[Spliffdaddy]

That's nice.

I'll keep that in mind should someone here mention an embryo.

Now run along and play.

[subego]

I thought I did.

Well, consider it mentioned.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A fetus is a life, is it not?

Maybe, but some people like to kill fetuses. Who are you to say they shouldn't pursue their happiness?

[Monique]

Last night I watched the last abortion clinic on PBS (which is the last clinic in Mississipi that provides abortions in Mississipi).

So, of course there were those ignorant heartless people in front of the clinic, and lies like we will provide for the women that choose to have the babies but it stops at the birth and they have no support afterward, physical or psychological. They (the so-call pro life) talked about adoption but no support for the women who give up their children.

I would like to see in front of those clinics, on the gates, a series of posters of women who had clandestine abortions and bled to death on the kitchen floor, or in hotel rooms, women using knitting needles to give themselves an abortion, women poisoning themselves so they would not have to go through the trauma of having children against their wills, posters that say don't take the life of my sister, my friend, my daughter... Posters that tell the truth and call the prolife people murderers because they force women to have clandestine abortions which will kill them. Posters that say because this woman was so desperate she had a clandestine abortion now she is sterile. Posters that tell the truth about a woman force to give up her child and committed suicide because she had no support and had a nervous breakdown. Posters that tell the truth that the monsters are the prolife group.

Legal abortions are safe on all point of you and the so-called life that you abort is the size of the head of a needle and would not survive outside the mother; so it cannot be life as we understand it and it is part of a woman not of a selfish prolife man, or a woman that do not give a damn about her sisters.

The prolife group is selfish, dangerous (they love to bomb clinics, killing hundred, they love to kill doctors and love to mame women, make sure they have a horrible life after they are strapped down a table forced to spread their legs and their child taken away to people that sometime will beat them, or make sure the children will like in orpanages with no love, or make sure the children will live in total poverty because the mother has no education and no hope of a better life, because she is strapped to this child that she will learn to hate; they have no compassion for the woman whose child that first she did not want and now learn to like (because unlike the prolife people she is not a monster) and because she was forced to give it for adoption she will have a nervous breakdown and kill herself). But, for you prolifer women are just incubator there to have unwanted children and should shut up and spread their legs.

[Mark N]

Please don't stereotype the Pro-Life groups as you do. I know that were the same being said in other topics (Muslims just like to kill all Christians, or something of that nature). There would be plenty of replies about not stereotyping. Most Pro-Life organizations don't bomb clinics. There are plenty of organizations that do help women during and after their pregnancy. You also speak of forcing the women to go through child birth against their will. It maybe against their will, but it is a consequence of actions that they had taken (with exception given to crimes against them). There has to come a time to take responsibility for your actions. Too many times we'd rather not do that. The argument could go back and forth depending on which view you take. I've probably spent too much time in response to your post. I doubt that your mind could be changed. Most views posted here probably don't change too many views. It's an opportunity to learn how people think.

[Monique]

But those are your views and forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy because it suits your needs is unfair. By having an abortion she is taking her responsibilities because it is obvious that to continue this pregnancy it would destroy her, not that the prolifers care.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

A fetus is a life, is it not?

No it is not.

A fetus is like an organ, totally dependent upon its host, and is there by permission of the host- the woman.

[Spliffdaddy]

a fetus is an organ.

OK, name another organ that develops into a child.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

In any case, the only binding words are the words that emerged from committee in the final documents.

What trumps your assertion is the beliefs and intentions as contemplated by those who framed and ratified the Constitution.

As Jefferson informs us:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

In addition, you may find the following quotes informative:

“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)


"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.



"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.” Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.


And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution "...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution."

Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Now, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative intent of our Constitution. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)] Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

The rest of your post is noting more than your unsubstantiated opinions.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may be set free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by saab95

A fetus is like an organ, totally dependent upon its host.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

a fetus is an organ.

Not quite.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by saab95

No it is not.

A fetus is like an organ, totally dependent upon its host, and is there by permission of the host- the woman.

Interesting that you used the word "host" because if you are using that analogy then it would be more like a parasite since a fetus does not give anything back to the "host". Really lends some insight into your view of an unborn baby.

Anyway…

After a baby is born, if no one takes care of it, it will die, so it is 100% dependent on another person to take care of it. A baby is not truly independent of it's mother or another person for quite some time. After all, is something that cannot feed itself AT ALL really ALIVE? It must be OK to kill it then too right? Perhaps we could pass a law that says baby murder is legal up to a certain age.

Maybe I'm being too ridiculous but comparing a fetus to an organ in anyway is just way off base. A fetus is a developing organism.

P.S. It is NOT there by permission of the woman since she can't prevent the pregnancy or choose to end the pregnancy in any way shape or form by natural means, beyond abstinence, which is in and of itself unnatural. If her "permission" was involved at all, abortion wouldn't be necessary because she would have not been pregnant in the first place.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by johnwk

What trumps your assertion is the beliefs and intentions as contemplated by those who framed and ratified the Constitution.

As Jefferson informs us:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

In addition, you may find the following quotes informative:

“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)


"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .


"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.



"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.” Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.


And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution "...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution."

Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Now, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative intent of our Constitution. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)] Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

The rest of your post is noting more than your unsubstantiated opinions.

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may be set free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

You selectively quote secondary sources (including private letters, for heaven's sake!) for the proposition that secondary and tertiary sources derived from individual members of a collective body should trump the plain text as adopted by that body!! This is circular. You are making the assumption that secondary and tertiary sources are authoritative, and then you turn to those very sources to back up your argument.

What I am pointing out is that at most you turn to secondary sources to inform your understanding of the plain text. Secondary and tertiary sources can never be used to rewrite the plain text because the primary sources we are talking about are collective decisions. Individual members of a legislative committee are not the spokespersons for the collective. They only speak for themselves and what they say is often inconsistent with the decision the collective body reached.

All that, of course, goes double for Thomas Jefferson because, as anyone with any knowledge of this issue knows, he wasn't even in the United States when the Constitution was debated and adopted. He was in France. Before you start dismissing "unsubstantiated opinion[s]" I suggest you do your homework.

Next, your court opinions. First, I note the irony of you of all people quoting the courts in order to argue that court construction of the Constition is illegitimate. You are trying to have it both ways on that one. With respect to Lopez, it's an opinion that I agree with and think came out the right way. But no member of the Lopez majority would subscribe to your method of originalism. All begin and if it is clear, would end their analysis with the plain text. Secondary sources like the Federalist Papers are only there to inform the Constitution, not contradict it. Your smattering of state supreme court opinions I am not so familiar with. I don't see anything there to disagree with, however. What I disagree with is your version of originalism. You don't seem to care about the text of the Constitution at all. All you seem to care about is finding out of context quotes and dicta to back up your opinions while ignoring any evidence (such as the actual text of the binding document) that doesn't support your opinions. That's an appeal to authority, not a reasoned legal argument.

And I note, also, that you have ignored all my questions for you. Are you up to answering them? If you can, please answer in complete sentences written by yourself.

[Monique]

Ok the next 10 babies that are born after Roe vs Wade is struck down I will bring them to you prolifer and you will pay for all the expenses and put them through college. If you force women to have children who will be there to help them recover from the trauma you will put her through. Let me guess after you force the baby out of her body, after you force her to give it up; well she can go to hell right how nice.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

Ok the next 10 babies that are born after Roe vs Wade is struck down I will bring them to you prolifer and you will pay for all the expenses and put them through college. If you force women to have children who will be there to help them recover from the trauma you will put her through. Let me guess after you force the baby out of her body, after you force her to give it up; well she can go to hell right how nice.

So who is the one who forced her to take the penis(s) in the first place? That must be a right-wing pro-lifer's fault too.

[Monique]

I am sorry she is a human being and isn't about time that the guys use condoms. Right it is always the woman's fault no yours for being lazy about contraception.

[Spliffdaddy]

Since men have no rights in childbirth - they should bear no responsibility in contraception.

Makes sense to me.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Monique

Ok the next 10 babies that are born after Roe vs Wade is struck down I will bring them to you prolifer and you will pay for all the expenses and put them through college. If you force women to have children who will be there to help them recover from the trauma you will put her through. Let me guess after you force the baby out of her body, after you force her to give it up; well she can go to hell right how nice.

You misconstrue the subject matter of the thread. It is not about pro life or pro abortion---it is about abiding by our constitutional system and especially its important feature of federalism…

"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

JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Those who reject abiding by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

So, it sounds like you want a very strict interpetation of the Constitution such that any right not explicitly allowed by the Constitution is not a right that we have. Is that a correct analysis of your stance on my part? If so, what need do you see for the Supreme Court. If the only absolute rights we have are those explicitly outlined in the Constitution then all other rights are reserved to the states which means there is nothing for the Supreme Court to do.

So, does this mean certain of our rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and everything else is up to the state to acknowledge or not acknowledge as individual state legislatures see fit? Which means a state can outlaw abortion . . . but it can also outlaw marriage or outlaw homosexuality or outlaw the possession of power boats--There is NO Constitutional right to own a power boat.

[BRussell]

jwk, the relationship between the states and the federal government has changed since the federalist papers were written. As we all know, certain states didn't respect the rights of individuals, and so the people laid the smack down on them with the 14th amendment. From that point on, the states no longer had the power to run things in the same way as they had previously. If they had all been good boys and girls, maybe it would be different today, but that's not what happened.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Since men have no rights in childbirth - they should bear no responsibility in contraception.

Makes sense to me.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Monique

I am sorry she is a human being and isn't about time that the guys use condoms. Right it is always the woman's fault no yours for being lazy about contraception.

So a woman who is using no contraception of her own willingly has sex with a loser that refuses to wear any protection himself and it is all his fault? She bears NO responsibility for consenting to sex with a man like that, in a situation like that? Are you sure you are not posting from here?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Since men have no rights in childbirth - they should bear no responsibility in contraception.

Makes sense to me.

I'll give you a too. And I would add that if a woman is able to destroy her unborn baby without so much telling the father even if they are married, a father should be able to "opt out" of the responsibility of fathering a child. No visitation, no child support, nothing. It's only fair.

It's time we support "men's right to choose".

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I'll give you a too...

Do you mind if I ask if you're being rhetorical?

Only because without knowing I have to argue twice as much.

And who wants that?

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

So, it sounds like you want a very strict interpetation of the Constitution such that any right not explicitly allowed by the Constitution is not a right that we have. Is that a correct analysis of your stance on my part?

What I want is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law to be followed! Abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to. Do you have a problem with this? If so, why?


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by BRussell

jwk, the relationship between the states and the federal government has changed since the federalist papers were written. As we all know, certain states didn't respect the rights of individuals, and so the people laid the smack down on them with the 14th amendment. From that point on, the states no longer had the power to run things in the same way as they had previously. If they had all been good boys and girls, maybe it would be different today, but that's not what happened.

Thank you for posting your opinion. But tell me, exactly what is the intent of the 14th Amendment as contemplated by those who framed and ratified the Amendment?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

What I want is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law to be followed! Abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to. Do you have a problem with this? If so, why?


JWK

Your logic confuses me. Isn't the "most fundamental rule of Constitutional law" what is actually written in the Constitution? Is there anything more fundamental to the establishment of the rule of law in this country than the Constitution? If so, what is it? What documents are more important in determining the intentions of the Constitution than what is written in the Constitution itself?

I make no claim to being a lawyer, student of history, or Constitutional scholar but I wonder how you can think that material written prior to, and sometimes after, the writing of the Constitution is somehow as important in determining Constitutional intention than the words of the Constitution itself. Can you explain how something outside the Constitution could do a better job of reflecting the intentions of the Constitution than the actual document itself? Because this is all very confusing to me. Thanks!

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Thank you for posting your opinion. But tell me, exactly what is the intent of the 14th Amendment as contemplated by those who framed and ratified the Amendment?

The intent is what I posted previously - to no longer trust the states to ensure civil liberties, among other things.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Is there anything more fundamental to the establishment of the rule of law in this country than the Constitution? If so, what is it? What documents are more important in determining the intentions of the Constitution than what is written in the Constitution itself?

He keeps going back to the Federalist Papers. I too am confused as to what exactly he wants to see happen.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by smacintush

Interesting that you used the word "host" because if you are using that analogy then it would be more like a parasite since a fetus does not give anything back to the "host". Really lends some insight into your view of an unborn baby.

Host does not mean that the fetus is analogous to a parasite. A parasite is not there by permission. That's the difference.

Anyway…

After a baby is born, if no one takes care of it, it will die, so it is 100% dependent on another person to take care of it. A baby is not truly independent of it's mother or another person for quite some time. After all, is something that cannot feed itself AT ALL really ALIVE? It must be OK to kill it then too right? Perhaps we could pass a law that says baby murder is legal up to a certain age.

A baby is a living human. It has the same right to life as any living person. The constitution does not provide for ptoection for the dead or the unborn. check that out yourself.

P.S. It is NOT there by permission of the woman since she can't prevent the pregnancy or choose to end the pregnancy in any way shape or form by natural means, beyond abstinence, which is in and of itself unnatural. If her "permission" was involved at all, abortion wouldn't be necessary because she would have not been pregnant in the first place.

Total nonsense. Pregnancy can be prevented by birth control. However, as there is the chance that a birth control measure can fail, pregnancy is possible under undesirable circumstances. Even more undesirable is the issue of forced pregnancy by sexual assault.

Anyhow, what right does the government have to tell a woman what to do with her body?

So far every argument presented on this forum to outlaw abortion has been one borne of the government's right to control individuals and sanction the rights of individuals- one more way we give the government power to regulate us which has noting to do with protecting our rights, but further restricting them.

It won't be long before the anti-abortion advocates and the "liberal" left socialists will succeed in giving the government the equivalent powers that the Communists, Fascists, Kings, and Nazis had over their citizenry.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

What I want is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law to be followed! Abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to. Do you have a problem with this? If so, why?

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Your logic confuses me. Isn't the "most fundamental rule of Constitutional law" what is actually written in the Constitution? Is there anything more fundamental to the establishment of the rule of law in this country than the Constitution? If so, what is it? What documents are more important in determining the intentions of the Constitution than what is written in the Constitution itself?

I make no claim to being a lawyer, student of history, or Constitutional scholar but I wonder how you can think that material written prior to, and sometimes after, the writing of the Constitution is somehow as important in determining Constitutional intention than the words of the Constitution itself. Can you explain how something outside the Constitution could do a better job of reflecting the intentions of the Constitution than the actual document itself? Because this is all very confusing to me. Thanks!

If you are confused, it is only because of your willingness to be confused. I have provided a number of authoritative citations concerning the most fundamental rule of our constitutional system, which is to carry out the intentions and beliefs under which the constitution was agreed to as may be documented from the historical record.

Sorry you do not agree with the use of contemporary writings of the time to determine the intent and beliefs under which the constitution was adopted. But, this just happens to be an fundamental procedure with regard to constitutional law. I suggest you study 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

Par. 88--Proceedings of conventions and debates.

Under the principle that a judicial tribunal, in interpreting ambiguous provisions, may have recourse to contemporaneous interpretations so as to determine the intention of the framers of the constitution, the rule is well established that in the construction of a constitution, recourse may be had to proceedings in the convention which drafted the instrument. (numerous citations omitted )

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.”(numerous citations omitted )

And, especially study CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTITUTIONS


par. 92--“Intent of framers and adopters as controlling”

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers. (numerous citations omitted )

Now, tell me, does it also confuse you as to why that the SCOTUS referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)] Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

Sorry you are so confused…poor you!

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Thank you for posting your opinion. But tell me, exactly what is the intent of the 14th Amendment as contemplated by those who framed and ratified the Amendment?

Originally Posted by BRussell

The intent is what I posted previously - to no longer trust the states to ensure civil liberties, among other things.

Can you expand upon that somewhat and provide some historical documentation to support your opinion from an authoritative source such as the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress?

You see, I have studied the debates which framed both the first Civil Rights Act and the !4 Amendment which was intended to make the objectives of the Civil Rights Act Constitutional and prohibit state sponsored discrimination, “black code laws“, [discriminatory law based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery] and insure that all people, regardless of race, color, or former condition of slavery, would enjoy a constitutional guarantee to make and enforce contracts, to sue, to inherit and purchase property, etc., as was then enjoyed by white citizens. This was the narrow intent of the majority who supported and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment..at least as far as I have been able to document.

A research of the House and Senate debates which framed both the 1st Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment, contains no substantial evidence the amendment was intended to go beyond as I state above, as a matter of fact, there is an abundance of documented evidence the amendment was specifically intended to apply in a very narrow area…to prohibit state authorized discrimination, unequal law, based upon “race, color, or previous condition of slavery…” As Rep. Shallabarger, a primary supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment when it was being debated elaborated:

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.”

see Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

Now, if you disagree with what I have posted, how about posting some documentation to support your opinion and show us that the intentions and beliefs of those who framed and ratified the !4th Amendment are different than what I have asserted.

Thank you for your prompt reply.

JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.[/quote]

[dcmacdaddy]

johnwk,

You still haven't provided a logical answer as to why documents outside of the Constitution should carry as much weight in interpreting the Constitution as what is written in the Constitution itself.

Can YOU explain why YOU think that the Federalist Papers are as good or better a reflection of the intent on the Constitutional founders than the Constitution itself?

This is why I am so confused. You are making claims that documents other than the Constitution should be given equal weight when evaluating what our Constitution is supposed to mean.

You seem to be implying that what was put in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers was not the principles and concepts most important to them. You seem to be implying that what they wrote in other contemporaneous documents is more important to them but for some reason they chose to not put those concepts in the Constitution.

Can you explain this apparent discrepancy in your thinking? Can you explain how/why you think our Founding fathers did not put the principles and beliefs most important to them in the Constitution? Thanks!

[dcmacdaddy]

If you think the Federalist Papers and other materials contemporaneous to the creation of the Constitution are as important in determining the meaning and intent of the Constitution please come out and say so yourself.

I am going to say, "I don't think anything outside of the Constitution should be used in interpreting the Constitution" because this is how I feel. I think everything our Constitutional Framers wanted in the Constitution they put in the Constitution. Otherwise I would have to believe they did a half-assed job in writing the Constitution.

Now, it's your turn. You can say something similar or you can say something contradictory. But please use your own words and not someone elses. A single declarative sentence should suffice.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

johnwk,

You still haven't provided a logical answer as to why documents outside of the Constitution should carry as much weight in interpreting the Constitution as what is written in the Constitution itself.

Can YOU explain why YOU think that the Federalist Papers are as good or better a reflection of the intent on the Constitutional founders than the Constitution itself?

As I stated above:

Sorry you do not agree with the use of contemporary writings of the time to determine the intent and beliefs under which the constitution was adopted. But, this just happens to be an fundamental procedure with regard to constitutional law. I suggest you study 16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law,

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If you think the Federalist Papers and other materials contemporaneous to the creation of the Constitution are as important in determining the meaning and intent of the Constitution please come out and say so yourself.

Oh, but I have, several times!

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to as it may be documented from the historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem in addition to being confused?


JWK

[marden]

Originally Posted by 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.

If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? - Larry King, Aug. 24, 2005

I've never thought about that.

But thinking of Larry King, he says abortion is the woman's issue to decide because it is or isn't done to her body and so men should have no right to decide.

I wonder if there is any other issue which is sex specific that the other gender has decided without regard to the people who it most affected?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by marden

If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys? - Larry King, Aug. 24, 2005

I've never thought about that.

But thinking of Larry King, he says abortion is the woman's issue to decide because it is or isn't done to her body and so men should have no right to decide.

I wonder if there is any other issue which is sex specific that the other gender has decided without regard to the people who it most affected?

Maybe it's that women can't be objective about the issue because they see it too much as only being about them when it's also about the unborn child. Men have no such complications as we have no personal stake in the matter.

Not that most, or any, people are really objective about this issue. But I think it's worth considering that it might be much harder for women to appreciate the situation by virtue of the fact that they're right in the middle of it.

It's true that only a woman can really know what it's like to carry a child to term or to get an abortion. But maybe that's precisely why we shouldn't just leave the decision to them.

[Spliffdaddy]

Maybe the decision shouldn't be there to make.

The world got along pretty good for several thousand years before abortion was possible.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Maybe the decision shouldn't be there to make.

The world got along pretty good for several thousand years before abortion was possible.

When was abortion ever not possible? Beat a pregnant woman up enough and you've got an abortion. Take the right dosage of a poison and you kill the child but not the mother.

Abortions was made a crime punishable by death in France in 1555. The Maori were performing abortions well before Europeans ever discovered New Zealand. There's documentation of abortion methods dating back from 2nd century Greece. I'd be willing to bet that abortion, in one form or another, goes back about as far as humans do.

If people can perform an abortion with a coat-hanger, they can perform one with a stick. Technology only makes the procedure safer.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Maybe the decision shouldn't be there to make.

The world got along pretty good for several thousand years before abortion was possible.

Amazing. In some countries infanticide is still somewhat common, particularly in the poorer regions, where female babies are killed after birth, as they are not as valued as males. The only reason they aren't aborted is because they don't know the sex of the child before birth. Abortion has been around since man's early days.

[Spliffdaddy]

Are you saying that infaticide should be legal, too?

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Are you saying that infaticide should be legal, too?

No, I'm not, and nowhere in my statements does it even infer that. The point I was making is that infanticide is simply killing a child which would have been aborted had the parents known what sex it was. Even taking infanticide out of the discussion, abortion is nothing new; it's been practiced, often crudely, for many reasons, for many centuries.

BTW, I happen to be pro-life. I think the taking of any life, unless under extreme circumstances, such as saving the life of the mother, is an unconscionable act that we, as humans, don't have a right to do.

[Spliffdaddy]

omg, Karl. We agreed twice on the same day.

Are the planets in alignment?

[OldManMac]

I've got a headache.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Oh, but I have, several times!

Do you have a reading comprehension problem in addition to being confused?


JWK

No. But I prefer simple, declarative sentences when trying to articulate a specific point.

How about your phrase your little epithet as follows.

I believe the historical records contemporaneous with the writing
of the Constitution are just as important as the Constitution in
determining what the framers of the Constitution intended it to mean.


See, isn't that better. It's a nice, complete little remark. There is no question what you mean by this, no question what you mean by "anchor and rudder". It is short and to the point. Less IS more, my friend.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If you think the Federalist Papers and other materials contemporaneous to the creation of the Constitution are as important in determining the meaning and intent of the Constitution please come out and say so yourself.

Originally Posted by johnwk

Oh, but I have, several times!

JWK

OK. So we have established without a doubt that you think other material outside of the Constitution itself should be referred to when trying to interpret, or determine the meaning of, the Constitution.

So, how do you rank these various sets of documents as to their usefulness and power as guides to Constitutional interpretation? When you've got an issue of interpretation involving the Constitution how do you rank the importance of the documents you are going to use as referents for the interpretation? Is it something like this?
X) Constitution
X) Federalist Papers
X) Anti-Federalist papers
X) Non-published writings (like Jefferson's letters)

Would you order all the material above in the order of importance YOU think they should be referred to when trying to interpret a Constitutional issue. Feel free to add in or remove any items as you see fit to do.

Ultimately, what I am trying to ascertain is your hierarchical/procedural sense of how you think Constitutional interpretation should be done. We already know what materilas outside the Constitution matter to you, now I want to find out to what degree they matter, to find out which ones matter more and which ones less.

[Y3a]

Just explain how killing a fetus, and future american voter and citizen is morally justified.


The decision was wrong. The selfish reason is wrong. The single minded pro-abortion(Murder) mindset is wrong. it's a process just for the convienience of careless, selfish women.

If you wanna kill somebody, kill the Rapists and insest practicing animals.

[Spliffdaddy]

*high five*

[Monique]

Since you guys do not want to take responsibilities before and after well you should be quiet about the decision the woman is going to take.

And I guess none of you respect a woman unless she is weak or unable to take a decision without you.

All you want to force out as many children out of a woman as possible. So, I guess the men on this forum who are married do not use contraception and have very large family and have adopted at least 5 to 10 children.

And the conservative women are pregnant wanting it or not because you have no say in the matter since you believe that your man should take all the decisions as when you eat, what you eat, what you think, when you should take a shower, who you are going out with, etc.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Monique

Since you guys do not want to take responsibilities before and after well you should be quiet about the decision the woman is going to take.

And I guess none of you respect a woman unless she is weak or unable to take a decision without you.

All you want to force out as many children out of a woman as possible. So, I guess the men on this forum who are married do not use contraception and have very large family and have adopted at least 5 to 10 children.

And the conservative women are pregnant wanting it or not because you have no say in the matter since you believe that your man should take all the decisions as when you eat, what you eat, what you think, when you should take a shower, who you are going out with, etc.

urban ledgend sterotypes at best.

How about saying NO?
How about using protection until you want kids?

Ya know they make pills FOR WOMEN TOO!!!
It's 99.5 percent effective!

I guess its crazy to expect women to plan ahead, or take any responsibility themselves.