[johnwk]

To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade


I have long been amazed at those who defend Roe vs. Wade and their complicity in the subjugation of our Constitutional system!



"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."---Federalist Paper No. 45


Why do these people, the supporters of Roe vs. Wade, advocate a system of government in which the SCOTUS is free to impose its whims and fancies upon the people of the various states without the people’s consent and approval via an appropriate amendment? Where have the people agreed to delegate authority to the federal government to regulate the terms and conditions acceptable in terminating a pregnancy within a particular state’s borders?

Do the supporters of Roe vs. Wade not realize the case is very similar to the recent Kelo decision in which the SCOTUS likewise used its position of public trust to ignore the limited powers of the federal government, and ignore the meaning of “public use“ as related to eminent domain under the various state constitutions, and that the Court, without the people’s approval, extended the meaning of “public use” to now mean for “commercial use” which now allows the rich and powerful across our union to steal the property of the less influential?

Do the supporters of Roe vs. Wade not realize their advocacy of Roe vs. Wade supports the same thinking used by the Court in Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich which was not about “medical marijuana“ or the use of drugs as portrayed by the establishment media? The case was once again about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce “among” the states, not within.

What these cases all have in common is, the SCOTUS ignoring the intent and beliefs under which We the People adopted the Constitution and can be documented from Madison’s Notes, the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, Elliot’s Debates and the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress [documenting the intent and beliefs under which the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted].

Roe vs. Wade is in fact just one case in a series of cases in which our folks in Washington, our public servants, have taken it upon themselves to set aside what the people agreed to, and have decided to do for the people what the people have not willing agreed to do for themselves. They have decided to impose their personal predilections upon the people without the People’s consent!

But Hamilton tells us:

.“Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.”

Hamilton, Federalist 78


Indeed, the servant has become the master over those who created a servant and the new servant pays tribute, through taxation, to a gangster government which ignores our most fundamental laws----our state and the united State’s Constitutions!

Only domestic enemies of our constitutional system would support such tyranny, which includes those who would not joyfully overturn Roe vs. Wade!


The incontrovertible truth is, the words of our founding fathers, as found in Madison’s Notes,the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot’s Debates, [including the Congressional Globe], and which express a consensus of the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, is the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system, and acts to expose the evil nature of our domestic enemies, right wing militants and left wing militants, who claim the Constitution may mean whatever they wish it to mean.

JWK
ACRS


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"---Justice Story

[stevesnj]

Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

Stevesnj--
Oh, this is just modernization. You know how nuts will stand on a street corner and rant about stuff? Well now they can do so with the Internet. Just keep on going to the next topic and don't make eye contact and you'll be fine.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stevesnj

Huh?

-----
I stole this from somewhere, but that doesn't make it any less appropriate

[Spliffdaddy]

The days of nationwide legal abortion are numbered. I think that's been obvious.

It'll be up to individual states to decide on its legality. Which means you won't be getting an abortion in the South.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The days of nationwide legal abortion are numbered. I think that's been obvious.

It'll be up to individual states to decide on its legality. Which means you won't be getting an abortion in the South.

Exciting news. Does this mean days of nationwide drug and marriage laws are numbered as well? I don't recall those being in the constitution...

[Spliffdaddy]

If it's not in the Constitution, then it's not guaranteed.

Maybe you can seek an amendment?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If it's not in the Constitution, then it's not guaranteed.

Maybe you can seek an amendment?

Why do these people, the supporters of Roe vs. Wade, advocate a system of government in which the SCOTUS is free to impose its whims and fancies upon the people of the various states without the people’s consent and approval via an appropriate amendment? Where have the people agreed to delegate authority to the federal government to regulate the terms and conditions acceptable in terminating a pregnancy within a particular state’s borders?

Seek an amendment? Why that would be abiding by our Constitution, something which these folks cheerfully ignore. They prefer to have judges impose their whims and fancies as being within the meaning of the Constitution!


JWK

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State."---Federalist Paper No. 45

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If it's not in the Constitution, then it's not guaranteed.

Maybe you can seek an amendment?

Absolutely. Let's overturn Roe v. Wade and then all of us who want abortion to be legal nationwide will work to have it made a Constitutional Amendment. I don't have a problem with that.

