Question
-
led mike wrote:
Since scores of legal experts down through the years have debated the interpretation without successful conclusion it seems unlikely that adding the (D)espeir interpretation to the debate will result in a sudden consensus. Wouldn’t you agree?
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
Red Stateler wrote:
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
You are creeping me out again. :sigh:
led mike
-
Red Stateler wrote:
I agree insomuch that those who justify such an interpretation only do so by stressing the "living document" aspect which allows for arbitrary interpretation of law without legislative basis. That's the definition of tyranny.
You are creeping me out again. :sigh:
led mike
led mike wrote:
You are creeping me out again.
I understand. My brilliance is often intimidating.
-
led mike wrote:
You are creeping me out again.
I understand. My brilliance is often intimidating.
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
Come on, you can look this up on wikipedia same as the rest of us -- here's your teaser. "According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
If you actually read the 14thamendment, you'll see that it has nothing to do with abortion whatsoever and is intentionally misinterpreted to suit the whims of the left. However, when applied as it was in Roe v. Wade, it actually means that states are stripped of their ability to legislate anything. It's an incorrect and anarchical interpretation. The pertinent portion cited by Roe v. Wade is:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.The first part is viewed as a broad protection of personal liberties (when "liberty" here actually means access to self-government). It is intentionally taken out of context to mean that the state cannot legislate anything that pertains to a citizen (which is basically anything at all). However, this section is coupled with the words "due process of law" (the ignored part), which shows that the amendment pertains only to equal protection and not anarchy. States are permitted under this amendment and the 10th to legislate things like abortion restrictions, so long as they are applied equally (e.g. abortion can't be illegal only for white women). Ironically, slavery was not as egregious an assault on equal protection as abortion, but a corrupt interpretation of the equal protections clause is cited to justify it.
Don't be a nut, dude. I *know* you're smarter than the arguments you make. I think everyone agrees, or ought to, that there are fundamental rights possessed by americans not found in the bill of rights. Among them are the rights to privacy, marriage and procreation, interstate travel, and to freely enter into contracts. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, so all I can really do is parrot what wikipedia says. But regardless, it's that "due process" phrase which seems to be the kicker (the same phrase is also used in the 5th amendment). Because of all of that "due process" is interpreted as meaning something more than simply following the laws of the land. It seems to have been commonly, although somewhat controversially, understood to mean that there are unenumerated restrictions on the edits that come out of the three branches of law (I guess the idea is that "process" is not necessarily "due process") But this is all relatively long established. So way back in 1934, the court declared due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental". With that, abortion laws were said to violate privacy, which the court felt was quite rooted in the traditions and conscience of the american people (I'm pretty sure privacy was well established as a fundamental right at the time of RvW)(I agree with privacy as a right, for what it's worth). So all of a sudden this becomes a much more interesting debate than "the constitution doesn't mention abortion!!!" Like I said, it doesn't explicitly mention a right to marry and have kids, either. If the phrase "due process" in the 5th and 14th amendments is used to establish a basis for "natural law" and that being integral to the US legal system without having to explicitly say it, then the debate becomes over balancing nature's laws and morality and all that. Go read the dissents in the case. White and Rehnquist both wrote them (7-2 decision, btw). I'm sure both of them are intelligent and well-thought out; I'm also sure neither of them include the argument "The constitution doesn't mention abortion. Something is a right if and only if it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Therefore abortion is not a right."
-
Don't be a nut, dude. I *know* you're smarter than the arguments you make. I think everyone agrees, or ought to, that there are fundamental rights possessed by americans not found in the bill of rights. Among them are the rights to privacy, marriage and procreation, interstate travel, and to freely enter into contracts. I'm not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, so all I can really do is parrot what wikipedia says. But regardless, it's that "due process" phrase which seems to be the kicker (the same phrase is also used in the 5th amendment). Because of all of that "due process" is interpreted as meaning something more than simply following the laws of the land. It seems to have been commonly, although somewhat controversially, understood to mean that there are unenumerated restrictions on the edits that come out of the three branches of law (I guess the idea is that "process" is not necessarily "due process") But this is all relatively long established. So way back in 1934, the court declared due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental". With that, abortion laws were said to violate privacy, which the court felt was quite rooted in the traditions and conscience of the american people (I'm pretty sure privacy was well established as a fundamental right at the time of RvW)(I agree with privacy as a right, for what it's worth). So all of a sudden this becomes a much more interesting debate than "the constitution doesn't mention abortion!!!" Like I said, it doesn't explicitly mention a right to marry and have kids, either. If the phrase "due process" in the 5th and 14th amendments is used to establish a basis for "natural law" and that being integral to the US legal system without having to explicitly say it, then the debate becomes over balancing nature's laws and morality and all that. Go read the dissents in the case. White and Rehnquist both wrote them (7-2 decision, btw). I'm sure both of them are intelligent and well-thought out; I'm also sure neither of them include the argument "The constitution doesn't mention abortion. Something is a right if and only if it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Therefore abortion is not a right."
Nathan Addy wrote:
I think everyone agrees, or ought to, that there are fundamental rights possessed by americans not found in the bill of rights. Among them are the rights to privacy, marriage and procreation, interstate travel, and to freely enter into contracts.
That's simply wrong. The Bill of Rights was designed as restrictions on government to prevent it from deteriorating into authoritarianism. The rule of law has a purpose in a democracy, and that is to ensure that the people maintain control of their destiny and government. Arbitrary and unwritten "rights" serve tyrannous goals by allowing those in power to dismiss the will of the people (as they did with Roe v. Wade) and override them with personal opinion. The left's tendency towards debauchery and minority status encourages their acceptance of this tyranny so long as its consistent with their desires. Undermining democracy does not seem to be a concern.
Nathan Addy wrote:
With that, abortion laws were said to violate privacy, which the court felt was quite rooted in the traditions and conscience of the american people (I'm pretty sure privacy was well established as a fundamental right at the time of RvW)(I agree with privacy as a right, for what it's worth).
There were no laws securing abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade. The justification for Roe v. Wade was not privacy, nor does "privacy" even pertain to a criminal act (and it was criminal in all 50 states at the time). There are also no consistutional guarantees to privacy (except illegal search and seizure, which allows the legislature to determine what constitutes legal search and seizure), regardless of your wishes.
Nathan Addy wrote:
Go read the dissents in the case. White and Rehnquist both wrote them (7-2 decision, btw). I'm sure both of them are intelligent and well-thought out; I'm also sure neither of them include the argument "The constitution doesn't mention abortion. Something is a right if and only if it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Therefore abortion is not a right."
I have read it and I never said that the justification is that the constitution doesn't mention abortion. The legal justification is inherent in the 10th amendment which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectivel -
creepy != intimidating It is completely impossible for you to resist spinning I guess. :~
led mike
Where, exactly, did I say creepy == intimidating, (dr)ed mike?!?! Why are you making stuff up???
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
I think everyone agrees, or ought to, that there are fundamental rights possessed by americans not found in the bill of rights. Among them are the rights to privacy, marriage and procreation, interstate travel, and to freely enter into contracts.
That's simply wrong. The Bill of Rights was designed as restrictions on government to prevent it from deteriorating into authoritarianism. The rule of law has a purpose in a democracy, and that is to ensure that the people maintain control of their destiny and government. Arbitrary and unwritten "rights" serve tyrannous goals by allowing those in power to dismiss the will of the people (as they did with Roe v. Wade) and override them with personal opinion. The left's tendency towards debauchery and minority status encourages their acceptance of this tyranny so long as its consistent with their desires. Undermining democracy does not seem to be a concern.
Nathan Addy wrote:
With that, abortion laws were said to violate privacy, which the court felt was quite rooted in the traditions and conscience of the american people (I'm pretty sure privacy was well established as a fundamental right at the time of RvW)(I agree with privacy as a right, for what it's worth).
There were no laws securing abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade. The justification for Roe v. Wade was not privacy, nor does "privacy" even pertain to a criminal act (and it was criminal in all 50 states at the time). There are also no consistutional guarantees to privacy (except illegal search and seizure, which allows the legislature to determine what constitutes legal search and seizure), regardless of your wishes.
