So, you think that states should be able to violate American citizen's constitutional rights simply because they occupy a state?
The people of the states get to determine their particular situation. Their constitutional rights protect them from the federal government. They are not inherent, nor are they universal. That was the whole point of federalism. And that is the government that was created in 1788. In a state, you have state laws. They were created by lawmakers elected to the state legislature by the people of the state.
That's very fascist of you!
This is zone one. There is nothing fascist about my statements as those are the same statements made by the founders. Read Federalist 45 if you need a refresher.
You can stop with the "I can't force you to take my point of view so I'll insult you" approach.
Roe was a fabrication and was overturned because that right is nowhere in the Constitution.
Roe was a violation of the 10th amendment. And you are correct, there is no right in there.
That's exactly backwards of what we are discussing.
It's simply a different way of looking at it and how some people think the federal government can do things like that. The SCOTUS certainly thought they had a path making the call in 1973. As I said, it's a constant battle. The SCOTUS was wrong and that got corrected.
It was not based on the 14th Amendment, and it was far longer than 60 years before Roe was ruled on, if that is what you are saying.
What I am saying is that the doctrine of incorporation didn't start until 1925, long after the 14th was passed. It was a fabrication by the SCOTUS based on ambiguous language in the 14th amendment. We didn't vote on it (incorporation). Some day, I hope we do. Roe was just dragged from Douglas' backside....sorry I brought it up...sheesh.
Why is the 14th Amendment "squalid"?
This site isn't the greatest, but the Lew Rockwell site is undergoing maintenance. There are several reasons this whole thing stinks....but I think this is the biggest....
But somewhere along the way, the true history of the Fourteenth Amendment's adoption has disappeared down a memory hole. When one reviews that history, it becomes clear why Pilon and Shankman prefer to discuss the amendment in the abstract, antiseptic terms of social contract theory. An "immaculate conception" account of ratification suits their argument better: the real story's a little too dirty for the kids.
We return to 1865. As the legally reconstituted Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Republican-dominated Congress refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining, rump Congress to propose the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Radical Republicans responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed them under martial law.
To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. As one Republican described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet."
President Andrew Johnson saw the Reconstruction Act as "absolute despotism," a "bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people." In his veto message, he stated that "such a power ha[d] not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years." Sounding for all the world like Roger Pilon, Johnson asked, "Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this?" and answered, "Certainly not, if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which it imposes."
The rump Republican Congress overrode Johnson's veto and enacted statutes that shrank both the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction and the Court itself just in case the judicial branch got any funny ideas of its own about constitutionalism. Jackboot on its neck, the South ratified, but not before New Jersey and Ohio, aghast at Republican tyranny, rescinded their previous ratifications of the mendment. Even with the fictional consent of the Southern states, the republicans needed New Jersey and Ohio to put the amendment over the top. No matter; by joint resolution, Congress declared the amendment valid. Thus it you'll excuse the phrasing-- "passed into law."
The squalid history of the Fourteenth Amendment poses serious problems for Roger Pilon. Pilon's critique of the New Deal has always included withering scorn for FDR's extraconstitutional thuggery, in the form of the infamous Court-packing scheme. As Pilon tells the story, FDR muscled the Court into approving radical constitutional changes that could be enacted only by means of Article V's amendment process. The people never delegated to the federal government the powers it took for itself during the New Deal. But neither did they delegate to the federal goverment the powers it seized in 1868. Any New Deal aficionado who knows his history is entitled to wonder about Pilon's selective indignation: does he invoke the principles of consent and legitimacy only against constitutional changes he dislikes?
