Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Quantum Windbag]

In a strict interpretation, the surgical removal of a fetus would be constitutionally no different than the surgical removal of an appendix.

In a strict interpretation there is always differences between medical procedures, unless you are an idiot who does not understand the difference between left and right.

Really? Where in the constitution is there any reference whatsoever to a fetus?

You can't get to 'fetus' without 'interpretation', or without drawing on resources outside the Constitution.

Using the Constitution strictly and literally, in the manner johnwk insists on, show us the difference between an abortion and an appendectomy.

I am sorry, I was assuming you were talking from a medical standpoint since the constitution does not mention medical procedures at all. Forgive me for presuming I was talking to someone who is intelligent. I will not make that mistake again.

 

[johnwk]

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


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

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

You are absolutely correct that the federal Constitution does not mention “fetuses or the unborn”. But the federal Constitution does state that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. The federal government had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in Roe v. Wade. Federalist No. 45 informs us that:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State”


Seem to be quite clear our founders intended and agreed that the people of each state would be in charge of adopting laws within their own State to protect their lives, liberties and property. This is what federalism is all about! The people of each state being in charge of their own destiny and exercising home rule!


JWK

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

Not only do I disagree with that, so do you, and I can prove it.

I didn't say that was my opinion. That is the conclusion I come to applying the principles of johnwk,

i.e., that you can't read into the Constitution anything that isn't there, or make up new meanings for words.

In order to discuss this with you I would have to presume you are intelligent, something I just promised not to do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

The right of privacy, which is Constitutionally protected, overrides any rights granted a fetus, which has absolutely no Constitutional protection in a strict interpretation.

Go read Roe v. Wade and remind yourself how the court came to the conclusion that post first trimester fetuses could be granted rights and protections by the states.

If you insist on proving you are really stupid, do you support federal going after drug addicts who prescription shop?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation – ‘originalism’ is an interpretation. Which is why the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

 

[johnwk]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

The right of privacy, which is Constitutionally protected, overrides any rights granted a fetus, which has absolutely no Constitutional protection in a strict interpretation.

Go read Roe v. Wade and remind yourself how the court came to the conclusion that post first trimester fetuses could be granted rights and protections by the states.

And where does the word "privacy" appear in our federal Constitution? I think you are relying upon a misrepresentation of our Constitution by the Court!


JWK

 

[johnwk]

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation – ‘originalism’ is an interpretation. Which is why the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Case law which ignores the fundamental rules of constitutional law and the legislative intent of our Constitution are acts of judicial tyranny, a recent example being the Kelo decision.

JWK

 

[candycorn]

Gingrich's idea is kookoo.

 

[johnwk]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

Exactly! The 13th Amendment ended slavery and the 19th ended sex discrimination with regard to voting. And that is the beauty of our system of government. It allows the people of the various states under Article V to amend our federal Constitution to accommodate changing times, but in doing so it requires the consent of the governed as outlined in Article V! Neither our judges nor Supreme Court Justices have been granted the authority to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the people when performing their primary function which is to enforce our Constitution and its legislative intent.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

 

[johnwk]

Gingrich's idea is kookoo.

Why would you say such a thing when our Constitution stipulates:

(1) 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.

(2) judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

(3) The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour

(4) The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Do you not think a ruling by a judge or Justice which violates the fundamental rules of Constitutional law and is not in harmony with the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted would be considered bad behavior and opens the door for a possible impeachment? How would you deal with a judge or Justice who repeatedly engages in malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance?

JWK

 

[pegwinn]

It was a long vacation and an even longer first day back on the job. This is going to take a minute or two.......

Since everyone is suddenly into quoting others instead of simply reading the words and understanding the definitions....

I was trolling townhall.com (yeah I know, I need to seek therapy) and came across this during an oped extolling [spit]Gingrich's virtues[/spit]

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," wrote Thomas Jefferson in 1820, is "a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." Abraham Lincoln -- revolted by the Supreme Court's ruling in Dred Scott that blacks "had no rights a white man was bound to respect" -- rejected the claim that the justices' word was final. "If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the instant they are made," he warned in his first inaugural address, "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." ---- Source

I was told we were not "going back to 1789". Cool. Then figure out what you want the Constitution to do and Amend It. Did you really mean to assert that a persons intent, after they are dead, actually changes over time? Ouija board?

Everyone is foaming at the mouth over the meaning of the words. Well duh. Words mean things and we string them together into sentences and from there into War and Friggen Piece. Get a dictionary as close to 1798 as possible and look up the 'accepted meaning' and then read/apply the document. So far the oldest online dictionary I can find is the 1828 Websters. There is a 1755 Johnson, but it is incomplete.

There was a question about the 2nd Amendment. It reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

My take on it is that every state is assumed to have a militia and the people of that state have the absolute right to be armed. I get that because the first two phrases are what English teachers call 'assumptive' or some such (high school was a couple of weeks ago). The last two phrase are peculiar as "the right..." is also assumptive while the last phrase is directive.

People is plural, and some say collective. I say that plural means a whole bunch of individuals. Thus, it is an inviolate individual right whose foundation rests in the assumption that everyone comprises the state militia.

I would really like to get a grammar textbook of the day because my old English and Journalism teachers would have red-penned the hell out of it.

And I will toss another monkey wrench out there. "Arms" actually encompasses the accouterments of war. Guns are merely a subset. So, a sword or pike, knives, flails, all manner of chuck norris approved martial arts gear etc should be included. After all the directive phrase is "shall not be infringed right"? Arms - 1828 Websters

Abortion? The Constitution is silent on the issue in all regards and thus the Tenth Amendment applies. I do find it interesting that the Doctors Hippocratic Oath says to "Do no harm" and that no ethical doctor (that I know of) will remove say a kidney or leg simply because the owner desires it out of a "my body, my choice" rationale. But that ventures outside the scope of the discussion.

