The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread
- Thread starter yummy22
- Start date
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision regarding abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Its lesser-known companion case, Doe v. Bolton, was decided at the same time.[2]
The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.
So what we have here is
Bold number 1. An Example of Federal law overturning all state law. Roe V Wade overturned all state restriction on abortion. No matter what. Because it was decided by the Supreme Court which is the highest federal court.
Bold number 2. What the whole "life begining at conception" in the SOL is trying to address. It wants to change the "viable" part to "the moment of conception"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
This part
Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each State has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Addresses number 1. The fetus is viable to at the moment of conception
Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
Addresses bold number 2. This removes the right of any federal court to ever rule on any state issue regarding something that will place the new "person" (fetus) at risk. So abortion could not occur because it risks the life of a person. Basically it would allow a state to over turn Roe v Wade. But in reality this doesn't matter because of the "life begins at conception" part
So what you have in this act is:
1. A fetus gaining status as a human being. Thus making abortion an act of murder against the person
2. An over turning of Roe v Wade.
There is no way that a state could choose to change the definition of when "life" begins because it is at the federal level.
Like I said, Federal law will always overrule state law.
I think is the best way I could explain the argument.
If you can prove to me a way in which a state could redifine the federal concept of when "life" begins (which I don't think it can) I will appreciate it.
it goes county -> state -> federal. The federal has the highest authority, the county the lowest. I may be missing a court or two but my point stands.
Hopefully now you see why I call all the "states rights" wording in the SOL bill "fluff". It sounds nice but means nothing if a "life" begins at "conception". All it really does is allow a state to overturn Roe V Wade. It doesn't allow them to make a decision of wether or not they can perform abortions.
Abortion would still occur illegally. But it would be very unsafe. Their are many countries where abortion's are performed in "back allies" illegally.
So I think I am correct when I say Ron Paul is misleading on this issue. He can say its a states right issue, but he is trying to pass a bill that acts on the federal level.
Does anyone understand what I am getting at?
Basically the SOLA
1. It changes when a fetus is viable
2. Allows a state to overturn Roe v Wade
It Does not:
1. Allow a state to redefine when life begins, because they legally cannot.
2. Legally allow abortions because an abortion ends a human life.
I don't think I can explain my position any clearer. And I hate to say it unless I am provided with a way in which the state could redefine the federal concept of when "life" begins, I will not be swayed.
This is why I say Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception
Is the only important part of the SOLA act.
After this I will probably move onto how the We The People Act would place our civil liberties in peril... but not tonight.
The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's uterus, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[1] The Court also held that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman's health, which the Court defined broadly in the companion case of Doe v. Bolton.
So what we have here is
Bold number 1. An Example of Federal law overturning all state law. Roe V Wade overturned all state restriction on abortion. No matter what. Because it was decided by the Supreme Court which is the highest federal court.
Bold number 2. What the whole "life begining at conception" in the SOL is trying to address. It wants to change the "viable" part to "the moment of conception"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
This part
Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each State has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
Addresses number 1. The fetus is viable to at the moment of conception
Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
Addresses bold number 2. This removes the right of any federal court to ever rule on any state issue regarding something that will place the new "person" (fetus) at risk. So abortion could not occur because it risks the life of a person. Basically it would allow a state to over turn Roe v Wade. But in reality this doesn't matter because of the "life begins at conception" part
So what you have in this act is:
1. A fetus gaining status as a human being. Thus making abortion an act of murder against the person
2. An over turning of Roe v Wade.
There is no way that a state could choose to change the definition of when "life" begins because it is at the federal level.
Like I said, Federal law will always overrule state law.
I think is the best way I could explain the argument.
If you can prove to me a way in which a state could redifine the federal concept of when "life" begins (which I don't think it can) I will appreciate it.
it goes county -> state -> federal. The federal has the highest authority, the county the lowest. I may be missing a court or two but my point stands.
Hopefully now you see why I call all the "states rights" wording in the SOL bill "fluff". It sounds nice but means nothing if a "life" begins at "conception". All it really does is allow a state to overturn Roe V Wade. It doesn't allow them to make a decision of wether or not they can perform abortions.
Abortion would still occur illegally. But it would be very unsafe. Their are many countries where abortion's are performed in "back allies" illegally.
So I think I am correct when I say Ron Paul is misleading on this issue. He can say its a states right issue, but he is trying to pass a bill that acts on the federal level.
Does anyone understand what I am getting at?
Basically the SOLA
1. It changes when a fetus is viable
2. Allows a state to overturn Roe v Wade
It Does not:
1. Allow a state to redefine when life begins, because they legally cannot.
2. Legally allow abortions because an abortion ends a human life.
I don't think I can explain my position any clearer. And I hate to say it unless I am provided with a way in which the state could redefine the federal concept of when "life" begins, I will not be swayed.
This is why I say Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception
Is the only important part of the SOLA act.
After this I will probably move onto how the We The People Act would place our civil liberties in peril... but not tonight.
Last edited:
Blacksoulman
Bluelighter
'How would a state be able to "tell" the federal government that the fetus is not a human being if the SOL would ever pass? '
Why are you still on this? The state would not bother telling the federal government what it defines as life. It would say, 'We have committed murder, and this is how we are handling it.' The federal government can not do anything about it because the state handles murder penalties and there is no federal law to challenge.
No one disagrees the first clause is defining life so stop repeating it. It has nothing to do with enforcement or penalties. The states will continue to carry out abortions legally with out defying federal laws. (because there are none and the bill does not allow any to be made).
'With the first clause, which I keep posting for you over and over and over again. '
Why are you still on this? The state would not bother telling the federal government what it defines as life. It would say, 'We have committed murder, and this is how we are handling it.' The federal government can not do anything about it because the state handles murder penalties and there is no federal law to challenge.
No one disagrees the first clause is defining life so stop repeating it. It has nothing to do with enforcement or penalties. The states will continue to carry out abortions legally with out defying federal laws. (because there are none and the bill does not allow any to be made).
'With the first clause, which I keep posting for you over and over and over again. '
foodisgood
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 285
sorry for my absense, court mandated drug classes are a bitch.
Anyway, I believe I've already been beaten to the point as far as my response. Yes, it is essentially murder. The states are just not punishing it. I can't give you a court case as an example mainly because I don't know any other federal law that specifically prevents federal intervention.
The closest example I can give you is decriminalization of marijuana in states. While possession of marijuana is still illegal by federal law, since it is the job of the states to prosecute and they choose not to, it is essentially legal at the state level. Now once the possesion passes a certain amount, it becomes a federal crime and then the feds will prosecute the case. The only difference with the SOL act is that since it is by itself a federal law, it also has the section that prevents federal courts from altering it.
As far as welfare we'll just have to disagree as well. My main problem is the mandation of being a good person. You can call me inhumane or whatever, but the fact is that I have the right to be that way. The government does not have the right to force me to be a "good person." That would be like if a federal law said we all have to donote some money to darfur every year. It's a noble cause but they cannont mandate it.
Anyway, I believe I've already been beaten to the point as far as my response. Yes, it is essentially murder. The states are just not punishing it. I can't give you a court case as an example mainly because I don't know any other federal law that specifically prevents federal intervention.
The closest example I can give you is decriminalization of marijuana in states. While possession of marijuana is still illegal by federal law, since it is the job of the states to prosecute and they choose not to, it is essentially legal at the state level. Now once the possesion passes a certain amount, it becomes a federal crime and then the feds will prosecute the case. The only difference with the SOL act is that since it is by itself a federal law, it also has the section that prevents federal courts from altering it.
As far as welfare we'll just have to disagree as well. My main problem is the mandation of being a good person. You can call me inhumane or whatever, but the fact is that I have the right to be that way. The government does not have the right to force me to be a "good person." That would be like if a federal law said we all have to donote some money to darfur every year. It's a noble cause but they cannont mandate it.
foodisgood said:
Ummm have you not noticed the federal government swooping in and arresting medical marijuana users in Cali? Its bullshit but it happens. California can't legally say "Hey Feddies, you can't do that!"
Federal Law over rules State Law. That simple.
This law will act on the 14th admendment which protects an individuals right to life.
" because I don't know any other federal law that specifically prevents federal intervention."
Thats because there is none, and neither will this. That whole state part exists to allow states to overturn Roe v Wade. You know, in case a president gains the right of a line item veto. Like Bill Clinton briefly did in 1996 (who is a pro-choice advocate). And decides to "cross out" the "life begins at conception part"
The first part of the SOL has nothing to do with the second part.
Last edited:
Blacksoulman said:
Yes it can. Just like how they arrest Medical Marijuana users in California even though that state has legalized Medical Use. Your misunderstanding federal vs state law still.
The Federal government would say "Well you did commit murder according to our definiton of the 14th admendment" and you can't do shit about it.
This is why I still keep posting that part. You can keep telling me I'm wrong, but if you look at a basic history or law book you will see that you are wrong.
Federal Government always always always has power over State law. Its not that hard.
We need to start teaching civics again.
foodisgood
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 285
phactor said:
What you have to look at is who is getting arrested for medical marijuana. It is not the person that smokes one joint a day or has a license to grow a couple of plants. The people that get arrested are distributers and massive growers.
continuousbeing2
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,094
phactor said:
this is quite the overstatement. and patently false as well. federal law is only supreme, under the supremacy clause, if the law is a valid exercise of federal authority (i.e. w/in the enumerated powers). if the feds cannot legislate on an issue then state law will prevail in the conflict.
however, in practice, federal authority is grossly expanded and pretty much anything falls under the purview of the commerce clause these days, so...
foodisgood said:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/marijuana060705.cfm
Court Ruling Preserves State Medical Marijuana Laws Justice Stevens Says Congress Must Act on Federal Level to Protect Patients
mulberryman
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,401
foodisgood said:
But the same could be applied to anything the goverment provides. I could say I don't want my taxes to pay for a police force since neighborhoods should take care of their own or whatever, or a fire department for that matter, maybe those cities where people can't volunteer to fight fires without pay shoul just burn down, since they obviously were inhabited by welfare bums, right. How 'bout the military and these endless wars, where do they fit in, why should I have to pay taxes for that. But hey, why stop there, I mean why do we need a FBI, CIA, Dept of Homeland Security, we don't need people to catch terrorists do we, hey maybe the people that died on 9-11 deserved to, since they didn't have the good sense to work in builings that were such obvious targets. Perhaps you won't be happy until we have complete anarchy, and the only thing keeping you from being someones dinner is how many bullets you got left, huh?
continuousbeing2 said:
It was a bit of an overstatement, but not really.
This still supports within my argument of defining "life begins at conception" thus an abortion = murder arguement. This would grant the fetus the rights of a person as defined in the 14th admendment.
"Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law."
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s105.htm
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
continuousbeing2
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,094
phactor said:
well, look at article 1 section, it lists the enumerated powers of the federal government. you can check that here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/
in reality though, the bounds of those powers has been greatly expanded, especially the commerce clause power (the power to regulate INTERstate commerce). it has been used to justify everything from the drug laws to civil rights laws
theoretically, things such as health and safety, fall to what are called the police powers of the state. the federal government has no authority to regulate health issues. however they often do, and often under the commerce clause which i mentioned above.
its hard to give a specific area that the feds cannot (except those laid out in art 1 s9). the point of the federalist system is that all powers not specifically delegated to the feds are reserved to the states, as stated in the 10th amendment.
continuousbeing2
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,094
phactor said:
the federal government cannot set state criminal law standards. it is up to the states to decide what is murder. the 14th amendment only guarantees a minimum amount of rights that the citizenry has. thus, if the courts say abortion is a fundamental right, no state can say its not. but, if the feds say it is not, states can still protect the right. its just not a federally guaranteed right, but the feds cannot force a state to consider abortion murder, no matter what. the only way to make it applicable to all would be to somehow justify it as a federal crime, which brings up the problem of enumerated powers again
kong
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,496
Healthcare has grown into a science that can be extremely advanced and extremely expensive. Procedures are possible that are near miracles, but cost an immense amount. As a populace becomes increasingly unhealthy, and increasing capable of solving the problems that come with this trend, the cost of correction ie (expensive medical procedures) cause the costs of *pooled* insurance to rise rapidly.
