Sorry: Another RvW thread - Two Avenues of Analysis

[DGS49]

There are two unrelated aspects of Dobbs v. JWHO, and dare I say that unless they are considered separately there can be no rational discussion or conclusion.

Aspect A is the Constitutional question. Were Roe and Casey on "solid ground," Constitutionally speaking?

Aspect B is, (1) what is the best public policy the U.S. might adopt with respect to abortion, and (2) how might that policy be implemented?

Imagine that you are in a position to dictate U.S. policy. You would probably say that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." The question would be, how rare? Only before a "heartbeat"? Rape & Incest? Obviously, there would have to be some work on details.

But Congress has NO POWER to create such a law. Congress is constrained by Article I and the Tenth Amendment, and NOTHING in Article I gives them any power to regulate abortions, other than possibly whether they would be paid for in military/veterans' hospitals. The ONLY way to implement such a policy would be by a Constitutional Amendment, and there is simply no consensus large enough on the question for this to be a viable (play on words intended) option.

The previous policy, wrongly attributed to the RvW case (actually it was Casey v PP), was based on what all reputable attorneys believe was a piece of judicial "legislation" which in turn was based on a fictitious "Constitutional right of privacy" that a Leftist cabal on the Court created.

As a Constitutional matter, the overturning of these abortion cases was inevitable. The only question was when, and what case would ultimately "tee up" the issue for the unavoidable overturn. The incessant harassment by Democrat Senators of Republic Federal Court nominees was was necessary because those senators knew that the abortion cases were hanging by a thread.

The excoriation of the Supreme Court justices is entirely based on the notion that they have CHANGED FEDERAL POLICY in a way that the critics find offensive and unacceptable. But the decision had nothing to do with public policy. The Court clearly and emphatically stated that it IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC POLICY BUSINESS and is handing that role back to the State legislatures (where it belongs under our Constitution).

Hence, the criticism for the most part is vacuous and unsupportable by any rational analysis. And the politicians WHO KNOW BETTER are feeding the hysteria in the hope of using this case as a political tool to shore up their miserable prospects in November. They are as evil as the baby-killers who they hope to inspire.

Indeed I have yet to read a single article that even purports to dispute this case on rational Constitutional grounds. Even the DISSENTING OPINION is vacuous and makes no cogent Constitutional arguments - because there are none to be made.

 

[Concerned American]

There are two unrelated aspects of Dobbs v. JWHO, and dare I say that unless they are considered separately there can be no rational discussion or conclusion.

Aspect A is the Constitutional question. Were Roe and Casey on "solid ground," Constitutionally speaking?

Aspect B is, (1) what is the best public policy the U.S. might adopt with respect to abortion, and (2) how might that policy be implemented?

Imagine that you are in a position to dictate U.S. policy. You would probably say that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." The question would be, how rare? Only before a "heartbeat"? Rape & Incest? Obviously, there would have to be some work on details.

But Congress has NO POWER to create such a law. Congress is constrained by Article I and the Tenth Amendment, and NOTHING in Article I gives them any power to regulate abortions, other than possibly whether they would be paid for in military/veterans' hospitals. The ONLY way to implement such a policy would be by a Constitutional Amendment, and there is simply no consensus large enough on the question for this to be a viable (play on words intended) option.

The previous policy, wrongly attributed to the RvW case (actually it was Casey v PP), was based on what all reputable attorneys believe was a piece of judicial "legislation" which in turn was based on a fictitious "Constitutional right of privacy" that a Leftist cabal on the Court created.

As a Constitutional matter, the overturning of these abortion cases was inevitable. The only question was when, and what case would ultimately "tee up" the issue for the unavoidable overturn. The incessant harassment by Democrat Senators of Republic Federal Court nominees was was necessary because those senators knew that the abortion cases were hanging by a thread.

The excoriation of the Supreme Court justices is entirely based on the notion that they have CHANGED FEDERAL POLICY in a way that the critics find offensive and unacceptable. But the decision had nothing to do with public policy. The Court clearly and emphatically stated that it IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC POLICY BUSINESS and is handing that role back to the State legislatures (where it belongs under our Constitution).

Hence, the criticism for the most part is vacuous and unsupportable by any rational analysis. And the politicians WHO KNOW BETTER are feeding the hysteria in the hope of using this case as a political tool to shore up their miserable prospects in November. They are as evil as the baby-killers who they hope to inspire.

Indeed I have yet to read a single article that even purports to dispute this case on rational Constitutional grounds. Even the DISSENTING OPINION is vacuous and makes no cogent Constitutional arguments - because there are none to be made.