I think I replied to everyone. If I missed it, I am sorry. But, I for one am having a blast. Too bad we can't sit back and have a cold one as we argue. We'll still learn something but the lack of a light buzz is missed.

Hmmm speaking of a cold one..... c'ya inna minute.

 

[paperview]

...
My take on it is that every state is assumed to have a militia and the people of that state have the absolute right to be armed. I get that because the first two phrases are what English teachers call 'assumptive' or some such (high school was a couple of weeks ago). The last two phrase are peculiar as "the right..." is also assumptive while the last phrase is directive.
...

Or in other words, your interpretation.

 

[pegwinn]

...
My take on it is that every state is assumed to have a militia and the people of that state have the absolute right to be armed. I get that because the first two phrases are what English teachers call 'assumptive' or some such (high school was a couple of weeks ago). The last two phrase are peculiar as "the right..." is also assumptive while the last phrase is directive.
...

Or in other words, your interpretation.

I'll give you credit for not giving up.

Interpretation = 4. The power of explaining.

Sometimes ya gotta break it down.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

"Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?
No....These are two separate things.
The right to keep and bear arms....Is what it says. Remember the US Constitution contains rights we as people have. The Framers were careful to note that rights are not granted by government, but are God given. The Constitution is a limiting document. Limiting the power of government. One must also remember the wording of the Tenth amendment. This Amendment bolsters all others.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The operative word here is "the people"...Rights of the individual.
Well regulated militia speaks to the right of the people to mass a defense against. aggressors. That includes an oppressive government. Yes, the Framers used their wisdom and vivid memories of their homeland where the people were not citizens but subjects. Subjects to the whims of monarchy. The Framers sought to provide the people with the power to organize and defend themselves against government oppression.
Do not read into this anything but what it says. No, the Second and/or Tenth Amendment do/ does not give the people the right to illegal armed insurgency against government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

All perceptions of the Constitution are an interpretation – ‘originalism’ is an interpretation. Which is why the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

Wanna bet?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The argument would be that SCOTUS would leave such decisions up to the states, according to the neanderthals. And matters such as slavery, women's rights, and so forth.

They should, except in cases where the Constitution over rules states. Which is why your argument is stupid, since the 14th clearly over rides states on those issues, despite the ruling of SCOTUS to the contrary.

Exactly! The 13th Amendment ended slavery and the 19th ended sex discrimination with regard to voting. And that is the beauty of our system of government. It allows the people of the various states under Article V to amend our federal Constitution to accommodate changing times, but in doing so it requires the consent of the governed as outlined in Article V! Neither our judges nor Supreme Court Justices have been granted the authority to impose their personal whims and fancies upon the people when performing their primary function which is to enforce our Constitution and its legislative intent.

JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a Supreme Court's progressive majority vote

You are one excellent researcher.
I commend your efforts to find facts THEN post your opinion based on those facts. Very refreshing!
Big thumbs up and I will add to your rep!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are you now beginning to realize there is far more to determining the meaning of words in our Constitution than coming up with your "literal meaning"?

JWK

Nope. I am more convinced than ever that folks take plainly written words and add unneeded layers of complexity to them. But, I will concede that I would likely starve as a lawyer - let alone a judge.

According to the website: Bill of Rights Transcript Text

This is the 2nd amendment to the Constitution:

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Wouldn't that mean that only those belonging to a "well regulated Militia" would be able to keep and bear Arms....if the state (50 states that is) prohibits gun ownership otherwise?

Ye gods. This is what reading comprehension has been reduced to.

Please tell me, oh embarrassment to educated women everywhere, where in that Amendment you see "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Anyone who could actually read above a 5th grade level and had learned to diagram a simple sentence would understand that it is citing well-regulated militias as a reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not restricting it only to militia members. You CAN see the difference between "right of militia members" and "right of the people", correct?

And just to top it off, where does the phrase "shall not be infringed" leave ANY room for the states to prohibit gun ownership AT ALL, given that said right belongs to "the people", aka the general citizenry of the United States?

 

[Cecilie1200]

This has nothing to do with lawyers and everything to do with adhering the meaning of words as they were understood when our Constitution was adopted, and precluding those who hold political power from attaching their own meanings to words in our Constitution.

Apparently you are comfortable with attaching your own meaning to words as they appear in our Constitution, even if they were not understood by our founders as you define them, which is exactly how our Constitution is now being subverted by those who hold political power.

Your sense of reasoning not only defies common sense, but the most fundamental rules of constitutional law.


JWK


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

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is not a Constitutional issue, and therefore it devolves to the states to make what laws regarding it that they choose to (via the Tenth Amendment). I'm not sure if that's what you were attempting to say or not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gingrich's idea is kookoo.

Well, I'm certainly glad you were here to provide that logically proven, exhaustively thought-out summary. I hope you didn't strain anything coming up with it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So, as to the meaning of words, there is no mention whatsoever of fetuses or the unborn in the Constitution,

therefore, the correct ruling in Roe v. Wade should have been that a woman has the right to an abortion ANY time during a pregnancy, not just in the first trimester,

based on her right of privacy.

Agree or disagree?

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is a personal matter of the woman, which would NOT prohibit prosecution of anyone performing an abortion. Such an interpretation would prohibit the use of public funds to pay someone to perform an abortion.

A strict interpretation would be that abortion is not a Constitutional issue, and therefore it devolves to the states to make what laws regarding it that they choose to (via the Tenth Amendment). I'm not sure if that's what you were attempting to say or not.

But privacy is. A woman's right to privacy, in a strict johnwk-style application of the Constitution, would protect her right to an abortion for the entire term of her pregnancy.