Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

[Levant]

Bull shit.

Using that logic, the ONLY persons who can challenge the Constitutionality of any given piece of legislation, would be the SCOTUS itself.

No, the USSC is the ultimate ruler on the constitutionality of any given piece of legislation.

I'm not even a Yank and I know this.

Now I get it. Now it's clear why you think you know something but do not. The Constitution is the ultimate ruler on constitutionality. The Supreme Court considers cases brought to it by appeals and considers the Constitution in deciding the case before them.

 

[OldBiologist]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.

Which is determined by the SCOTUS. ????

 

[Levant]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.

Which is determined by the SCOTUS. ????

No, the Court gives their opinions whether something is, or is not, constitutional. They don't determine it. If they actually determined constitutionality, then what happens when they opine that something was constitutional and then later overturn themselves and say it was not? Was the thing actually first constitutional and later was not constitutional? Did the Constitution change? Did the Supreme Court change the Constitution? Do they have the power to change the Constitution?

No, the Supreme Court doesn't determine the constitutionality. They decide a case and give their opinion on the constitutionality of the laws in a case as part of their ruling on the case.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

Dear Chuz Life: Since such a policy violates your beliefs or discriminates against people like you by creed, that abuse of govt to establish or prohibit beliefs is what makes such a policy unconstitutional.

The problem is that such policies are "faith based". In order not to violate anyone's beliefs, all people would need to AGREE on govt policy, either agreeing on the science or agreeing on any faith based policy.

Without agreement and consent of the public, govt has no authority to decide or enforced faith based policies which rely on representing the consent of the people to authorize any such laws.

 

[OldBiologist]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.

Which is determined by the SCOTUS. ????

No, the Court gives their opinions whether something is, or is not, constitutional. They don't determine it. If they actually determined constitutionality, then what happens when they opine that something was constitutional and then later overturn themselves and say it was not? Was the thing actually first constitutional and later was not constitutional? Did the Constitution change? Did the Supreme Court change the Constitution? Do they have the power to change the Constitution?

No, the Supreme Court doesn't determine the constitutionality. They decide a case and give their opinion on the constitutionality of the laws in a case as part of their ruling on the case.

I think you’re dancing with words. We can just agree to disagree.

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws mamke exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

Dear Chuz Life: Since such a policy violates your beliefs or discriminates against people like you by creed, that abuse of govt to establish or prohibit beliefs is what makes such a policy unconstitutional.

The problem is that such policies are "faith based". In order not to violate anyone's beliefs, all people would need to AGREE on govt policy, either agreeing on the science or agreeing on any faith based policy.

Without agreement and consent of the public, govt has no authority to decide or enforced faith based policies which rely on representing the consent of the people to authorize any such laws.

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

Dear Chuz Life: Since such a policy violates your beliefs or discriminates against people like you by creed, that abuse of govt to establish or prohibit beliefs is what makes such a policy unconstitutional.

The problem is that such policies are "faith based". In order not to violate anyone's beliefs, all people would need to AGREE on govt policy, either agreeing on the science or agreeing on any faith based policy.

Without agreement and consent of the public, govt has no authority to decide or enforced faith based policies which rely on representing the consent of the people to authorize any such laws.

 

[Dragonlady]

Also, from the biological point of view, abortion is unnatural.

NO it's not "unnatural". Spontaneous abortions happen all of the time. They're called "miscarriages". What's "unnatural" is taking away women's right to decide when to have a baby.

 

[gipper]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

I’m afraid you’re whistling passed the graveyard. The constitution died long ago. Our government and it’s many criminal politicians and bureaucrats, pay it no attention. When will someone tell the people?

 

[Chuz Life]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

I’m afraid you’re whistling passed the graveyard. The constitution died long ago. Our government and it’s many criminal politicians and bureaucrats, pay it no attention. When will someone tell the people?

I disagree.

Our Constitution is not dead. However, I do agree that it is being ignored, circumvented and dismissed.

I believe that that reality can (and should) be corrected. Which is why this election and upcoming Supreme Court picks matter so much.

 

[gipper]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

I’m afraid you’re whistling passed the graveyard. The constitution died long ago. Our government and it’s many criminal politicians and bureaucrats, pay it no attention. When will someone tell the people?

I disagree.

Our Constitution is not dead. However, I do agree that it is being ignored, circumvented and dismissed.

I believe that that reality can (and should) be corrected. Which is why this election and upcoming Supreme Court picks matter so much.

Semantics. The result of the assholes running our government ignoring the constitution without consequence, is it’s death.

There are remnants of it still around but it effect, it’s dead.

Jefferson said democracies need revolutions every so often, to remove the tyrants and restore liberty. We are way passed that. It’s probably too late.

 

[Levant]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

Dear Chuz Life: Since such a policy violates your beliefs or discriminates against people like you by creed, that abuse of govt to establish or prohibit beliefs is what makes such a policy unconstitutional.

The problem is that such policies are "faith based". In order not to violate anyone's beliefs, all people would need to AGREE on govt policy, either agreeing on the science or agreeing on any faith based policy.

Without agreement and consent of the public, govt has no authority to decide or enforced faith based policies which rely on representing the consent of the people to authorize any such laws.

No, abortion policies, and right-to-life, are not faith based. Just because a person's faith aligns with their support for human life does not mean one would not exist without the other. Christianity teaches against stealing, against adultery, against murder. Should laws against stealing and murder be struck down because the laws align with Christian values? Of course not.

There are plenty of atheists who are against killing unborn babies.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals CAN claim exemption as they are NOT human so their git is also fair game.

 

[Levant]

Also, from the biological point of view, abortion is unnatural.

NO it's not "unnatural". Spontaneous abortions happen all of the time. They're called "miscarriages". What's "unnatural" is taking away women's right to decide when to have a baby.

By nature, women are care-givers and nurturers. It is unnatural for a mother to kill her own child. It happens but it's not natural.

edit: and no one is suggesting taking away a woman's right to choose when to spread her legs.

 

[Levant]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.

Which is determined by the SCOTUS. ????

No, the Court gives their opinions whether something is, or is not, constitutional. They don't determine it. If they actually determined constitutionality, then what happens when they opine that something was constitutional and then later overturn themselves and say it was not? Was the thing actually first constitutional and later was not constitutional? Did the Constitution change? Did the Supreme Court change the Constitution? Do they have the power to change the Constitution?

No, the Supreme Court doesn't determine the constitutionality. They decide a case and give their opinion on the constitutionality of the laws in a case as part of their ruling on the case.

I think you’re dancing with words. We can just agree to disagree.

Well, it's accepting sloppy interpretation of the words that enables government to grow out of control. The difference between an all-powerful court that has the power to change the Constitution and the law by decree versus a limited Court as defined in the Constitution is the difference between tyrannical government and Constitutional government. You can choose to decline to defend your statement, in which case I win - but I win anyway because I'm right.

 

[Oddball]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

According to a wrong interpretation of the USSC ruling in Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad, "person", legally defined, can be a corporation, trust, or any other of a slew of legal fictions...."Individuals", in legalese, refer to what we colloquially call "people".

I guarantee that you will never read the instructions for filing your tax forms the same way again.

Hope that helps.

 

[Oddball]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.

Which is determined by the SCOTUS. ????

No, the Court gives their opinions whether something is, or is not, constitutional. They don't determine it. If they actually determined constitutionality, then what happens when they opine that something was constitutional and then later overturn themselves and say it was not? Was the thing actually first constitutional and later was not constitutional? Did the Constitution change? Did the Supreme Court change the Constitution? Do they have the power to change the Constitution?

No, the Supreme Court doesn't determine the constitutionality. They decide a case and give their opinion on the constitutionality of the laws in a case as part of their ruling on the case.

I think you’re dancing with words. We can just agree to disagree.

Well, it's accepting sloppy interpretation of the words that enables government to grow out of control. The difference between an all-powerful court that has the power to change the Constitution and the law by decree versus a limited Court as defined in the Constitution is the difference between tyrannical government and Constitutional government. You can choose to decline to defend your statement, in which case I win - but I win anyway because I'm right.

This distinction is not sloppy by any stretch...It's purposeful, and it's a large part of what has allowed the progressive agenda to metastasize in this nation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws mamke exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

Dear Chuz Life: Since such a policy violates your beliefs or discriminates against people like you by creed, that abuse of govt to establish or prohibit beliefs is what makes such a policy unconstitutional.

The problem is that such policies are "faith based". In order not to violate anyone's beliefs, all people would need to AGREE on govt policy, either agreeing on the science or agreeing on any faith based policy.

Without agreement and consent of the public, govt has no authority to decide or enforced faith based policies which rely on representing the consent of the people to authorize any such laws.

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

Dear Chuz Life: Since such a policy violates your beliefs or discriminates against people like you by creed, that abuse of govt to establish or prohibit beliefs is what makes such a policy unconstitutional.

The problem is that such policies are "faith based". In order not to violate anyone's beliefs, all people would need to AGREE on govt policy, either agreeing on the science or agreeing on any faith based policy.

Without agreement and consent of the public, govt has no authority to decide or enforced faith based policies which rely on representing the consent of the people to authorize any such laws.

????
You DO get that I agree and defend your beliefs against abortion as "unconstitutional to violate" Right?

Chuz Life: Please don't tell me you fall for the same liberal tripe that your rights to your beliefs "don't exist inherently" but these rights "depend on courts, legislation or govt" to establish. Are you really that liberal that you depend on Govt to defend your God given rights? Are these arbitrary now? Because that's how liberal politics thinks!

 

[emilynghiem]

Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

It is obvious and undeniable that our Nation's more than 130 State and Federal "Fetal HOMICIDE" laws define and regard a "child in the womb" as a "person" by making it a crime of MURDER to kill a "child in the womb" in a "criminal act." It is also undeniable that the fetal Homicide Laws make exceptions to the laws to (for now) keep abortions "legal."

Will somebody please explain where it is in the Constitution, that the Government has the right to have it both ways?

In my view, the Government has no such right, power or authority.