I think we need to do the same with Affirmative Action rulings. They should be overturned. But then we can propose a Constitutional Amendment that makes redressing past racial injustices a Constitutional requirement.

And johnwk already knows my answer to his arguments about discriminating against homosexuals. We must have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the rights of homosexuals from discrimination.

I think these are the real biggies. There are lots of smaller amendments that should be added to the Constitution as well. But, if we start with a Constitutional Amendment for the right to abortion and freedom from discrimination for homosexuals, I think we will have made some great advances.

So, when SCOTUS overturns Roe v. Wade I will be right there ready to go to make the 28th Amendment the Abortion Amendment.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Exciting news. Does this mean days of nationwide drug and marriage laws are numbered as well? I don't recall those being in the constitution...

You are wrong on both counts.

Drug laws come in through the interstate commerce clause, which most definitely is in the constitution. Congress has the express power to regulate interstate commerce, including outlawing the interstate commerce in certain goods such as drugs. There are arguments about how broadly it should be construed - i.e. where the line is between interstate commerce, which is federal, and intrastate commerce, which is not. For example, there was recently a case about the construction of the commerce clause and drug laws involving medical marijuana, which I think the Court decided incorrectly. But there is no disagreement that the commerce clause does authorize federal criminal statutes on issues that implicate interstate commerce, including drug laws.

On marriage laws. Marriage laws are basically state laws. There are some federal statutes that are triggered by state marriage statutes. For example, the federal tax code. There is also a statute (of theoretically questionable constitutionality) that says that the federal government doesn't have to accept a state marriage statute that recognizes same-sex marriage. But there really is no federal marriage law as such. When you get married, you get married under a license issued by your state, not the federal government. Who can and cannot get married varies slightly from state to state. States usually recognize marriages as valid even if the couple couldn't be considered married otherwise. For example, Virginia will recognize a common law marriage from the District of Columbia, even though Virginia doesn't have common law marriage. But certain marriages will be considered totally void even if they are valid in another state. For example, if one "spouse" is considered underage. That's an illustration that marriage is basically a state law concept, not a federal one.

[johnwk]

SimeyTheLimey wrote:

Drug laws come in through the interstate commerce clause, which most definitely is in the constitution.



But many of the laws you speak of are far beyond the intentions and beliefs under which Congress was granted power to regulate commerce among the various states.

Make no mistake, the Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez (Ashcroft) v Raich was not about “medical marijuana“ or the use of drugs as portrayed by the establishment media. The case was about the unauthorized exercise of power by the rich and powerful via the federal court system and their undoing of the limited power granted by the people to Congress to regulate commerce among the states. What the case really boiled down to was one simple question: What did those who framed and ratified our Constitution intend by granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states?

This brings us to the real question involved in the case. What did the framers and ratifiers intend by granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the states? Was it their intention to allow Congress to enter the various states to control and prohibit the growth use and consumption of agricultural products arbitrarily selected by Congress, and prosecute the people of the 13 original states for violations of such law? Or, perhaps the intended power was meant to be nothing more than a power to be used by Congress to insure the free movement of goods between the states, and prohibit an existing practice under the Articles of Confederation by which articles exported by one state were taxed by other states as they passed through their borders.

To partially answer this question, one must first determine the meaning of the term “commerce” as used by the founding fathers when framing and ratifying our federal constitution.

The word commerce, as used in the constitution, and as documented in the historical records during the framing and ratification process is found to mean trade. The word commerce, as the founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process, did not mean the manufacturing process of goods, the cultivation of agricultural products or their use, the production process by which articles of consumption were created, or, similar economic enterprise carried on within the various state borders.

In fact, the term “commerce“, as used by the founding fathers, is found to be synonymous with “trade”, and meant nothing more than the exchange of goods between the states. The term “commerce” is found to be interchangeable with “trade” in almost every context in which the founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution!

A review of the historical record produces an irrefutable truth which the Court ignores today___ that the word “commerce” was in fact intentionally meant by our founding fathers, and used by them in their speeches and debates, to refer to trade___ the transportation and exchange of goods between point A and point B, and/or, between the people of point A and point B.