Nathan Addy wrote:
Go read the dissents in the case. White and Rehnquist both wrote them (7-2 decision, btw). I'm sure both of them are intelligent and well-thought out; I'm also sure neither of them include the argument "The constitution doesn't mention abortion. Something is a right if and only if it is explicitly mentioned in the constitution. Therefore abortion is not a right."
I have read it and I never said that the justification is that the constitution doesn't mention abortion. The legal justification is inherent in the 10th amendment which states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectivelI've got to run, but I'll write a more extensive response in a bit. For the moment, this is what jumped out.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Bill of Rights was designed as restrictions on government to prevent it from deteriorating into authoritarianism.
How does an interpretation of "due process" as implying natural law (which basically states that the government is not free to make *any* law it wants, even if it isn't expressly prohibited by the constitution. For instance, even though not expressly prohibited by the constitution, a law saying men and women could nevermore have sex would be unconstitutional; it's was outside the bounds of "natural law" and could therefore not be *due* process.) give more power to the government? Saying there are unenumerated things the government can't do, based on what your definition of "due" is, would seem to counteract government power, don't you think? ====================== BTW - it took me all of 1.2 seconds to find the opinion of the court... 3rd point held in the summary - "3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164." A couple facts about the arguments in the case: "[Roe] claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments." "[Roe's Physician] alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments." Majority opinion "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific
-
I've got to run, but I'll write a more extensive response in a bit. For the moment, this is what jumped out.
Red Stateler wrote:
The Bill of Rights was designed as restrictions on government to prevent it from deteriorating into authoritarianism.
How does an interpretation of "due process" as implying natural law (which basically states that the government is not free to make *any* law it wants, even if it isn't expressly prohibited by the constitution. For instance, even though not expressly prohibited by the constitution, a law saying men and women could nevermore have sex would be unconstitutional; it's was outside the bounds of "natural law" and could therefore not be *due* process.) give more power to the government? Saying there are unenumerated things the government can't do, based on what your definition of "due" is, would seem to counteract government power, don't you think? ====================== BTW - it took me all of 1.2 seconds to find the opinion of the court... 3rd point held in the summary - "3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164." A couple facts about the arguments in the case: "[Roe] claimed that the Texas statutes were unconstitutionally vague and that they abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments." "[Roe's Physician] alleged that, as a consequence, the statutes were vague and uncertain, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they violated his own and his patients' rights to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship and his own right to practice medicine, rights he claimed were guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments." Majority opinion "The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific
Nathan Addy wrote:
How does an interpretation of "due process" as implying natural law (which basically states that the government is not free to make *any* law it wants, even if it isn't expressly prohibited by the constitution. For instance, even though not expressly prohibited by the constitution, a law saying men and women could nevermore have sex would be unconstitutional; it's was outside the bounds of "natural law" and could therefore not be *due* process.) give more power to the government? Saying there are unenumerated things the government can't do, based on what your definition of "due" is, would seem to counteract government power, don't you think?
Once again you're invoking ill-defined terms that have no basis in legality. "Natural Law" does not pertain to reproduction but the concept that man derives his rights from God and therefore has the authority to shape government as he sees fit. A democracy simply wouldn't outlaw reproduction, so your example is in error. But it's simply not something that needs to be addressed directly in the constitution and is left up to the people. The 14th amendment states that if reproduction is prohibited, it would have to be prohibited universally instead of for a minority group.
Nathan Addy wrote:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action...
This is the portion I am referring to. Please note the use of the term "personal liberty", which is not present in the 14th amendment and is the "legal" justification for Roe v. Wade and which I referenced as the basis of the decision above. Privacy was invoked but was not the legal basis of the decision. In fact, as I said at length above, the corrupt reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to read "personal liberty" instead of "liberty" is responsible for the Roe v. Wade decision as well as a host of other anti-democratic rulings.
