Legislating Morality

[Soggy in NOLA]

So, let me get this straight, one's right to reproduce includes the right to use a device that prevents reproduction....

That's awesome.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is no war on women's reproductive rights, at least not in the way you are framing it. If you are talking about BC pills then the right is spot on. If you are talking about abortion then the extremes on both sides are dead wrong and the answer lies in the middle. Strangely enough, that happens to be close to where the line is anyway and the solid truth is that abortion is not going to change anytime soon.

There is a desire to undermine or eliminate the right to privacy by many social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, and overturn the case law underpinning that right, namely Griswold/Roe/Casey, allowing the states to ban abortion. This is clearly motivated by morality, not an objective understanding of the Constitution or its case law.

Then it has those pesky enumerations that apply to that clause. General welfare is not a license to do anything and no matter how people try and twist it. If what you are eluding is true, what the hell was the rest of the constitution for. They should have made it one line.

Congress retains un-enumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. See: McCulloch v. Maryland

Congress’ regulatory authority rests primarily on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.

Otherwise, the GWC authorizes Congress to spend for the general welfare, not legislate for it.

The left has no problem with morality. They have a very strict moral code, one they would like to see codified. And in some cases HAVE codified. Wear your seat belt, recycle, stop denying global warming, restrictions on property rights, respect to "diversity". An entire codebook of "hate" speech laws. The "war" on obesity. The left intends to enforce morality, just their morality.

What jurisdiction has made it ‘illegal’ to deny global warming? How are property rights ‘restricted’? What jurisdiction has mandated ‘respect for diversity’? Cite a ‘hate speech’ law or a law making it illegal to be obese.

Seatbelt laws and laws requiring recycling – such as appropriate used tire and motor oil disposal – are predicated on documented evidence justifying such legislation. Otherwise the rest of your complaint is nonsensical whining as none of those items have been codified.

Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers.

As have the justices of the Supreme Court for more than two centuries – they’ve been taken into consideration along with other evidence when deliberating cases where appropriate, and the Court’s rulings are the final authority as to the original intent of the Framers and the meaning of the Constitution.

The government says we all have a right to health care. Some of us will suffer financially because of this new right.

What Court ruling established healthcare as a ‘right?’

 

[Dick Tuck]

How in hell could anyone wage war on this? How stupid are you people?

The people who don't want you to have contraceptives, or stick an unnecessary ultrasound device in your vagina.

First of all... I don't have a vagina. Secondly, nobody wants to deny anybody contraception... personally, I wish more people used it. Finally, if you're pregnant, you will get an ultrasound at some point... and isn't stuck in your vagina.

More to the point however, how is any of this, if it were even true, a war on somebody's right to reproduce?

Sorry, but ultrasound during the first trimester is a medically unnecessary procedure for those who choose to terminate their pregnancy, and is an invasive procedure, that involves shoving a device up the vagina. That's what many states are trying to mandate this. if you choose to terminate in the first trimester.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The people who don't want you to have contraceptives, or stick an unnecessary ultrasound device in your vagina.

First of all... I don't have a vagina. Secondly, nobody wants to deny anybody contraception... personally, I wish more people used it. Finally, if you're pregnant, you will get an ultrasound at some point... and isn't stuck in your vagina.

More to the point however, how is any of this, if it were even true, a war on somebody's right to reproduce?

Sorry, but ultrasound during the first trimester is a medically unnecessary procedure for those who choose to terminate their pregnancy, and is an invasive procedure, that involves shoving a device up the vagina. That's what many states are trying to legislate. If you choose to terminate, you must have an ultrasound, even in the first trimester.

Well, if true, then I must disagree with that.... anyhoo.... how is aborting in any way reproductive?

 

[Dick Tuck]

First of all... I don't have a vagina. Secondly, nobody wants to deny anybody contraception... personally, I wish more people used it. Finally, if you're pregnant, you will get an ultrasound at some point... and isn't stuck in your vagina.

More to the point however, how is any of this, if it were even true, a war on somebody's right to reproduce?

Sorry, but ultrasound during the first trimester is a medically unnecessary procedure for those who choose to terminate their pregnancy, and is an invasive procedure, that involves shoving a device up the vagina. That's what many states are trying to legislate. If you choose to terminate, you must have an ultrasound, even in the first trimester.

Well, if true, then I must disagree with that.... anyhoo.... how is aborting in any way reproductive?

It's choosing not to reproduce, which is an established woman's right.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Sorry, but ultrasound during the first trimester is a medically unnecessary procedure for those who choose to terminate their pregnancy, and is an invasive procedure, that involves shoving a device up the vagina. That's what many states are trying to legislate. If you choose to terminate, you must have an ultrasound, even in the first trimester.

Well, if true, then I must disagree with that.... anyhoo.... how is aborting in any way reproductive?