So, in fact, Congress was granted nothing more than a power to regulate the movement and transportation of goods “among” [not within] the states, as per the wording of the Constitution, and, the intentions and beliefs under which such power was being granted was to insure the free movement of goods between the states, and prohibit an existing practice under the Articles of Confederation by which articles exported by one state were taxed by other states as they passed through their borders.

As I previously pointed out,

The incontrovertible truth is, the words of our founding fathers, as found in Madison’s Notes,the Federalists and Anti Federalist Papers, and Elliot’s Debates, [including the Congressional Globe], and which express a consensus of the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was adopted, is the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system, and acts to expose the evil nature of our domestic enemies, right wing militants and left wing militants, who claim the Constitution may mean whatever they wish it to mean.


JWK

[stevesnj]

Huh?

[johnwk]

Dcmacdaddy wrote:

And johnwk already knows my answer to his arguments about discriminating against homosexuals. We must have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the rights of homosexuals from discrimination.

What "rights" are those?

Tell me, would your amendment interfere with the unalienable rights of people to mutually agree in their contracts and association? Or, would your amendment, like the 14th Amendment, forbid the various states to enact laws or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of homosexuals, nor allow any state to deprive any homosexual of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any homosexual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me, don’t you really want to deprive others their unalienable rights---their right to mutually agree in their contracts and association when it comes to homosexuals? If you really believe in the protection of unalienable rights, then you must afford that protection to those who you disagree with!


JWK

[johnwk]

Dcmacdaddy wrote:

And johnwk already knows my answer to his arguments about discriminating against homosexuals. We must have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the rights of homosexuals from discrimination.

What "rights" are those?

Tell me, would your amendment interfere with the unalienable rights of people to mutually agree in their contracts and association? Or, would your amendment, like the 14th Amendment, forbid the various states to enact laws or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of homosexuals, nor allow any state to deprive any homosexual of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any homosexual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me, don’t you really want to deprive others their unalienable rights---their right to mutually agree in their contracts and association when it comes to homosexuals? If you really believe in the protection of unalienable rights, then you must afford that protection to those who you disagree with!


JWK

[Spliffdaddy]

medical marijuana gone awry.

[subego]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Drug laws...

On marriage laws...

Interesting.

Thanks.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If it's not in the Constitution, then it's not guaranteed.

Maybe you can seek an amendment?

When the Constitution was being debated, the Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights because they believed that enumerating rights would give future generations, including spliffdaddy, the belief that only enumerated rights existed, and the temptation to restrict any rights not listed there. They believed the Constitution should detail the powers of government, and any power to restrict liberty not given to the government would in effect be a guarantee of liberty. Maybe they were right - it has happened exactly as they predicted. Strict constructionist judges spend their time searching the Bill of Rights for individual liberties, and if they don't find them listed there, they tell us we don't have those rights. That's not the way it was supposed to be.

[Spliffdaddy]

yeah, you're right.

we're supposed to have every right that's not specifically excluded.

strangely, I and the majority of Americans seem to think just the opposite.

wonder why that is? I'll try to do better.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by BRussell

When the Constitution was being debated, the Federalists opposed the Bill of Rights because they believed that enumerating rights would give future generations, including spliffdaddy, the belief that only enumerated rights existed,

Uh, no that's not quite how I understood it and I looked at the original documents and debates not that long ago. The Federalists thought that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the structure of the constitution implied that the federal government could only do that which it was expressly empowered to do - which is the opposite from how state governments work. They argued that difference was why bills of rights are needed at the state level, but not at the federal.

Anti-federalists argument basically boiled down to "better to be safe than sorry." After the ratification process started running into trouble (because at least one state rejected the proposed constitution), Madison and the so-called Madisonians compromised, on the grounds that giving the anti-federalists what they demanded didn't change anything. Madison then drafted what became the Bill of Rights.

Subsequent history has shown that the anti-federalists were right. In theory, the structure of the constitution was enough. In practice it has turned out that an express Bill of Rights is a good idea.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Uh, no that's not quite how I understood it and I looked at the original documents and debates not that long ago. The Federalists thought that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the structure of the constitution implied that the federal government could only do that which it was expressly empowered to do - which is the opposite from how state governments work. They argued that difference was why bills of rights are needed at the state level, but not at the federal.

Anti-federalists argument basically boiled down to "better to be safe than sorry." After the ratification process started running into trouble (because at least one state rejected the proposed constitution), Madison and the so-called Madisonians compromised, on the grounds that giving the anti-federalists what they demanded didn't change anything. Madison then drafted what became the Bill of Rights.

Subsequent history has shown that the anti-federalists were right. In theory, the structure of the constitution was enough. In practice it has turned out that an express Bill of Rights is a good idea.

To put this matter into perspective, at least with respect to the general welfare clause, it is essential to first understand a fundamental principle of constitutional law: "Perhaps the most basic of all the rules of constitutional construction (since it is the rule which all other rules may be said to be designed to implement) is the principle that a constitution is to be given the effect and meaning contemplated by its framers and by the people who adopted it..." [ see Vol 16 American Jurisprudence (constitutional law) Sec. 91].

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, also known as the "general welfare" clause, states: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States."

So, in conformity with the most basic rule of constitutional construction, what did the framers and ratifiers intend by the words “general welfare”?

Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:

"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."

Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution:
"the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95] [also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."]

Even Hamilton, who changed his tune after the constitution was ratified, says in Federalist 83, in reference to the general welfare clause, that "...the power of Congress...shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended..."

Hamilton’s words in Federalist No. 83 are also in harmony with that of Jefferson:

"Our tenet ever was, and, indeed, it is almost the only landmark that divides the Federalists from the Republicans, that Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically enumerated; and that, as it was never meant they should provided for that welfare but by the exercise of the enumerated powers, so it could not have been meant they should raise money for purposes which the enumeration did not place under their action; consequently that the specification of power is a limitation of the purposes for which they may raise money." (letter from Jefferson to Gallatin, June 16th, 1817)

Likewise, George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention
"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.".[3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified, to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording “promote the general welfare“.

As Justice Story correctly declares [see1084 of his com.] "If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

The idea that Congress may Constitutional tax and spend for whatever purpose it chooses simply does not correspond to the mountain of evidence concerning the legislative intent of Article 1, Section, 8, cl. 1. I have searched the Federalists and Anti-Federalists papers, Madison’s’ Notes, Elliots Debates, and a number of other historical sources, and the preponderance of evidence shows the general welfare phrase is not, and was not, intended to be an open ended grant of power which allows Congress to summarily decide what is necessary for the general welfare, and then tax and spend for such purposes, the simple truth is, Congress is limited by the seventeen specifications beneath the phrase just as our Founding Fathers intended it to be, and the 10th Amendment’s intent confirms this!


JWK

[SimeyTheLimey]

johnwk: You would communicate better if you changed the ratio of quotes to your comments. Simply vomiting out passages of texts that most of us participating are quite familiar with isn't all that interesting. By all mean give your arguments and support them. But nobody is going to read a long post if all it is is cut and paste.

[Spliffdaddy]

well damn. I was reading 'em. Sometimes two or three times...because my brain is kinda slow.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The days of nationwide legal abortion are numbered. I think that's been obvious.

It'll be up to individual states to decide on its legality. Which means you won't be getting an abortion in the South.

No, it's not obvious, it's just your wish. The numbers against abortion aren't as big as you think.

[Spliffdaddy]

You haven't lived in the bible belt.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

Uh, no that's not quite how I understood it and I looked at the original documents and debates not that long ago. The Federalists thought that a bill of rights was unnecessary because the structure of the constitution implied that the federal government could only do that which it was expressly empowered to do - which is the opposite from how state governments work.

That's what I said.

[BRussell]

Here's a list of state polls on abortion. About 10 states have a majority who call themselves pro-life, though it's left pretty vague as to what that means exactly. Surprisingly, even Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas have solid pro-choice majorities.

[Spliffdaddy]

Ah, but to what extent do those folks think abortion should be legal?

And how many would raise a fuss if it weren't legal?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Dcmacdaddy wrote:

And johnwk already knows my answer to his arguments about discriminating against homosexuals. We must have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the rights of homosexuals from discrimination.

What "rights" are those?

