roe v. Wade, proceed to shout, "There is no right to privacy!" Oh, really? Then why did the founding fathers find it necessary to stipulate in the Fourth Amendment that law enforcement could only invade your privacy after obtaining a warrant from a judge? What that means is that government cannot invade your privacy willy-nilly anytime it likes. What that means is that the individual has an absolute right to privacy, except in those cases specifically dealt with in the Constitution.

The proper constitutional argument for a pro-lifer is to affirm that quite obviously there is an implicit right to privacy which undergirds the entire Constitution, but that abortion is not a privacy issue; rather it is a life issue. But unfortunately, "conservatives" invariably take the bait offered in Roe, the very decision they despise, and they deny the existence of the ever so critical and blatant right to privacy in order to get at abortion. It is absolutely unbelievable. Had Blackmun specifically desired to destroy the arguments of constitutionalists ever afterward, he could not have written a better opinion. And it is all so unnecessary! Yes, of course there is a right to privacy! But abortion is not a privacy issue (and Roe is necessarily bad law). This is all a pro-life constitutionalist ever need say!

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest the pro-life constitutionalist advocate a reversal on Roe without running afoul of the Ninth Amendment, among other arguments? A strict reading of the word "retain", or reliance on the Tenth Amendment, perhaps? More importantly, do you regard any of the other unintended uses for the Fourteenth Amendment similarly?

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

I do not in any way state this to argue a point of view, but rather to highlight what is perhaps the most bizarre spectacle we see in "conservatives" who argue in constitutional terms today. They often argue for the small constitutional government of the founders and then, ever embittered by Roe v. Wade, proceed to shout, "There is no right to privacy!" Oh, really? Then why did the founding fathers find it necessary to stipulate in the Fourth Amendment that law enforcement could only invade your privacy after obtaining a warrant from a judge? What that means is that government cannot invade your privacy willy-nilly anytime it likes. What that means is that the individual has an absolute right to privacy, except in those cases specifically dealt with in the Constitution.

The proper constitutional argument for a pro-lifer is to affirm that quite obviously there is an implicit right to privacy which undergirds the entire Constitution, but that abortion is not a privacy issue; rather it is a life issue. But unfortunately, "conservatives" invariably take the bait offered in Roe, the very decision they despise, and they deny the existence of the ever so critical and blatant right to privacy in order to get at abortion. It is absolutely unbelievable. Had Blackmun specifically desired to destroy the arguments of constitutionalists ever afterward, he could not have written a better opinion. And it is all so unnecessary! Yes, of course there is a right to privacy! But abortion is not a privacy issue (and Roe is necessarily bad law). This is all a pro-life constitutionalist ever need say!

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest the pro-life constitutionalist advocate a reversal on Roe without running afoul of the Ninth Amendment, among other arguments? A strict reading of the word "retain", or reliance on the Tenth Amendment, perhaps? More importantly, do you regard any of the other unintended uses for the Fourteenth Amendment similarly?

[quote="Sanford"]

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

...Amendment 2 is important in the sense that it identifies the right to bear arms as one of the most important rights, important enough to be explicitly enumerated, right after the right of free speech.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit.

But the "Conservative" opposition at times amount to ignoring Amendment 9 entirely. Amendment 9 is clear; just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I frequently here commentators joke about doing a word search on the Constitution for the word "abortion", and feigning surprise at discovering it isn't in there. Amendment 9 renders this simplisitc argument insufficient. We cannot escape thinking about stuff; the founders couldn't do it all.

The conservatives are correct that we should be very careful in deciding what the unenumerated rights are, but they are wrong when they suggest that the unenumerated rights do not exist....

I wholeheartedly agree - and I'll go one further! The fact that a "right" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution means it was intended by the founders to both elevate the importance of that enumerated "right" and, by being explicitly enumerated, make it that much more difficult to be challenged or usurped by elected officials.