It's choosing not to reproduce, which is an established woman's right.

Sure... and who's preventing her right to abort her baby?

Nobody.

 

[Dick Tuck]

Well, if true, then I must disagree with that.... anyhoo.... how is aborting in any way reproductive?

It's choosing not to reproduce, which is an established woman's right.

Sure... and who's preventing her right to abort her baby?

Nobody.

So what is the public purpose of forcing a woman to have an unnecessary, invasive, unfinanced, medical procedure? You do know that those states who are trying to enact this are not going to pay for it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's choosing not to reproduce, which is an established woman's right.

Sure... and who's preventing her right to abort her baby?

Nobody.

So what is the public purpose of forcing a woman to have an unnecessary, invasive, unfinanced, medical procedure? You do know that those states who are trying to enact this are not going to pay for it.

Like I said.. i don't agree with it. .With that said, she can still abort her baby.. nobody's stopping her.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not quite anything at all, since we have enumerated rights. But the constitution does have that pesky "general welfare" clause, and Hamilton clearly states that it's whatever is considered for the public good.

Then it has those pesky enumerations that apply to that clause. General welfare is not a license to do anything and no matter how people try and twist it. If what you are eluding is true, what the hell was the rest of the constitution for. They should have made it one line.

As I said, public need is asinine. Simple test: what rights do you violate of others when you do a line of blow? Answer: none. There is no basis to illegalize it unless you want to use 'general welfare' or 'public need.' When you go down that road you end up with asinine things like illegal alcohol and illegal drugs. Both asinine concepts.

OK, you provide some clarification on your position with that point. There is no public purpose for laws saying how people can and cannot get fucked up. There's a clear public purpose of penalizing them for driving while fucked up. Do we agree on that point?

Absolutely! In the instance of driving while under the influence of drugs/alcohol you are placing OTHERS rights at risk (the right to life). Taking drugs at home simply places yourself at risk- something you have the natural right to do.

Make congressional/presidential pay permanent set at 100 percent until death but also make it illegal to ever, in any shape or form, earn money from any other source. Once a servant at that level, you would remain a servant.

I think you'll have a constitutional issue with that, especially the right to petition the government. It gets a bit blurry when we talk about lobbyists. They're essentially paid people, by third parties, to advocate positions. There, I find it reasonable to regulate, who and who can not participate as a paid advocate.

I think we're now pretty much in agreement on reproductive rights.

? How does that stop you from petitioning your government? It stops you from bribing them but you can petition all you want. The idea only applies to the congressmen themselves. A senator or a Representative would be unable to garner another source of income.

So no laws against murder?
Theft?
Assault?
Rape?

Try reading the actual OP where I specifically mentioned murder and theft and you won't look like such an idiot when posting. The concept applies to assault, rape and a huge host of other things as well.

You look like an idiot if you don't think that stealing something can and is classified as an immoral act in the moral codes of most civilized societies.

And? This has nothing to do with my supposition in the OP. The laws against stealing have nothing to do with the immorality if it, they are there to protect your rights. Simple as that.

Every piece of legislation and policy decision is a KIND of moral decision.

There's really no avoiding that.

The key is to determine at the outset what code of morality we are trying to uphold.

That is a key that will never fit and is destined to failure. It is far better to let people determine their OWN morality and let the government stick to protecting your right to do so.

Some states make it a crime for an adult to have sex with a 16 year old. In other states it's legal.

Is the former legislating morality, and thus by the OP's standard, the government is doing something it has no business doing?

It depends on how they're justifying the law. They could, arguably, be claiming that the rights of a minor are being violated - that he or she is being deceived by an an adult.

If, on the other hand, the state is making it crime just because people think it's 'naughty' - that would be something they have no business doing.

Bingo. It has been found that persons at a very young age do not have the capacity to give consent and are, therefore, being violated when having sex. Just as 'icky' and also 'wrong' is a 70 year old man having his way with an 18 year old. The difference is, no matter how wrong it may be, the 18 year old has the capacity for consent and can do whatever they please with the other consenting adult.

I'm guessing that if you ask people if they consider a 30 year old - for example - having sex with a 15 year old moral or immoral or neither/no opinion,

the response would be overwhelmingly 'immoral'.

Sure, but the morality of the act has NOTHING to do with the legality of it. It has everything to do with the capacity for consent and in this case, consent cannot be given.

The left has no problem with morality. They have a very strict moral code, one they would like to see codified. And in some cases HAVE codified. Wear your seat belt, recycle, stop denying global warming, restrictions on property rights, respect to "diversity". An entire codebook of "hate" speech laws. The "war" on obesity. The left intends to enforce morality, just their morality.

And the right is just as guilty. I would guess that you are against gay marriage? I am sure that your position on such has nothing to do with whether or not you see such acts as moral....

If morality is the basis of the law, then the question is: Whose morals should be applied ( your morals, my morals, Justice Antonin Scalia’s morals - the so-called “moral majority”)? It’s impracticable - it simply doesn’t work. The problem is that people don’t understand this, and insist that it be otherwise.

Bingo. People are always trying to push their own morality into law and they quickly forget that, if they are able to justify doing so, someone else will do the same with disastrous consequences to what you think of as moral.

There is no war on women's reproductive rights, at least not in the way you are framing it. If you are talking about BC pills then the right is spot on. If you are talking about abortion then the extremes on both sides are dead wrong and the answer lies in the middle. Strangely enough, that happens to be close to where the line is anyway and the solid truth is that abortion is not going to change anytime soon.

There is a desire to undermine or eliminate the right to privacy by many social conservatives and Christian fundamentalists, and overturn the case law underpinning that right, namely Griswold/Roe/Casey, allowing the states to ban abortion. This is clearly motivated by morality, not an objective understanding of the Constitution or its case law.

Your point. Such has nothing to do with my statement. There are crazies all over the place, that does not mean there is some vaunted war on women.

Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers.

As have the justices of the Supreme Court for more than two centuries – they’ve been taken into consideration along with other evidence when deliberating cases where appropriate, and the Court’s rulings are the final authority as to the original intent of the Framers and the meaning of the Constitution.

I grow tired of the constant pointing you do to one case or another and assume that simply because it was the SCOTUS that said so it is correct and beyond reproach. We all realize that the SCOTUS makes such rulings but that does not make them correct. My guess is that you certainly would not simply accept the court's word if they slapped their foreheads tomorrow and said gee, we were wrong, white people DO have the right to own black people.

What people are challenging is the interpretations that the court has made as we damn well should when the court has made a decision that is wrong. The SCOTUS makes mistakes all the time and even overturns some decisions they make when they recognize such mistakes.

 

[FA_Q2]

OK, you provide some clarification on your position with that point. There is no public purpose for laws saying how people can and cannot get fucked up. There's a clear public purpose of penalizing them for driving while fucked up. Do we agree on that point?

let me jump in on this point. IMHO, DUI laws are fucking ridiculous. If someone harms another person because they drove drunk...sure throw the book at them. But if someone does no harm I believe the penalties should be nowhere near as brutal as they are because you are penalizing someone for "potentially" harming another. Well shit...you don't have to be drunk to potentially kill someone in a car. In fact, usually people are not. We do things every single day that could potentially harm another person and no one blinks an eye.

Furthermore the penalties have nothing to do with getting drunks off the street and have everything to do with getting money for the state and other businesses. If we really wanted to get drunks off the street it's actually somewhat easy. Put an interlock device into cars standard. That will drive down the rate of drunk driving a hell of a lot more than jail time, fines, suspended licenses, counselling, blah, blah, blah that drunks don't give a shit about but makes a lot of people a lot of money.

Well, damn. You are making me think here. I have no good argument against what you are claiming atm but I am not sure if I am willing to accept it yet. I am going to have to think on this awhile, good post.

I think the OP is dead on the nose and I have made this argument several times. It's not the role of government to save us from ourselves; that's our job. I have a Mother and don't need another one...particularly one that fails at just about everything they do in regards to social functions.

Government should keep us safe from the threat of invasion, establish a financial environment that is conducive to trade, establish and enforce laws that apply only to instances wherein actual harm is done to our citizens, and then shut the fuck up and let us live our lives.

One thing that people seem to not understand is that laws do not stop people from doing a damn thing; they only punish those who get caught doing it. This is why people laugh so hard at the left when they come up with brilliant ideas like: "in the wake of the Gabby Giffords incident we need to pass a law that you can't carry a gun within 500 ft of an elected official". Pffft....like a criminal is going to give a shit about the law. They don't...that's why they are a criminal. This is why prohibition failed, this is why the war on drugs has failed....people don't care if it's illegal. If they want to do it, they will do it.

So the question is not: "is there an activity we need to stop?" Forget that line of reasoning because government won't stop it. The question should be: "is this action worth punishing someone for?" When no harm has been done to another I see no reason for punishment.

Another excellent point.

 

[Valox]

Only a tyrant believes that he has the right to instill morality onto others.

However many people justify the tyrannical forces of the government.

 

[Ravi]

Did you happen to notice the date on that? It was written three years after the Constitution was ratified. This is exactly what I was talking about. He changed his tune. Now go read the Federalist papers.

Read them, as well as the anti-federalist papers. Hamilton's view is consistent. General welfare meant then, what it means now. His remedy to excess or abuse of the clause was the ballot.

General welfare as we define it today for the purposes of governmental support of the individual was known as "charity" in the time of our founding fathers.

General Welfare as it appears in the Constitution applies to the Union of States, not the individual. Since Charity to the individual is not power enumerated as being within the purview of the Feds, it is reserved to the States or to the people.

