Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
This is the law.Originally Posted by MarkCO
It's funny (sad) how so much has been done without explicitly granting these powers to FedGov. Abortion, gay marriage, healthcare, drug laws/enforcement all done with a phone and pen or judicial activism rather than a Constitutional Amendment as required to grant the power.
It's no wonder the county is confused on social issues.
Skip, totally agree except Abortion. I will grant there is a difference of opinion, but if you believe a human life is created at conception, then why would they not have constitutional protection? The issue, at least in my opinion, is the definition of "human life". Some think at conception, some at 20 weeks, some later, some earlier. The science is clear it is living at conception, and clear that it is human...so the question is really one that comes down to choice of a woman and a man to engage in intercourse that can result in the production of a human life. Takes both, so I reject the concept that it is a "woman's health" issue. It is a choice two people made, with consequences.
It is also clear that that "Roe" (Norma McCorvey) regrets the case and wants it overturned. She never wanted (or had) an abortion and is now a pro-life advocate. She is now dedicated to reversing the Supreme Court case that bears her fictitious name, Jane Roe.
“Back in 1973, I was a very confused twenty-one year old with one child and facing an unplanned pregnancy. At the time I fought to obtain a legal abortion, but truth be told, I have three daughters and never had an abortion.”
“I think it’s safe to say that the entire abortion industry is based on a lie…. I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name,” McCorvey says.
“You read about me in history books, but now I am dedicated to spreading the truth about preserving the dignity of all human life from natural conception to natural death.”
She has been blocked from having the case reheard. As the original petitioner, she can have the case reheard under certain circumstances, one of which is new scientific evidence. In the original case, science was not able to be used to determine life, or human, it was only assumed. With the change in technology, that is no longer the case and that is one way in which the original case can be reheard.
I will admit that I have a harder time with the Rape and Incest arguments and I do believe that it would rightly be a State rights issue.
Last edited by MarkCO; 01-25-2017 at 10:10.
I'm with you. The government has no business in anyone's "spiritual consequences".
Te occidere possunt sed te edere non possunt nefas est
Sane person with a better sight picture
This. I don't understand why so many are excited about Trump appointing a Scalia replacement. Even if the appointment is a solid conservative, the court will still lean liberal. If Ginsburg kicks the bucket I'll start to get excited.
I will bet a dollar to a donut that the old liberal justices will have amazing health care over the next 4 years. Put them on Obamacare and the SCOTUS goes 7-2.
They (unborn humans) have a Constitutional protection inherent in the Fifth Amendment which is incorporated against the states in the Bill of Rights. This is often intentionally ignored. The BoR, and it's incorporation, are the only legitimate means FedGov can interfere for the benefit of the individual. That's why the 10th Amendment caps it off with "powers not expressly delegated."
It is illegal to deprive a person of their life absent due process (criminal proceeding). We can argue when life begins (I agree with you) but it is irrelevant in this context because the illegal intervention (abortion) is depriving a person of 75/78 years of life that would happen absent the intervention. Murder isn't the highest crime just because it's painful (so is assault) but because it deprives a human of life.
Had abortion been the norm in 1791, I guess we could look critically and wonder why it isn't spelled out. But we have this same struggle with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and gun grabbers or the classic "they only meant muskets" to which we aptly respond "then the First Amendment only applies to manual presses."
The Roe case is a tragedy on multiple levels and illustrates the perils of judicial activism and being useful. They lied about it being rape and it wasn't. If abortionists wanted to legalize abortion, or even put it under the purview of the states, they should have asked for an open debate, and a Constitutional amendment to resolve the conflict inherent in the Fifth Amendment. They could also define the scope; first, second, third trimester, European ethicists are exploring "post birth abortion." Of course they would never have gotten this because the public was, and remains, very uncomfortable with abortion.
Rape and incest are certainly hard, I agree. But I've asked myself to think of example of any other crime in which we justly assign the consequences to a third party and I can't find a single one. Thinking more about this I've come to realize that the assignment of blame/consequences is really a Marxist construct no different than the distribution of property/poverty. So I reject it.
The only time I see a genuine moral dilemma is when the mother's life is in jeopardy and continuing the pregnancy means two people die instead of one. This one isn't hard for me because the baby dies in all outcomes.
One cannot do evil that good may result. One can do good even if the double effect of potential evil is foreseen (but this is pretty much a non-problem, as by the time such a case would incur the life of the mother being at risk, the child would be viable outside the womb and/or an attempt could be made to save the child.)
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/pr...-double-effect
Actual cases where a decision must be made between the mother’s life and the baby’s are rare, but they do occur, and there is always a moral response. Morally mature, ethical doctors are equipped to handle these difficult situations in the rare instances that they arise.
Legislation to regulate these rare occurrences has opened the door to abortion on demand. Statistics bear this out. The National Right to Life Committee reports that 93 percent of abortions are performed for "social reasons," while the mother’s health is cited in only 3 percent of the cases. (In another 3 percent the baby’s health is cited, and 1 percent cites rape or incest.) "Saving the life of the mother" never came up in the report (http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/r...abortions.html).
The principle is simple: The direct killing of an innocent life is a grave evil and is never allowed, but when the mother’s life is in danger, medical ethics have always recognized the principle of double effect.
Feedback
It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. - The Cleveland Press, March 1, 1921, GK Chesterton
The excitement is because the liberals were salivating at the prospect of flipping the court from meandering to solidly left-wing while conservatives are happy that Trump is looking at an appointment that keeps the court from sliding further to the left. Stop the decay then worry about fixing what it's done wrong for the past 10-25 years (IMO Souter and Kennedy were huge mistakes and the GOP should have protested Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor -- the President has the right to nominate but it doesn't mean the Senate has to roll over like lap dogs).
My sense is the dems will filibuster any of the potential 2 or 3 that trump nominates. In general, I'm not a fan of changing the nuclear option for SCOTUS nominees since it would definitely be used by dems in the future - but I think it could also be argued that dems would do that, anyway - even if the republicans didn't change the rule.
The thing I'm upset about the republicans is in the past how crappy they have been at vetting SCOTUS nominees and not filibustering obvious losers like the 3 women on the court.
They say there is political capital that is spent by hard line actions like filibustering - but that doesn't seem to be the case with democrats. They seem to suffer no real consequences by "obstructing". Maybe with the Yuge bully pulpit of Trump that won't be the case?
"Guilty of collusion"
Down to 2, to be announced one week from today. The liberals will do any and everything they can to keep Trumps pick off the bench. It will be interesting to see how he will fight their obstruction. Especially in light of the fact that they see the Rs as obstructing Obama's pick.
What happens if there are only 7 justices?
Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation's boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.
In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[67] where it has since remained.
So, if the Ds hold up Trumps Nominee, Congress could pass a law lowering the number to 7. Scalia, and next retiree or death not replaced either. All 4-4 splits would be reheard by a 7 justice court which would be quick as those on the bench had already voted. It would be largely procedural instead of rehearing entire cases. There are some on both sides of the aisle in favor of such a piece of legislation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote