Donald Trump and Abortion

[KenH]

BUT even here you have to admit that the DNC, by vowing to reinstate Roe vs Wade (which removed abortion from a state issue and mandated states allow abortion) is more government overreach than you'd allow.

I have previously stated that Roe should have been overturned, but the Supreme Court did not do it on the constitutional grounds that it should have used.

 

[KenH]

If California should decide child molestation is fine and the federal government allows it then the federal government is not doing its job.

Interesting situation. Under what enumerated power in the U.S. Constitution can the federal government intervene in that situation?

 

[JonC]

Interesting situation. Under what enumerated power in the U.S. Constitution can the federal government intervene in that situation?

The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8).

 

[KenH]

The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8).

Which in the list of "To's" in Article I, Section 8, are you specifically referring to?

 

[JonC]

Which in the list of "To's" in Article I, Section 8, are you specifically referring to?

Sorry. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18


The Necessary and Proper Clause was included in the Constitution due to the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which had limited federal power to only those powers expressly delegated to the United States.

This is how things like murder, rape, and even theft can be a federal crime. This is especially important when you realize that the Preamble sets the actual purpose of the Constitution.

 

[KenH]

Sorry. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18

Huh? Can you just quote the actual wording you are referencing.

The Necessary and Proper Clause was included in the Constitution due to the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation, which had limited federal power to only those powers expressly delegated to the United States.

The federal government is still limited to only those powers expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Yes, I know it does a gazillion other things nowadays. Pretty much everything(I estimate 90%) the federal government does nowadays is unconstitutional and certainly outside of the intentions of the framers in 1787.

 

[KenH]

@JonC By the way, the way that your hypothetical situation in California, or Texas, or any other state, should be handled would be by the judicial power of that state reversing it.

 

[JonC]

Huh? Can you just quote the actual wording you are referencing.



The federal government is still limited to only those powers expressly delegated to it in the U.S. Constitution. Yes, I know it does a gazillion other things nowadays. Pretty much everything(I estimate 90%) the federal government does nowadays is unconstitutional and certainly outside of the intentions of the framers in 1787.

This is the Preamble, establishing the purpose of the US Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.


This is how murder can be a federal crime.

 

[KenH]

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers

Which of those foregoing powers are you referencing specifically?

Now, I am not saying there should be no federal government powers, just that I prefer a federal government much more in line with that of the Articles of Confederation than the Leviathan that the United States government has become.

 

[JonC]

@JonC By the way, the way that your hypothetical situation in California, or Texas, or any other state, should be handled would be by the judicial power of that state reversing it.

Why?

What if the state executed Christians? If that is the majority view then shouldn't the State government allow it?

As long as Congress doesn't make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, the State can.

And how about freedom of speech (as long as Congress doesn't make the law prohibiting speech). States can prohibit Democrats and Republicans from speaking in public.

And what about the Fourth Amendment? Sure the Federal Government can't bust in your home and seize your property. But shouldn't states be allowed to do so?


"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Are you saying that women should have to go to court to get approval for an abortion? Who represents the child?

 

[KenH]

Are you saying that women should have to go to court to get approval for an abortion?

No. A board of doctors I would think.

 

[JonC]

Which of those foregoing powers are you referencing specifically?

Now, I am not saying there should be no federal government powers, just that I prefer a federal government much more in line with that of the Articles of Confederation than the Leviathan that the United States government has become.

The reason for that clause was to overcome restrictions within the Articles of Confederation. It is fairly open, applies to departments and officers.

My argument is that murdering a person is effectively driving that person of life (14th Amendment). It's part of the bulk you see as being added, not an original part if the US Constitution.

 

[KenH]

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ah, yes, the fourteenth amendment that has been used to drive a "semi-truck" through, such as Obergefell.

 

[JonC]

No. A board of doctors I would think.

But that is not "due process". A doctor is not in position to determine the legality of killing a child. We are talking about rights (to property, life, liberty).

 

[KenH]

The reason for that clause was to overcome restrictions within the Articles of Confederation.

Well, as you can surmise, I would have been an Anti-Federalist.

 

[KenH]

But that is not "due process". A doctor is not in position to determine the legality of killing a child. We are talking about rights (to property, life, liberty).

Who would you have decide when an abortion is legal?

 

[JonC]

Ah, yes, the fourteenth amendment that has been used to drive a "semi-truck" through, such as Obergefell.

Yes. The 14th Amendment.

 

[KenH]

What if the state executed Christians?

Another answer to your hypothetical situation would be to...move to another state. We have the history of the Pilgrims, people moving out of Nazi Germany, people moving out from behind the Iron Curtain, etc.

 

[JonC]

Who would you have decide when an abortion is legal?

I wouldn't. I would have all abortion illegal with the exception of medical cases where the mothers life is in danger. The reason is not allowing for such a provision would be depriving the mother of life. I'd require a board of physicians and court filing.

 

[JonC]

Another answer to your hypothetical situation would be to...move to another state. We have the history of the Pilgrims, people moving out of Nazi Germany, people moving out from behind the Iron Curtain, etc.

You could move to another state, as long as another state existed. AND you were allowed by the state to move.