Is The Roe V Wade Law... Constitutional?

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1225634' date='Apr 1 2007, 08:23 AM']I voted No.
I have reasons, but I do want to point out that 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Look it up.[/quote]


Yes, I know but we can not have one without the other...

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Maggie' post='1225747' date='Apr 1 2007, 02:17 PM']Putting aside the immorality of abortion... Roe v Wade was just lousy judicial reasoning. Even Justice Ginsburg herself considers it flawed.[/quote]

Oh ya. Good news, ain't it?
I also noticed that pro-choice Republican Rudy Giuliani had long stated his belief that Roe v Wad was totally wrong, and that such matters (duh) belong in congress.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1226507' date='Apr 1 2007, 09:20 PM']Roe v. Wade is judicial tyranny, plain and simple.[/quote]

beaver dam straight!

[kujo]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1226498' date='Apr 1 2007, 10:14 PM']Wow, Kujo - I actually agree with you on something![/quote]

Well then good...I know that you are more knowledgable than I on a lot of topics so it's good to see 2 stubborn people in agreement.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1226003' date='Apr 1 2007, 05:25 PM']QUOTE(Anomaly @ Apr 1 2007, 09:23 AM)
I voted No.
I have reasons, but I do want to point out that 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Look it up.
Okay...

QUOTE
The United States Constitution - 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."
[url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html"]http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html[/url]
The original quote the “founding fathers” of the United States weretrying to use said “life, liberty, and property” (John Lock I believe wrote this) but they in the Declaration wrote “pursuit of happiness” for to stress that they were not happy under the King of England.[/quote]Had a lot of time on your hands?
Big difference between self evident truths and inalienable rights and commentary on the judicial system describing what CAN be taken away with due process of law. Abortion is not unconstitutional if done legally according to Amendment V.

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1227062' date='Apr 2 2007, 11:24 AM']Had a lot of time on your hands? [1]
Big difference between self evident truths and inalienable rights and commentary on the judicial system describing [u]what CAN be taken away with due process of law[/u]. [2] Abortion is not unconstitutional if done legally according to Amendment V. [3][/quote][1] No, I just know the Constitution and the history of the United States...

[2] If the infant in the womb is deemed a person they cannot be aborted without due process of law that requires a trial for it is the depriving of life, moreover because the Supreme Court said that life can only be taken in extreme crimes and circumstances. Because the child has not committed any crimed it would thus become illegal for abortions to exist.

[3] I am sorry, that is not how it would legally happen with the history of the Supreme Court in this theoretical situation.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Mr.CatholicCat

[Farsight one]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1227062' date='Apr 2 2007, 11:24 AM']Abortion is not unconstitutional if done legally according to Amendment V.[/quote]Wait...doesn't that seem extremely circular to you? If it's legal, it's constitutional. Since it's constitutional(being that it's legal), then it can be legal. So technically, it was a gross violation of the constitution to put it into law, since when it wasn't a law it was unconstitutional. But, now that it is legal(and made so illegally), it is cemented into place for all time by the circular reasoning. Strange...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1227259' date='Apr 2 2007, 03:18 PM']Wait...doesn't that seem extremely circular to you? If it's legal, it's constitutional. Since it's constitutional(being that it's legal), then it can be legal. So technically, it was a gross violation of the constitution to put it into law, since when it wasn't a law it was unconstitutional. But, now that it is legal(and made so illegally), it is cemented into place for all time by the circular reasoning. Strange...[/quote]Hang on there buddy. We were just looking at Amendment V all by itself in the context of the conversation. Kinda it's an A-B conversation, C your way out of it. LOL. But seriously, I believe you misunderstood, read the entire thread.

Reference was made to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness rights as being a Constitutional Right. I pointed out that phrase is from the Declaration, not the Constitution. Amendment V has a similar phrase, but it isn't establishing those as Rights, but saying that Life, Liberty and Property can't be taken away without due process of law. No matter how you construe Amendment V, it isn't establishing Life as a Right that can't be taken away by legal means, so Abortion can be legally Constitutional from the basis of Amendment V.