Everyone no matter how many triple stacks they eat, how much whiskey they drink, cigarettes ect..feels they deserve the best the medical profession has to offer. The best the medical profession has to offer often costs 10x what a patient makes a year. Insurance could effectively deal with this problem were it not for the way in which Americans (as a whole) take care of their bodies. Its not 1 out of 5 who gets cancer and needs chemo, its the 1 out of 2 who eats nothing but nacho cheese steak chalupas and needs multiply heart surgeries and a lifetime of diabetes treatment for a condition that is often self inflicted (I'll admit I made those figures up)
I don't want to pay for it. I want to pay insurance rates that reflect the way I take care of *my* body, just like I like to pay care insurance rates that reflect how I drive my car. I guess that is easy to say at my age...
Give people incentive to take care of themselves, not some debt driven medical miracle that adds marginal life expectancy to people who's lives are fast catching up with them.
I'm not saying that we should call it quits on cancer patients, separated from the self-inflicted obesity epidemic they can insure themselves easily. I'm saying that if weighing twice what you should is your thing, bring the money...don't ask me for it. Getting 5-quad-heart surgery is not a right, just like nasa won't shoot me into space...
(I can understand given the amount of money we spend on worthy causes like bombing/occupying small countries healthcare should be easy)
Everyone no matter how many triple stacks they eat, how much whiskey they drink, cigarettes ect..feels they deserve the best the medical profession has to offer. The best the medical profession has to offer often costs 10x what a patient makes a year. Insurance could effectively deal with this problem were it not for the way in which Americans (as a whole) take care of their bodies. Its not 1 out of 5 who gets cancer and needs chemo, its the 1 out of 2 who eats nothing but nacho cheese steak chalupas and needs multiply heart surgeries and a lifetime of diabetes treatment for a condition that is often self inflicted (I'll admit I made those figures up)
I don't want to pay for it. I want to pay insurance rates that reflect the way I take care of *my* body, just like I like to pay care insurance rates that reflect how I drive my car. I guess that is easy to say at my age...
Give people incentive to take care of themselves, not some debt driven medical miracle that adds marginal life expectancy to people who's lives are fast catching up with them.
I'm not saying that we should call it quits on cancer patients, separated from the self-inflicted obesity epidemic they can insure themselves easily. I'm saying that if weighing twice what you should is your thing, bring the money...don't ask me for it. Getting 5-quad-heart surgery is not a right, just like nasa won't shoot me into space...
(I can understand given the amount of money we spend on worthy causes like bombing/occupying small countries healthcare should be easy)
continuousbeing2 said:
Ahh okay.
That makes alot more sense after that.
What incentive would there be to define "human life" as occuring at conception at the federal level then? Would this be more of a "show" or statement which in reality has no effect? Doesn't the 14th admen. guarantee a right to life? So if the fetus is declared as a human being, it would be protected with that right to life? Isn't this what bills like the Smith bill intends to do?
Looks like I may have to eat my own hat and apologize if I am wrong on this
So Roe V Wade states that a women has a right to have an abortion, thus it overrules all state restrictions. Over turning Roe V Wade would allow a state to restrict abortion correct?
Another example:
If Oregon were to say Euthenisa is okay would the federal government be able to arrest someone like Kevorkian?
Last edited:
continuousbeing2
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,094
well, it would be show for the most part. ultimately the cts get the final say on what is a fundamental right under the due process clause of the 14th. no matter what congress says, the court could always overturn (assuming there is standing to challenge the law, which is a whole other can of worms that isnt really relevant right here).
as far as roe v wade, it just states that there is a fundamental right of choice that cannot be completely banned by the states. however, the test under DP is whether there is an "undue burden" on the right. because of the murkiness of this standard we have seen a lot of restrictions that have been upheld. waiting periods, notifications, etc. just because abortion is a fundamental right doesnt mean that there is no restriction on it.