Tell me, would your amendment interfere with the unalienable rights of people to mutually agree in their contracts and association? Or, would your amendment, like the 14th Amendment, forbid the various states to enact laws or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of homosexuals, nor allow any state to deprive any homosexual of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any homosexual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me, don’t you really want to deprive others their unalienable rights---their right to mutually agree in their contracts and association when it comes to homosexuals? If you really believe in the protection of unalienable rights, then you must afford that protection to those who you disagree with!


JWK

We've gone over this many time already. Does your right to free assocation trump the rights of homoseuxals to not be discriminated against? Certainly within the confines of the Constitution as it stands now your argument would be valid. That is why I want to amend the Constitution for homosexuals just like we did for blacks with the 14th Amendment.

So yes, I want to abridge your right to free association if it would run counter to a black person's Constitutional rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment or if it would run counter to a homosexual person's rights (not yet) guaranteed by the (not yet enacted) 28th Amendment.

I do not want the right to free association to be a more important right than the right to be free from discrimination based on a person's skin color, sexual orientation, or religious belief.

So tell me, johnwk, how would you feel if I refused to rent property to you because of your religion? Would that be OK? After all, the right to free worship is enshrined in the same Amendment as the right to free assembly? So again, which rights of the Constitutional Amendments carries the most weight? or should carry the most weight?

I don't want citizens of this country to have a legal basis for discriminating against others. You can choose to individually not associate with blacks or homosexuals or Catholics and not hurt anyone. But the minute your choices of assocation or non-association impinge on other people because of their race, their sexual orientation, or their religion I want your choices to be limited so you are prevented from dis-favoring someone because of their race, their sexual orientation, or their religion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Stupid DB.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Dcmacdaddy wrote:

And johnwk already knows my answer to his arguments about discriminating against homosexuals. We must have a Constitutional Amendment protecting the rights of homosexuals from discrimination.

What "rights" are those?

Tell me, would your amendment interfere with the unalienable rights of people to mutually agree in their contracts and association? Or, would your amendment, like the 14th Amendment, forbid the various states to enact laws or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of homosexuals, nor allow any state to deprive any homosexual of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any homosexual within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Tell me, don’t you really want to deprive others their unalienable rights---their right to mutually agree in their contracts and association when it comes to homosexuals? If you really believe in the protection of unalienable rights, then you must afford that protection to those who you disagree with!


JWK

Just to be completely clear, I would like a Constitutional Amendment that would provide explicit protection for individuals to be free from discrimination based on their religion, their race, their gender, and their sexual orientation. I want the Constitution to explicitly state that "All persons are created equal" and cannot be treated differently. I am not sure how that would be worded. But like the 14 Amendment, I want it to be specific such that there never would be a doubt that legally treating someone differently based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation would not be allowed.

Then these questions of yours would become mute because the Constitution would explicitly say that treating individuals differently in a legal context--based on immutable factors like religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation--would not be possible.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Just to be completely clear, I would like a Constitutional Amendment that would provide explicit protection for individuals to be free from discrimination based on their religion, their race, their gender, and their sexual orientation. I want the Constitution to explicitly state that "All persons are created equal" and cannot be treated differently. I am not sure how that would be worded. But like the 14 Amendment, I want it to be specific such that there never would be a doubt that legally treating someone differently based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation would not be allowed.

Then these questions of yours would become mute because the Constitution would explicitly say that treating individuals differently in a legal context--based on immutable factors like religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation--would not be possible.

I think TJ did a nice job of wording it here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I think TJ did a nice job of wording it here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Unfortunately, too many read that as:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and Happiness.

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Unfortunately, too many read that as:

Er, you lost me there. So what's so bad about a little life, liberty and happiness?

doh, never mind, I saw your edit.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Just to be completely clear, I would like a Constitutional Amendment that would provide explicit protection for individuals to be free from discrimination based on their religion, their race, their gender, and their sexual orientation. I want the Constitution to explicitly state that "All persons are created equal" and cannot be treated differently. I am not sure how that would be worded. But like the 14 Amendment, I want it to be specific such that there never would be a doubt that legally treating someone differently based on religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation would not be allowed.

Then these questions of yours would become mute because the Constitution would explicitly say that treating individuals differently in a legal context--based on immutable factors like religion, race, gender, or sexual orientation--would not be possible.