And ain't it a coinkidink that the same "peaceful protests" that we saw BLM/Antifa/DNC two years ago have already reared their ugly heads in NYC and LA blocking freeways and in Phoenix, protesters turned violent and attempted to enter the capital bldg. while congress was in session---is this an insurrection? Where is all the righteous indignation from the left?

 

[Chuz Life]

There are two unrelated aspects of Dobbs v. JWHO, and dare I say that unless they are considered separately there can be no rational discussion or conclusion.

Aspect A is the Constitutional question. Were Roe and Casey on "solid ground," Constitutionally speaking?

Aspect B is, (1) what is the best public policy the U.S. might adopt with respect to abortion, and (2) how might that policy be implemented?

I'll keep it simple

A: No

B: Establish Personhood

 

[woodwork201]

There are two unrelated aspects of Dobbs v. JWHO, and dare I say that unless they are considered separately there can be no rational discussion or conclusion.

Aspect A is the Constitutional question. Were Roe and Casey on "solid ground," Constitutionally speaking?

Aspect B is, (1) what is the best public policy the U.S. might adopt with respect to abortion, and (2) how might that policy be implemented?

Imagine that you are in a position to dictate U.S. policy. You would probably say that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." The question would be, how rare? Only before a "heartbeat"? Rape & Incest? Obviously, there would have to be some work on details.

But Congress has NO POWER to create such a law. Congress is constrained by Article I and the Tenth Amendment, and NOTHING in Article I gives them any power to regulate abortions, other than possibly whether they would be paid for in military/veterans' hospitals. The ONLY way to implement such a policy would be by a Constitutional Amendment, and there is simply no consensus large enough on the question for this to be a viable (play on words intended) option.

The previous policy, wrongly attributed to the RvW case (actually it was Casey v PP), was based on what all reputable attorneys believe was a piece of judicial "legislation" which in turn was based on a fictitious "Constitutional right of privacy" that a Leftist cabal on the Court created.

As a Constitutional matter, the overturning of these abortion cases was inevitable. The only question was when, and what case would ultimately "tee up" the issue for the unavoidable overturn. The incessant harassment by Democrat Senators of Republic Federal Court nominees was was necessary because those senators knew that the abortion cases were hanging by a thread.

The excoriation of the Supreme Court justices is entirely based on the notion that they have CHANGED FEDERAL POLICY in a way that the critics find offensive and unacceptable. But the decision had nothing to do with public policy. The Court clearly and emphatically stated that it IS NOT IN THE PUBLIC POLICY BUSINESS and is handing that role back to the State legislatures (where it belongs under our Constitution).

Hence, the criticism for the most part is vacuous and unsupportable by any rational analysis. And the politicians WHO KNOW BETTER are feeding the hysteria in the hope of using this case as a political tool to shore up their miserable prospects in November. They are as evil as the baby-killers who they hope to inspire.

Indeed I have yet to read a single article that even purports to dispute this case on rational Constitutional grounds. Even the DISSENTING OPINION is vacuous and makes no cogent Constitutional arguments - because there are none to be made.

No, you totally missed what the decision stated: There is no US policy and can be no US policy on abortion. It's not in the Constitution and the Federal Government only gets to do what is in the Constitution.

Chuz Life is correct that there's an interest in personhood but that's not an abortion question, that's a human rights, human life question. The United States, hopefully first by the Court since it's faster, and ultimately by constitutional amendment, must recognize that human life begins at conception.

 

[Chuz Life]

No, you totally missed what the decision stated: There is no US policy and can be no US policy on abortion. It's not in the Constitution and the Federal Government only gets to do what is in the Constitution.

Chuz Life is correct that there's an interest in personhood but that's not an abortion question, that's a human rights, human life question. The United States, hopefully first by the Court since it's faster, and ultimately by constitutional amendment, must recognize that human life begins at conception.

The Supreme Court said in Roe (and I agree with them) that "once personhood is established" for children in the womb, they are automatically entitled to Constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment (see my sig.)

No new Constitutional amendment is necessary.

 

[woodwork201]

The Supreme Court said in Roe (and I agree with them) that "once personhood is established" for children in the womb, they are automatically entitled to Constitutional protections under the 14th Amendment (see my sig.)

No new Constitutional amendment is necessary.

But that argument didn't prevail in Roe and, anyway, Roe is overturned. The argument is correct and if the Court says the fetus is a person - and it is - then the 14th Amendment applies. The problem is, the next Court, or a stacked Court, would overturn that and undo the idea of personhood. It would swing like a pendulum for centuries.

Yes, an amendment is necessary.

 

[task0778]

But Congress has NO POWER to create such a law. Congress is constrained by Article I and the Tenth Amendment, and NOTHING in Article I gives them any power to regulate abortions

Article 1, Section 8 says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That right there gives Congress the power to create pretty much any law they want to. Obviously, they cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights, but as we've just found out last week that does not include abortions. So yes, the US Congress could create legislation governing the legality of abortion.