if it were overturned states could regulate abortion in any way they saw fit, including outright ban. and there would be no problem on a federal level, there are still state consitutions and the like to worry about, but that is not a likely place to see an abortion restriction overturned in the absence of roe.
under your oregon example, they do say euthanasia is ok. however, it is possible that the feds would prosecute them for violating the controlled substances act. like i said above, the feds have no power to regulate health issues, but they always find back doors. the prosecution would be for unalwful dispensation of drugs or something like that. not for murder or anything like that, as that is a state definition. this is the great problem of modern federalism. the states are supposed to be places to experiment with policies and whatnot, but the modern federal government truly has run amok in many respects. when you shut down the chance for a state to try and test new policies (like this, or medical marijuana) it is ignoring the entire n otion of the federalist system. but i digress and will end my editorializing.
hope that was helpful
as far as roe v wade, it just states that there is a fundamental right of choice that cannot be completely banned by the states. however, the test under DP is whether there is an "undue burden" on the right. because of the murkiness of this standard we have seen a lot of restrictions that have been upheld. waiting periods, notifications, etc. just because abortion is a fundamental right doesnt mean that there is no restriction on it.
if it were overturned states could regulate abortion in any way they saw fit, including outright ban. and there would be no problem on a federal level, there are still state consitutions and the like to worry about, but that is not a likely place to see an abortion restriction overturned in the absence of roe.
under your oregon example, they do say euthanasia is ok. however, it is possible that the feds would prosecute them for violating the controlled substances act. like i said above, the feds have no power to regulate health issues, but they always find back doors. the prosecution would be for unalwful dispensation of drugs or something like that. not for murder or anything like that, as that is a state definition. this is the great problem of modern federalism. the states are supposed to be places to experiment with policies and whatnot, but the modern federal government truly has run amok in many respects. when you shut down the chance for a state to try and test new policies (like this, or medical marijuana) it is ignoring the entire n otion of the federalist system. but i digress and will end my editorializing.
hope that was helpful
^^^
Yes its very helpful. Are you a lawyer or in law school?
I'm just wondering why some many efforts have been made to extend the 14th admend. to include the fetus. These type of bills are always coming from pro-lifers. If the constitution says a person has a right to life and this is extended to a fetus I would assume that it would have the same rights as a person at least in the constitution. Wouldn't this allow the fetus to be protected by a state or the federal government?
In this article (focusing on a similar bill)
"The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has scheduled a Dec. 12 hearing on a bill (HR 522) -- sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) -- that would extend the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" guarantee to include a "right to life" for "each born and preborn human person""
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/58467.php
To me it appears that this bill intends to prevent abortion by extending the 14th admen to the fetus. Am I reading that wrong? How wouldn't declaring a "life" as occuring at the moment of conception not grant it the rights of the 14th?
Anyways I need to try to go to bed.
Yes its very helpful. Are you a lawyer or in law school?
I'm just wondering why some many efforts have been made to extend the 14th admend. to include the fetus. These type of bills are always coming from pro-lifers. If the constitution says a person has a right to life and this is extended to a fetus I would assume that it would have the same rights as a person at least in the constitution. Wouldn't this allow the fetus to be protected by a state or the federal government?
In this article (focusing on a similar bill)
"The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution has scheduled a Dec. 12 hearing on a bill (HR 522) -- sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) -- that would extend the 14th Amendment's "equal protection" guarantee to include a "right to life" for "each born and preborn human person""
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/58467.php
To me it appears that this bill intends to prevent abortion by extending the 14th admen to the fetus. Am I reading that wrong? How wouldn't declaring a "life" as occuring at the moment of conception not grant it the rights of the 14th?
Anyways I need to try to go to bed.
Last edited:
I think in our society, no matter what, the federal government will do as it pleases even though something says they can't. They have done this and continue to do this, aka The Patriot Act. I think what phactor was trying to say was that if the federal government really wanted to then they could over ride the rest of the act by one statement alone and that is that life begins at conception. I disagree with his position on the intent of the bill but I clearly see that in the end, the federal government has over rode what it has said before and twisted things to fit what they want. At least that is what I took from it.