Now go and read Amendment 14.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Where it gets sticky is 'persons born or naturalized in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...' The sticky part is how born or naturalized is defined, because fetuses are subject to the jurisdiction of laws in the United States. A person can be prosecuted for murder or battery or child endabgerment for harming an unborn fetus. That gives the fetus 'person status' and is recieveing some protection under the law. Read through Amendment 14 to the last part "nor deny to any person within its jurisdictino the equal protection fo the laws." If the fetus is person at one point and is receiving protection, then they should get equal protection like all other persons. The fetus is being denied life without due process of law, which the guarentee of equal protection is provided in Amendment 14.

[Farsight one]

I read the whole topic and I understand just fine. You seem to have been saying that Abortion is not unconstitutional simply because it's legal. I was pointing out the flawed reasoning in that statement.

"due process of law" means that they(life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) cannot be taken away unless you do something to deserve getting them taken away. Since the fetus has done nothing to warrant the removal of them, they cannot be taken away, thus amendment V does not apply and abortion remains unconstitutional. I think that's been said already though.

Also, 14 says that all CITIZENS are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S, but also that no state may deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Even if the fetus isn't technically a citizen, it cannot be deprived of the right to life. Just like I'd still get tried for murder if I shot up a japanese tourist.

I think we may be agreeing, but not understanding each other...

[Socrates]

[quote]The United States Constitution - 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."[/quote]
How on earth does this make abortion a "constitutional right"??

That's definitely beyond me!

And the Federal Government has no Constitutional right to overrule state laws on abortion, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.

There is no rational case at all for the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade - only a grotesque twisting of the meaning of the words of the law, or a philosophy of legal positivism ("whatever the Supreme Court rules is ipso facto right.")

Edited April 3, 2007 by Socrates

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1225609' date='Apr 1 2007, 09:02 AM']no option for none of the above?

a. Roe v. Wade is not a law, it is a judicial interpretation of a law, or a case
b. The constitutional underpinnings of the decision are perhaps a stretch
(the penumbras of the constitution protect a personal right of privacy)
(or was that Doe v. Bolton?)
but given my personal feelings about the role of government, highly appropriate
it's the same rationale that says
the government can't arrest me with a good reason
the government can't imprison me without a trial
the government can't convict me without a fair trial
the government can't search my property without a warrant
etc etc etc
c. As it is the direct result of the highest court's application of the Constitution to a state statute, by definition it has to be Constitutional
d. it may be in error, but it is not unconstitutional

Interesting topic for Passion Week . . . Jesus' trial before the Sanhedrin probably violated Hebrew due process . . . certainly violated modern American due process, which wasn't invented yet, but there are many aspects of the latter which, through the evolution of the common law, borrowed from the former . . . the most well known of which might be the right to confront the witness (think of the OT recounting of the trial Susanna . . . Daniel 13)(think of Caiphas' plea for just two witnesses who would agree)[/quote]
lawyer!

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1227421' date='Apr 2 2007, 06:17 PM']I read the whole topic and I understand just fine. You seem to have been saying that Abortion is not unconstitutional simply because it's legal. I was pointing out the flawed reasoning in that statement.

"due process of law" means that they(life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) cannot be taken away unless you do something to deserve getting them taken away. Since the fetus has done nothing to warrant the removal of them, they cannot be taken away, thus amendment V does not apply and abortion remains unconstitutional. I think that's been said already though.

Also, 14 says that all CITIZENS are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S, but also that no state may deprive ANY person of life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. Even if the fetus isn't technically a citizen, it cannot be deprived of the right to life. Just like I'd still get tried for murder if I shot up a japanese tourist.