Taking the second contention as at least something that was considered if not wholly intended (and the fact that the 9th lists after most of the other specifically enumerated rights) I contend that Life, Liberty, Property Rights, Speech, Religion, Assembly, the Press, Bearing Arms, etc., were those rights that the founders were most adamant about protecting. And it seems that Stonewall Patton agrees with me... and I with him!! :P

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

I do not think, therefore, that Roe needs to be overturned, per se. This is because the abortion issue hinges not on the right of the mothers privacy (which does exist) but, as Stonewall stated so well, on the definition of life.

I guess there are really two distinct questions:

* Does Roe-v-Wade define a right (privacy), or limit one (life)?

* If the right to life indeed trumps privacy (which Stonewall, myself, and others contend), doesn't the mere existence of Roe-v-Wade demand that a definition of when life begins be made before any privacy claim can be asserted?

:-?

[quote="Sanford"]

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

...Amendment 2 is important in the sense that it identifies the right to bear arms as one of the most important rights, important enough to be explicitly enumerated, right after the right of free speech.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit.

But the "Conservative" opposition at times amount to ignoring Amendment 9 entirely. Amendment 9 is clear; just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I frequently here commentators joke about doing a word search on the Constitution for the word "abortion", and feigning surprise at discovering it isn't in there. Amendment 9 renders this simplisitc argument insufficient. We cannot escape thinking about stuff; the founders couldn't do it all.

The conservatives are correct that we should be very careful in deciding what the unenumerated rights are, but they are wrong when they suggest that the unenumerated rights do not exist....

I wholeheartedly agree - and I'll go one further! The fact that a "right" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution means it was intended by the founders to both elevate the importance of that enumerated "right" and, by being explicitly enumerated, make it that much more difficult to be challenged or usurped by elected officials.

Taking the second contention as at least something that was considered if not wholly intended (and the fact that the 9th lists after most of the other specifically enumerated rights) I contend that Life, Liberty, Property Rights, Speech, Religion, Assembly, the Press, Bearing Arms, etc., were those rights that the founders were most adamant about protecting. And it seems that Stonewall Patton agrees with me... and I with him!! :P

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

I do not think, therefore, that Roe needs to be overturned, per se. This is because the abortion issue hinges not on the right of the mothers privacy (which does exist) but, as Stonewall stated so well, on the definition of life.

I guess there are really two distinct questions:

* Does Roe-v-Wade define a right (privacy), or limit one (life)?

* If the right to life indeed trumps privacy (which Stonewall, myself, and others contend), doesn't the mere existence of Roe-v-Wade demand that a definition of when life begins be made before any privacy claim can be asserted?

:-?

[quote="Sanford"]

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

...Amendment 2 is important in the sense that it identifies the right to bear arms as one of the most important rights, important enough to be explicitly enumerated, right after the right of free speech.

Me, I'm not a big fan of the 9th. The Conservative opposition to liberal judges 'inventing' rights that existed in revolutionary times has some merit.

But the "Conservative" opposition at times amount to ignoring Amendment 9 entirely. Amendment 9 is clear; just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I frequently here commentators joke about doing a word search on the Constitution for the word "abortion", and feigning surprise at discovering it isn't in there. Amendment 9 renders this simplisitc argument insufficient. We cannot escape thinking about stuff; the founders couldn't do it all.

The conservatives are correct that we should be very careful in deciding what the unenumerated rights are, but they are wrong when they suggest that the unenumerated rights do not exist....

I wholeheartedly agree - and I'll go one further! The fact that a "right" is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution means it was intended by the founders to both elevate the importance of that enumerated "right" and, by being explicitly enumerated, make it that much more difficult to be challenged or usurped by elected officials.

Taking the second contention as at least something that was considered if not wholly intended (and the fact that the 9th lists after most of the other specifically enumerated rights) I contend that Life, Liberty, Property Rights, Speech, Religion, Assembly, the Press, Bearing Arms, etc., were those rights that the founders were most adamant about protecting. And it seems that Stonewall Patton agrees with me... and I with him!! :P

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

I do not think, therefore, that Roe needs to be overturned, per se. This is because the abortion issue hinges not on the right of the mothers privacy (which does exist) but, as Stonewall stated so well, on the definition of life.

I guess there are really two distinct questions:

* Does Roe-v-Wade define a right (privacy), or limit one (life)?