The general welfare of the United States is assured by the general welfare of its citizens.

So arguing, if you are, that giving food stamps, housing, etc. is merely helping the individual you are incorrect. It helps us all by keeping the economy moving, keeping people from living in the streets, and keeping people from committing crimes to eat and feed their children.

 

[sparky]

all fine and well, but the 10ther approach to moral legislation does have a backburn to it

~S~

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's choosing not to reproduce, which is an established woman's right.

Sure... and who's preventing her right to abort her baby?

Nobody.

So what is the public purpose of forcing a woman to have an unnecessary, invasive, unfinanced, medical procedure? You do know that those states who are trying to enact this are not going to pay for it.

The purpose is to make getting an abortion as difficult and onerous as possible without technically or legally violating a woman's constitutional right to that abortion.

 

[dblack]

all fine and well, but the 10ther approach to moral legislation does have a backburn to it

~S~

??

Care to explain?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The term General Welfare was supposed to mean the general welfare of the nation, not that Tiesha gets her government check on time. That would be individual welfare, not connected to the needs of the Federal Government. The government can get along just fine if Tiesha has to get a part time job.

If that were true then someone would have challenged such laws a long time ago and got them declared unconstitutional.

 

[sparky]

all fine and well, but the 10ther approach to moral legislation does have a backburn to it

~S~

??

Care to explain?

sure, i was responding to this>

it is reserved to the States or to the people.

an example might be my state being the first to legislate civil unions

the 'backburn' was we were flooded with rich gays who took advantage of us being the only state in the union offering this

it was not w/o it's social effects here

so elevate this to conjecture, Fred Phelps , M Moore, R Santorum , Rush L (et all extreemists) gets to spearhead legislation in any given state

i'll wager some heated debates.....

~S~

 

[code1211]

The term General Welfare was supposed to mean the general welfare of the nation, not that Tiesha gets her government check on time. That would be individual welfare, not connected to the needs of the Federal Government. The government can get along just fine if Tiesha has to get a part time job.

It's in the general welfare interest of the United States to provide an economic safety net. No civilized country would be without one. Ours sort of sucks, compared to the other first world countries, and the number of homeless here demonstrate that fact. The law is not whether Cindy Lou gets her welfare check or PFC Billy Bob gets food stamps.

What you're thinking about would be a bill of attainder, which would be unconstitutional. Our social safety net is neither.

If you are using the phrase General Welfare to justify the social safety net, your case is lost. That not what it meant at the time of its writing and you have shown nothing to prove your interpretation is in keeping with the thinking of the framers.

At this time in our history, the Social Welfare programs are well entrenched and no further justification is required unless a legal revocation is being argued.

Your remark about the homeless is uninformed. If a person does not ask for the aid, the aid is not forced upon them.

 

[dblack]

all fine and well, but the 10ther approach to moral legislation does have a backburn to it

~S~

??

Care to explain?

sure, i was responding to this>

it is reserved to the States or to the people.

an example might be my state being the first to legislate civil unions

the 'backburn' was we were flooded with rich gays who took advantage of us being the only state in the union offering this

it was not w/o it's social effects here

so elevate this to conjecture, Fred Phelps , M Moore, R Santorum , Rush L (et all extreemists) gets to spearhead legislation in any given state

i'll wager some heated debates.....

~S~

Ahh.. ok. Thanks for the clarification. I don't really think most opposition to 'legislating morality' is vested in the 10th amendment, although the 10th does prevent centralizing it, which I suppose is better in balance. The 9th amendment applies more clearly, but honestly we can't depend on the Bill of Rights to protect us from the moralizers.

The best course for getting government back under control is do re'constitute' the concept of limited government, at both the federal and state level. That's why I'm glad the OP opened this discussion with observations about the purpose of government. A government tasked with protecting our rights, ie freedoms, has no business telling us how to live in general.

We really need to come to a clear consensus as to the purpose of government. A government limited to protecting our rights will be a very different one from a government that exists to supply us with an arbitrary list of 'public needs'. The two missions are very different and largely contradictory. We're seeing this conflict in spades in the health care reform debates, where efforts to make government responsible for our health care inevitably violate our freedoms.

 

[code1211]

reproductive - of, relating to, characteristic of, or taking part in reproduction.

How in hell could anyone wage war on this? How stupid are you people?

The people who don't want you to have contraceptives, or stick an unnecessary ultrasound device in your vagina.

Did you know that you or anyone can buy the "Pill" online. No prescription required and you can also choose from an array of other toys for your sex games pleasures.

As a side question: If you are asking that I pay for the contraceptive for a young woman, do I also need to pay for the associated lubricants and other toys needed for the full enjoyment of the experience?

How much entertaining do I need to pay for until you are satisfied that my duty to the recreation of the crowd you cite is complete?