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

I think TJ did a nice job of wording it here:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

johnwk and I had this exact discussion in another thread. When I raised the point you made about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" he argues that the explicit rights granted within the Constitution--of particular concern to him is the "right to free assembly"--outweighs any general guidelines set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution.

In a sense he is a strict constructionist. He has been arguing that any rights not explicitly indicated in the Constitution are not legally protected rights. Seeing how he used the 14th Amendment as an example where the Constitution explicitly granted rights to a group--I think to his dis-favor--I posited the idea of a new, general Amendment that explicitly prevents laws from being enacted that would permit discrimination against any group.

If he, and people like him, want a strict interpretation of the Constitution, I am willing to give them that. So, I am/would be working towards a new Constitutional Amendment that explicitly prevents him from doing what he wants to do--discriminating against homosexuals--among other groups as well in personal business contracts, particularly the rental of property to homosexuals.

(His other post where this came up was denouncing an ordinance in a Florida community that would make discrimination against homosexuals illegal. But he wants to be able to refuse to rent property to someone simply because they are homosexual and he views this Florida ordinance as impinging on his "right to free assembly".)

[dcmacdaddy]

Burp.

[Dakar]

I love you dcmacdaddy. You're intelligent and never dirty. MacNN could learn something from your posts.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

I love you dcmacdaddy. You're intelligent and never dirty. MacNN could learn something from your posts.

Thanks! <insert blushing smilie here.>

johnwk makes some good, albeit lengthy, points. So, I try extra
hard to be as clear and precise as possible in my replies to him.
And I am more than willing to argue with him within the logical
framework he puts forth. So, that poses a bit of a challenge to
me as I find his ideas, at least about Constitutional intepretation,
so anti-thetical to my ideas on the subject.

But, my issue is always logical coherence and well-thought out
arguments. I will respect just about any opinion posited on here
as long as it is advanced in a coherent and logical fashion. Heck,
I've argued against people I strongly agree with just because they
formulate imprecise, incoherent, and un-debateable arguments.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

johnwk: You would communicate better if you changed the ratio of quotes to your comments. Simply vomiting out passages of texts that most of us participating are quite familiar with isn't all that interesting. By all mean give your arguments and support them. But nobody is going to read a long post if all it is is cut and paste.

Amazing that the intentions and beliefs of our founding fathers, under which our Constitution was adopted, and expressed in their own words, is referred to as vomit.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

We've gone over this many time already. Does your right to free assocation trump the rights of homoseuxals to not be discriminated against? Certainly within the confines of the Constitution as it stands now your argument would be valid. That is why I want to amend the Constitution for homosexuals just like we did for blacks with the 14th Amendment.

So yes, I want to abridge your right to free association if it would run counter to a black person's Constitutional rights guaranteed by the 14th Amendment or if it would run counter to a homosexual person's rights (not yet) guaranteed by the (not yet enacted) 28th Amendment.

Well then, we must agree as the 14th Amendment was a prohibition on states enacting “black code laws” , state legislation. . .the amendment was never intended to interfere with the inalienable rights of the people of the various states.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I do not want the right to free association to be a more important right than the right to be free from discrimination based on a person's skin color, sexual orientation, or religious belief.

Well then, don’t exercise that unalienable right, but don’t interfere with another’s right to do so. That would be imposing your personal beliefs upon another, exactly what you don’t want others to do to you!

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So tell me, johnwk, how would you feel if I refused to rent property to you because of your religion? Would that be OK? After all, the right to free worship is enshrined in the same Amendment as the right to free assembly? So again, which rights of the Constitutional Amendments carries the most weight? or should carry the most weight?

The right you refer to “enshrined in the same Amendment” is a prohibition upon government action to interfere with that right. As to your question to me, it supposes I have a religion, but to answer, I would simply go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I don't want citizens of this country to have a legal basis for discriminating against others. You can choose to individually not associate with blacks or homosexuals or Catholics and not hurt anyone. But the minute your choices of assocation or non-association impinge on other people because of their race, their sexual orientation, or their religion I want your choices to be limited so you are prevented from dis-favoring someone because of their race, their sexual orientation, or their religion.