* If the right to life indeed trumps privacy (which Stonewall, myself, and others contend), doesn't the mere existence of Roe-v-Wade demand that a definition of when life begins be made before any privacy claim can be asserted?

:-?

I guess this is why abortion is a perplexing issue for everyone, including me. :-? I agree that the right of privacy exists... I agree that a woman has a right to self-determination regarding her body... but I also know that actions have consequences, and that this world will continue to balance on a fine and dangerous edge if we allow anyone, including an expectant mother, to determine whether or not a child (or anyone) can live or not.

I guess this is why abortion is a perplexing issue for everyone, including me. :-? I agree that the right of privacy exists... I agree that a woman has a right to self-determination regarding her body... but I also know that actions have consequences, and that this world will continue to balance on a fine and dangerous edge if we allow anyone, including an expectant mother, to determine whether or not a child (or anyone) can live or not.

I guess this is why abortion is a perplexing issue for everyone, including me. :-? I agree that the right of privacy exists... I agree that a woman has a right to self-determination regarding her body... but I also know that actions have consequences, and that this world will continue to balance on a fine and dangerous edge if we allow anyone, including an expectant mother, to determine whether or not a child (or anyone) can live or not.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

I'm sorry, I have not kept up with all comments on the thread and I do not know what you stated earlier, so I am not aware of the "line" to which you refer. However I caught this one and will respond.

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest the pro-life constitutionalist advocate a reversal on Roe without running afoul of the Ninth Amendment, among other arguments? A strict reading of the word "retain", or reliance on the Tenth Amendment, perhaps? More importantly, do you regard any of the other unintended uses for the Fourteenth Amendment similarly?

A pro-life constitutionalist could argue that, since no one has established with certainty when life begins, it must be assumed to begin at conception until proven otherwise (for obvious reasons). At this point, the Fourteenth Amendment's life protection applies. Alternately, the pro-life constitutionalist can quote one of Blackmun's charmers from Roe and then actually honor those remarks which Blackmun plainly did not do. I mean this remark:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/410/113.html

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

So Harry is not willing to take on the eternal question. Smart man. So obviously he left it up to the states, right? We know he did not. Instead he proceeded to lay out some complex business about trimesters, saying it is so-and-so's business in such-and-such a trimester, while making it clear -- thus saith Lord Harry -- that abortions could be performed in the first and second trimesters, and conceivably in the third as well. Well, it is either alive or dead. If it is alive, you can't kill it. Harry said he wasn't going to deal with this question. Yet, obviously he did.

The pro-life constitutionalist can simply borrow Blackmun's statement above and do what it logically dictates: leave it to the states to decide.

With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment and its "unintended uses," I was formerly of that school as well. However its intended uses may surprise you. Here is a detailed analysis of the drafting and ratification debates on the Fourteenth Amendment:

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

Additionally, here is Harlan's dissent in Hurtado:

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/110-516b.htm

Frankly, the legitimacy of the amendment, given that states ratified it under duress and/or unusual circumstances, is of greater concern than its actual meaning.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

I'm sorry, I have not kept up with all comments on the thread and I do not know what you stated earlier, so I am not aware of the "line" to which you refer. However I caught this one and will respond.

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest the pro-life constitutionalist advocate a reversal on Roe without running afoul of the Ninth Amendment, among other arguments? A strict reading of the word "retain", or reliance on the Tenth Amendment, perhaps? More importantly, do you regard any of the other unintended uses for the Fourteenth Amendment similarly?

A pro-life constitutionalist could argue that, since no one has established with certainty when life begins, it must be assumed to begin at conception until proven otherwise (for obvious reasons). At this point, the Fourteenth Amendment's life protection applies. Alternately, the pro-life constitutionalist can quote one of Blackmun's charmers from Roe and then actually honor those remarks which Blackmun plainly did not do. I mean this remark:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/410/113.html

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

So Harry is not willing to take on the eternal question. Smart man. So obviously he left it up to the states, right? We know he did not. Instead he proceeded to lay out some complex business about trimesters, saying it is so-and-so's business in such-and-such a trimester, while making it clear -- thus saith Lord Harry -- that abortions could be performed in the first and second trimesters, and conceivably in the third as well. Well, it is either alive or dead. If it is alive, you can't kill it. Harry said he wasn't going to deal with this question. Yet, obviously he did.