The Government can not acknowledge that YOU are a person in one set of circumstances but then DENY the fact that you are a "person" in any other set of circumstances.

The Constitution says that "all persons" are entitled to the "equal protections of our laws."

In my view, the Constitution does not allow for the Government or for Society to flip the switch back and forth, between whether any individual human beings or groups of human beings are to be legally / Constitutionally recognized as "persons" or not.

You are correct, the Constitution won't allow it.

Abortion was legalized as a desperate measure, never as a woman's right.

Even more, if people realize today the real and obscure intention behind the legalization of abortion, then they will understand that abortion was officially condoned in order to take the right of women to deliver children.

If two opposite rules exist in the legal system, this means one of them is correct and delivers safety, and the another is erroneous and delivers hazard. Abortion as "legal" is wrong and delivers fatality.

Also, from the biological point of view, abortion is unnatural.

While I appreciate your views on abortion. This thread is specifically about whether or not the government can CONSTITUTIONALLY recognize a himan being in one set of circumstances ASa person and then DENY that human being is a person in any or all other circumstances.

It goes far beyond abortion.

1. Since Constitutional govt is supposed to be limited to secular matters of law, not spiritual matters that rely on faith, such matters should be resolved by people first, and then those people authorize govt to make laws reflecting consent of the governed.
2. Until people of a state agree on other standards, the secular agreed standard for recognizing persons as having legal standing is at birth. Now some states have pushed to establish recognition of legal personhood at heartbeat, etc. The Constitutional process works by forming a consensus in order for laws to reflect the authority vested in govt by the people.
3. As for inconsistencies, these can be used to argue against unfair biases in the laws. But yes, such arbitrary or conflicting definitions do occur. And yes they are contested until a consensus is reached to reform laws. This happens because the democratic process takes time, and many laws or rulings "evolve in stages." Personally I don't agree with inconsistencies either; if we required such contested policies to be passed by consensus, where conflicts had to be resolved before writing and passing laws,maybe they could be settled in advance. Instead of passing imperfect or partial stages of laws, then working toward fixing them later, in steps. This risks passing bad laws until better ones develop later. We could save the trouble by negotiating better laws by agreement in the first place.

 

[OldBiologist]

I don’t know what the actual legal position is on that but I disagree with that sentiment. If a law has not been brought before the SCOTUS, it is a law but there exists no ruling one way or the other on whether it is constitutional. The public is obliged to obey the law at risk of punishment by our overlords. Someone with standing may challenge a law and, if it is granted cert, only then do we have a basis for saying whether a law is constitutional or not. The SCOTUS has at times reversed itself, so even something that was once constitutional it might one day no longer be so. Until the court makes a ruling, we’re all just following the law handed to us.

OP, congrats and respect on being one of the few people to even make a distinction between “human being” and “person”. I often don’t even bother with threads concerning the topic because I’ve grown weary of trying to explain.

It is clear a line needs to be drawn somewhere but I am going to have to leave that to people more clever than I am. Regardless of where it is though, you are absolutely right they need to be consistent, otherwise laws are arbitrary and situational and mean nothing.

The Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of a law. They give an opinion and their opinion is binding on the case before them only. Their opinion sets precedent in that lower courts understand that any appeal of their own rulings will likely get the same response from the Supreme Court so the lower courts follow the opinion of the Supreme Court - until a lower court has the courage to challenge a previous Supreme Court opinion and either gets overturned by the Court or, as happens often enough to prove that the Court is absolutely not the perfectly reliable interpreter of the Constitution, the Court overturns itself.

Unconstitutionality is not at all determined by the Court. It is determined by whether or not a law is in compliance with the Constitution.

Which is determined by the SCOTUS. ????

No, the Court gives their opinions whether something is, or is not, constitutional. They don't determine it. If they actually determined constitutionality, then what happens when they opine that something was constitutional and then later overturn themselves and say it was not? Was the thing actually first constitutional and later was not constitutional? Did the Constitution change? Did the Supreme Court change the Constitution? Do they have the power to change the Constitution?

No, the Supreme Court doesn't determine the constitutionality. They decide a case and give their opinion on the constitutionality of the laws in a case as part of their ruling on the case.

I think you’re dancing with words. We can just agree to disagree.

Well, it's accepting sloppy interpretation of the words that enables government to grow out of control. The difference between an all-powerful court that has the power to change the Constitution and the law by decree versus a limited Court as defined in the Constitution is the difference between tyrannical government and Constitutional government. You can choose to decline to defend your statement, in which case I win - but I win anyway because I'm right.

If failing to convince me of your position constitutes a win in your mind, knock yourself out. I’m more interested in dialectic than debate and on this matter there is simply nothing more than opinion.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Thank Hue For A Bold Find "

* Thread Setting Exceptional Legal Reference *

1 U.S. Code § 8.“Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• U.S. Code
• Notes

prev next
(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b)
As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c)
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.
(Added Pub. L. 107–207, § 2(a), Aug. 5, 2002, 116 Stat. 926.)

1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

www.law.cornell.edu

Clearly where us 14th amendment mentions equal protection of persons , those persons were born .

Whew , finally , this debate is beyond over !