I think we may be agreeing, but not understanding each other...[/quote]Read it again. Ammendment 5 restates that the Government does have the power and authority to take away life with due process of law. Based solely on that, A-5 contains no argument against abortion being illegal. That's the point of my reference to A-5. End of story.
A-14 says that all persons under the jurisdiction of the Government has a right to due process. A japanese touristh is protected under the laws of the land. It's illegal to kill them. The point I was also making is that an unborn fetus is recognized and protected in certain circumstances under US law. They should enjoy equal protection as all other people unless due process of law removed that protection for reason. For example, a murderer enjoys due process until his right to life is legally removed by trial, conviction, sentencing, and final appeals. The family of the Japanese tourist can expect the process of law enforcement to investigate and apply justice to the perpatrator.

Under the Roe V Wade decsion, what 'due process' occured that evaluated the rights of the fetus-person, evaluated the rights of the mother-person, and after due process, determined given equal protection, whom has more rights. On the contrary, the mother-person was given better protection because the fetus-person's rights were ignored and a unilateral evalation of only the mother-person's rights were considered. That method violated the 14th Ammendment Right of 'equal protection'.

[Mr.Cat]

Due Process rights were not considered and due process of law certainly would apply to ending abortion if the child in the womb was deemed a person or alive, I spoke to a College Professor in Government who majored in Constitutional Law and from what I understand was a Constitutional lawyer for some time. She although explained that the due process right that would be enjoyed by the Fifth Amendment (which only applies to the Federal Government) is also applied to local governments through the incorporation claws. So she seemed to agree that if the child was deemed a person they would have this right. Moreover you couldn’t take due process away (EVER) you can only THROUGH due process of law deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Also you have to remember the ninth amendment, that your rights may not infringe the rights of others.

Go take a class in basic constitutional law...

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Mr.CatholicCat' post='1231229' date='Apr 5 2007, 02:08 PM']Due Process rights were not considered and due process of law certainly would apply to ending abortion if the child in the womb was deemed a person or alive, I spoke to a College Professor in Government who majored in Constitutional Law and from what I understand was a Constitutional lawyer for some time. She although explained that the due process right that would be enjoyed by the Fifth Amendment (which only applies to the Federal Government) is also applied to local governments through the incorporation claws. So she seemed to agree that if the child was deemed a person they would have this right. Moreover you couldn’t take due process away (EVER) you can only THROUGH due process of law deprive someone of life, liberty, or property. Also you have to remember the ninth amendment, that your rights may not infringe the rights of others.

Go take a class in basic constitutional law...[/quote]
I know as a non-Catholic, I'm your sworn enemy, but please, take a class in basic reading comprehension. Just because you write like you slept on a thesarus, doesn't mean you know what you read. Ammendment 5 does not grant equal protection, Ammendment 14 does, as I've written. The point I've made is that the rights of the fetus were not duely considered as they should have been under Ammendment 14.

Edited April 5, 2007 by Anomaly

[Mr.Cat]

[quote name='Anomaly' post='1231420' date='Apr 5 2007, 02:52 PM']I know as a non-Catholic, I'm your sworn enemy, but please, take a class in basic reading comprehension. Just because you write like you slept on a thesarus, doesn't mean you know what you read. Ammendment 5 does not grant equal protection, Ammendment 14 does, as I've written. The point I've made is that the rights of the fetus were not duely considered as they should have been under Ammendment 14.[/quote]
Hmm
[quote][b]Amendment XIV[/b]
[b]Section 1[/b]. [u][b]All persons born or naturalized in the United States[/b][/u], and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. [color="#0000FF"][b][u]No state shall[/u][/b] make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws[/color].
[url="http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html"]http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...endmentxiv.html[/url][/quote]In this provision personhood is defined by being born or naturalized, moreover citizenship. Although, extenuating arbitration from the High Court one could argue that this has been expanded. But the incorporation claws would be used for the Fifth Amendment but while you are correct if you wanted to sue a State for violation of this law you would sue under the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover this amendment only applies to the States and the abortion ruling is Federal not State... (Generally speaking)

Although, your proposal is interesting to say the least but still equal protection is not relevant since this provision refers to statutory laws not to constitutional laws. The ninth amendment best explains that constitutional laws, in names of liberties, cannot infringe on the liberties of others.

I have no sworn enemies; I only have those whom find tension to me. Like I said before I cant keep grudges very well...