The pro-life constitutionalist can simply borrow Blackmun's statement above and do what it logically dictates: leave it to the states to decide.

With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment and its "unintended uses," I was formerly of that school as well. However its intended uses may surprise you. Here is a detailed analysis of the drafting and ratification debates on the Fourteenth Amendment:

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

Additionally, here is Harlan's dissent in Hurtado:

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/110-516b.htm

Frankly, the legitimacy of the amendment, given that states ratified it under duress and/or unusual circumstances, is of greater concern than its actual meaning.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

I'm sorry, I have not kept up with all comments on the thread and I do not know what you stated earlier, so I am not aware of the "line" to which you refer. However I caught this one and will respond.

Out of curiosity, how would you suggest the pro-life constitutionalist advocate a reversal on Roe without running afoul of the Ninth Amendment, among other arguments? A strict reading of the word "retain", or reliance on the Tenth Amendment, perhaps? More importantly, do you regard any of the other unintended uses for the Fourteenth Amendment similarly?

A pro-life constitutionalist could argue that, since no one has established with certainty when life begins, it must be assumed to begin at conception until proven otherwise (for obvious reasons). At this point, the Fourteenth Amendment's life protection applies. Alternately, the pro-life constitutionalist can quote one of Blackmun's charmers from Roe and then actually honor those remarks which Blackmun plainly did not do. I mean this remark:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...s/410/113.html

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

So Harry is not willing to take on the eternal question. Smart man. So obviously he left it up to the states, right? We know he did not. Instead he proceeded to lay out some complex business about trimesters, saying it is so-and-so's business in such-and-such a trimester, while making it clear -- thus saith Lord Harry -- that abortions could be performed in the first and second trimesters, and conceivably in the third as well. Well, it is either alive or dead. If it is alive, you can't kill it. Harry said he wasn't going to deal with this question. Yet, obviously he did.

The pro-life constitutionalist can simply borrow Blackmun's statement above and do what it logically dictates: leave it to the states to decide.

With respect to the Fourteenth Amendment and its "unintended uses," I was formerly of that school as well. However its intended uses may surprise you. Here is a detailed analysis of the drafting and ratification debates on the Fourteenth Amendment:

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm

Additionally, here is Harlan's dissent in Hurtado:

http://www.constitution.org/ussc/110-516b.htm

Frankly, the legitimacy of the amendment, given that states ratified it under duress and/or unusual circumstances, is of greater concern than its actual meaning.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

I'm sorry, I have not kept up with all comments on the thread and I do not know what you stated earlier, so I am not aware of the "line" to which you refer.

Apparently, I misspoke. I meant to say that I apologize "for crossing any line (real or percieved) regarding privacy". IOW, if I actually said something denying or disparaging the right to privacy (as your prototypical pro-life constitutionalist does), I did not intend for my rhetoric to go that far.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

I'm sorry, I have not kept up with all comments on the thread and I do not know what you stated earlier, so I am not aware of the "line" to which you refer.

Apparently, I misspoke. I meant to say that I apologize "for crossing any line (real or percieved) regarding privacy". IOW, if I actually said something denying or disparaging the right to privacy (as your prototypical pro-life constitutionalist does), I did not intend for my rhetoric to go that far.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Thank you, Mr. Patton. You are quite correct in your arguments here, and I apologize for crossing a line (real or percieved) regarding privacy - within a strict reading of the Constitution as you suggest. (See... some of your arguments aren't totally lost on us tyrants. )

I'm sorry, I have not kept up with all comments on the thread and I do not know what you stated earlier, so I am not aware of the "line" to which you refer.

Apparently, I misspoke. I meant to say that I apologize "for crossing any line (real or percieved) regarding privacy". IOW, if I actually said something denying or disparaging the right to privacy (as your prototypical pro-life constitutionalist does), I did not intend for my rhetoric to go that far.