“Impinge“? Impinge on what? Do you really want to refuse to allow a Catholic to refuse to marry a Jew because they are a Jew? Do you really want to refuse to allow a homosexual to refuse to rent an apartment with another individual, or engage in some enterprise with another individual, because they are not a homosexual? Why don’t you just learn to mind your own business and allow people to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which is a fundamental right of mankind, and simply forbid the state to make such disctinctions?


JWK

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I do not want the right to free association to be a more important right than the right to be free from discrimination based on a person's skin color, sexual orientation, or religious belief.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Well then, don’t exercise that unalienable right, but don’t interfere with another’s right to do so. That would be imposing your personal beliefs upon another, exactly what you don’t want others to do to you!

By saying "don't interfere with another's right to do so" in my post about wanting the right to be free from discrimination to trump the right to free association, are you saying you want the right to free association to trump the right to be free from discrimination (i.e.: you want a legal right to not treat equally in the eyes of the law your fellow citizens)? I just want to be clear on this point before we continue this debate. Because I am unclear as to whether or not you believe all US citizens are seen as, or should be seen as, fundamentally equal in the eyes of the law.

So, one more time I will ask you:
Do you think all US citizens are fundamentally equal in the eyes of the law? YES or NO
Do you think all US citizens should be fundamentally equal in the eyes of the law? YES or NO
Do you think a homosexual black woman should be fundamentally equal in the
eyes of the law to a heterosexual white male? YES or NO



Since your examples have been about renting property to another person,
I have some example questions for you below.


Do you want it to be legally permissible to not rent a property to someone because
they are of a specific race you do not wish to associate with?
(This is an example of not treating one race equally with all races.)

Do you want it to be legally permissible to not rent a property to someone because
they are of a specific gender you do not wish to associate with?
(This is an example of not treating one gender equally with all genders.)

Do you want it to be legally permissible to not rent a property to someone because
they are of a specific sexual orientation you do not wish to associate with?
(This is an example of not treating one sexual orientation equally with all sexual orientations.)

Do you want it to be legally permissible to not rent a property to someone because
they are of a specific religion you do not wish to associate with?
(This is an example of not treating one religion equally with all religions.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Amazing that the intentions and beliefs of our founding fathers, under which our Constitution was adopted, and expressed in their own words, is referred to as vomit.

Amazing how you misunderstand what I said. I didn't criticize them, I criticized the way you write -- or rather, the way you string together what other people wrote by cutting and pasting out of context snippets. If I want to read the words of the Founders (which I have, incidentally, as have most here), I'll do so again.

In any case, the only binding words are the words that emerged from committee in the final documents. Secondary sources such as the federalist and anti-federalist papers shed some light, but probably don't deserve the reverence originanlists like you like to accord them. If a contemporary member of a committee in Congress wrote an op-ed about a bill he was working on, nobody would suppose that his explanation and argument would trump the words that emerge from Congress as an act. The same goes for the Federalist Papers, holy as they are. They were the 18th century equivilent of a contemporary op-ed. Hanging on to every word of Hamilton, et al makes as much sense as basing the idea of a wall of separation between church and state on a line in one of Thomas Jefferson's letters. Being a Founder doesn't make someone more than a member of a committee working on a group compromise project.

Next up, of course, is the fact that you base your arguments about the meaning of the equal protection clause far too much on the original unamended Constitution. If any legislative history is relevant, it is that of the mid 19th century, not late 18th. In that legislative history is a discussion about the fact that the language of the equal protection clause is very broad and obviously reaches more groups than blacks. How do you account for that? More to the point, how do you account for the fact that the language of the 14th Amendment is much broader than the 13th Amendment that was passed at the same time? It's not that Congress didn't know how to pass a narrow amendment because they did it with the 13th. Explain please why we should contrue the 14th Amendment as if it is worded like the 13th?

How also do you account for the fact that the 14th Amendment is broad enough to sweep in state judicial action. When you go to court to enforce a private contract (that thing you consider so sacrosanct) you invoke state power to enforce your private act. Contract law is state law, and courts are state organs. You can't separate state action from the private in that situation. The 14th Amendment was intended to apply against the states. Thus the equal protection clause applies. And since the 14th Amendment talks only of "person[s]" it applies to everyone. If the Courts tried to narrow that to only one group, they would be legislating, inserting words into an Amendment that weren't there when it was enacted. Isn't that judicial activism? Why is it that you like that kind of judicial activism, and not others?