Aspect A is the Constitutional question. Were Roe and Casey on "solid ground," Constitutionally speaking?

Absolutely not. Those 2 cases are prime examples of judicial overreach.

Aspect B is, (1) what is the best public policy the U.S. might adopt with respect to abortion, and (2) how might that policy be implemented?

At the federal level I would say that the US oughta require abortions to be legal up to the 13th week of a pregnancy, or at whatever point in time they can decide on. After that, NO. Unless they add some exceptions like the mother's life or rape and incest. Personally, I don't like it. Ending a human life ought not to be acceptable or legal, even if that life is yet to be born. At least not after it's too late to take a morning after pill. And I also believe that contraceptives and that morning after pill oughta be free.

 

[BackAgain]

Article 1, Section 8 says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That right there gives Congress the power to create pretty much any law they want to.

Your spin on that portion of Article I which speaks of “enumerated powers,” ironically, would in the very same breath nullify the limitation imposed by virtue of Article I. And you’re wrong obviously. Your parsing of that sentence is a clue.

The Constitution, it has been said, is not a suicide pact. Similarly, it is not a self-refuting pointless effort. “Enumerated powers” do not yield to a clause which you misinterpret as constituting a negation of enumerated powers.

 

[woodwork201]

Article 1, Section 8 says "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States". That right there gives Congress the power to create pretty much any law they want to. Obviously, they cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights, but as we've just found out last week that does not include abortions. So yes, the US Congress could create legislation governing the legality of abortion.





Absolutely not. Those 2 cases are prime examples of judicial overreach.





At the federal level I would say that the US oughta require abortions to be legal up to the 13th week of a pregnancy, or at whatever point in time they can decide on. After that, NO. Unless they add some exceptions like the mother's life or rape and incest. Personally, I don't like it. Ending a human life ought not to be acceptable or legal, even if that life is yet to be born. At least not after it's too late to take a morning after pill. And I also believe that contraceptives and that morning after pill oughta be free.

I've proven it to you before - proven it beyond any possible doubt. You know for certain that is not the intent of the general welfare clause. I've provided the exact quotes from Madison and Jefferson.

The general welfare clause is a restriction on government and does not grant any power. It simply requires that when they tax and spend, or when they exercise any of the enumerated powers, that it must be done with an eye to the general welfare of the nation rather than to the individual or localized welfare of a state, a region, a person, a company. The general welfare clause actually bans federal welfare and not authorizes it.

What would be the point of enumerating powers only to say, who cares what we enumerated, Congress can do anything they wish. What would be the point of the Constitution if Congress can do anything they wish.

 

[Chuz Life]

But that argument didn't prevail in Roe and, anyway, Roe is overturned. The argument is correct and if the Court says the fetus is a person - and it is - then the 14th Amendment applies. The problem is, the next Court, or a stacked Court, would overturn that and undo the idea of personhood. It would swing like a pendulum for centuries.

Yes, an amendment is necessary.

Might have to agree to disagree.

For example, if the SCOTUS would have ruled in the Dredd Scott case that slaves were person's and entitled to the equal protection of our laws under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and in favor of Dredd Scott. . . A big part of the Civil War might have been avoided.

Does that pendulum continue to swing?

 

[DGS49]

Thank you woodwork. The illusion that the "general welfare" wording in Article I gives Congress plenary powers is an infuriating one, especially since it was so long-ago decided.

For those who want a contemporary proof that the "general welfare" argument is a loser, recall the first challenge to the Affordable Care Act. If the PERSONAL MANDATE had been viewed as a PERSONAL MANDATE then the law would have been tossed out; this was the main Constitutional issue in the case! Justice Roberts construed the personal mandate as NOTHING MORE THAN A TAX, and since Congress has the right to impose taxes, it was allowed.

But if Congress had the plenary power that task0778 asserts, there would have been no case at all. What could possibly be the basis for any challenge if Congress has the power to do anything it says promotes the "general welfare"?

 

[woodwork201]

Might have to agree to disagree.

For example, if the SCOTUS would have ruled in the Dredd Scott case that slaves were person's and entitled to the equal protection of our laws under the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and in favor of Dredd Scott. . . A big part of the Civil War might have been avoided.

Does that pendulum continue to swing?

I really think you are pro-abortion. Of course the slavery pendulum doesn't continue to swing - There is a FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AGAINST IT YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

Edit: Did the pendulum just swing in the Court? Where do you think that pendulum will go if the left can get control of the Court? Do you seriously believe it Roe won't be the law again?