And finally, there is the fact that the laws that you complain about with respect to discrimination against gays aren't federal laws. They are state laws, and states have plenary police powers. As an originalist, you should know and respect that. If a state wants to regulate private contracts, it can so long as it doesn't contradict its own constitution or the federal. It's only the federal government that is limited by the extent of its enumurated powers. State governments are not.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

“Impinge“? Impinge on what? Do you really want to refuse to allow a Catholic to refuse to marry a Jew because they are a Jew? Do you really want to refuse to allow a homosexual to refuse to rent an apartment with another individual, or engage in some enterprise with another individual, because they are not a homosexual? Why don’t you just learn to mind your own business and allow people to mutually agree in their contracts and associations, which is a fundamental right of mankind, and simply forbid the state to make such disctinctions?


JWK

You've made it pretty clear you believe the right to free association trumps almost all other rights outlined in the Constitution. But you talk about the right to free association being "a fundamental right of mankind". But in some instances the right to free association would come into conflict with the equally fundamental right of equality that applies to all humankind as well. So, how you would prioritize our rights as outlined within the Constitution? Do you want the Constitution to explicitly state that the right to free association is more important than right to equality among all citizens?

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

yeah, you're right.

we're supposed to have every right that's not specifically excluded.

strangely, I and the majority of Americans seem to think just the opposite.

wonder why that is? I'll try to do better.

Quit speaking like you know the minds of 'the majority of Americans'.

You've fallen for or accepted the notion of the Constitution being a 'living document'.
IT'S NOT. DONE FOR A REASON.

[Spliffdaddy]

The majority of Americans indeed do think like me.

The Constitution *is* viewed as a living document - in that its interpretation evolves to meet the desires of Americans...and/or political ideologies.

You can say it ain't so, but it wouldn't do any good.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The days of nationwide legal abortion are numbered. I think that's been obvious.

It'll be up to individual states to decide on its legality. Which means you won't be getting an abortion in the South.

The States have to abide by the U. S. Constitution. Such Constitution makes no mention of extending individual rights to the unborn. None!

The Supreme Court has every right to strike down laws which conflict with the Constitution. that is why the Constitution called for the establishment of a court in the first place.

Every anti-abortion law ever passed conflicts with the Constitution.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Y3a

Quit speaking like you know the minds of 'the majority of Americans'.

You've fallen for or accepted the notion of the Constitution being a 'living document'.
IT'S NOT. DONE FOR A REASON.

Well, what if the Constitution were a "living document?" Means it was intended to defend the living, right?

UNBORN ARE NOT LIVING!!!!

Those who think such go beyond reason, into faith. The Constitution does not place faith over reason.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The majority of Americans indeed do think like me.

The Constitution *is* viewed as a living document - in that its interpretation evolves to meet the desires of Americans...and/or political ideologies.

You can say it ain't so, but it wouldn't do any good.

Republicans pride themselves in choosing strict constructionists to prevent `overinterpretation.' What you are proposing is what some would call`judicial activism', but just in the political direction you prefer

As O'Reilly put it: if you favor judicial activism the other way, you are no better and you can never ever complain again about `the radical left' (his words) doing it. (He said so in an interview with a conservative opponent to Miers before she withdrew).

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by saab95

Well, what if the Constitution were a "living document?" Means it was intended to defend the living, right?

UNBORN ARE NOT LIVING!!!!

Those who think such go beyond reason, into faith. The Constitution does not place faith over reason.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A fetus is a life, is it not?

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Republicans pride themselves in choosing strict constructionists to prevent `overinterpretation.' What you are proposing is what some would call`judicial activism', but just in the political direction you prefer

As O'Reilly put it: if you favor judicial activism the other way, you are no better and you can never ever complain again about `the radical left' (his words) doing it. (He said so in an interview with a conservative opponent to Miers before she withdrew).

I didn't say I agree that the Constitution *should* be a living document. I merely said it *was*.

Therefore, I'm not proposing anything whatsoever.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A fetus is a life, is it not?

Sure, but an embryo isn't.