Nathan Addy wrote:
So jabber jabber all you want about your lies, or purposeful ignorances, or whatever you're basing your opinions on, but as far as I am concerned, you are either lying or woefully mistaken about saying "The justification for Roe v. Wade was not privacy" and "there are no constitutional guarantees to privacy". I mean, do you honestly think I am so dumb I couldn't find the opinion and trivially prove to you that privacy p
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
How does an interpretation of "due process" as implying natural law (which basically states that the government is not free to make *any* law it wants, even if it isn't expressly prohibited by the constitution. For instance, even though not expressly prohibited by the constitution, a law saying men and women could nevermore have sex would be unconstitutional; it's was outside the bounds of "natural law" and could therefore not be *due* process.) give more power to the government? Saying there are unenumerated things the government can't do, based on what your definition of "due" is, would seem to counteract government power, don't you think?
Once again you're invoking ill-defined terms that have no basis in legality. "Natural Law" does not pertain to reproduction but the concept that man derives his rights from God and therefore has the authority to shape government as he sees fit. A democracy simply wouldn't outlaw reproduction, so your example is in error. But it's simply not something that needs to be addressed directly in the constitution and is left up to the people. The 14th amendment states that if reproduction is prohibited, it would have to be prohibited universally instead of for a minority group.
Nathan Addy wrote:
This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action...
This is the portion I am referring to. Please note the use of the term "personal liberty", which is not present in the 14th amendment and is the "legal" justification for Roe v. Wade and which I referenced as the basis of the decision above. Privacy was invoked but was not the legal basis of the decision. In fact, as I said at length above, the corrupt reinterpretation of the 14th amendment to read "personal liberty" instead of "liberty" is responsible for the Roe v. Wade decision as well as a host of other anti-democratic rulings.
Nathan Addy wrote:
So jabber jabber all you want about your lies, or purposeful ignorances, or whatever you're basing your opinions on, but as far as I am concerned, you are either lying or woefully mistaken about saying "The justification for Roe v. Wade was not privacy" and "there are no constitutional guarantees to privacy". I mean, do you honestly think I am so dumb I couldn't find the opinion and trivially prove to you that privacy p
This is getting ridiculous. I certainly never said that there weren't opinions that could be held, and arguments that couldn't be made against abortion. I saw PLENTY of fodder in my 30 seconds of investigation. For instance, due process is interpreted to give non-stated rights, but those rights (like all the rest) aren't absolute. Something was said about the government being able to curtail rights in a limited manner for specific purposes (can't yell fire in a theater)(freedom of association doesn't mean you can't get slapped with a restraining order)(etc). I could argue that neither of your quotes refer to privacy at all. My guess is that both White and Rehnquist believe in a right to privacy. What they seem to be arguing is against the ease of deriving new rights (right to abortion) based on old rights (right to privacy). As a "for instance", I believe in a right to privacy, but if someone used that as an argument for a right to not being taxed (they want to stay private enough that the government isn't even aware of them), I would disagree, and would say the exact same thing as the two dissenting Justices: that is a bad application of one right to incorrectly create another. But it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether the original right or privacy actually did exist or not. I don't necessarily think your opinions are wrong, just your facts. It is factually incorrect to state that the decision in Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with privacy. It obviously had everything to do with privacy. You are certainly free to argue that the right to life (which you'll be interested to know is also not mentioned in the constitution) should take precedence over a right to privacy. That would be a fine argument. But of course that isn't what you did. You said that the "justification for Roe v. Wade was not privacy". You also said you had read the opinions. Any fool can plainly see that the decision in Roe vs Wade was based on an idea that the right to privacy implied a derived right to abortion. I have no choice to conclude that either you are lying about reading it, were unwilling to accept what you read, or unable to understand what you read. Since I assume you're a smart guy, and if you are capable of finding legal opinions online, are able to read and identify the word "privacy", I'll assume it wasn't an inability to understand. So either you are lying (which I doubt), or willfully ignorant. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with the decision; I do have a problem with you saying the d
-
This is getting ridiculous. I certainly never said that there weren't opinions that could be held, and arguments that couldn't be made against abortion. I saw PLENTY of fodder in my 30 seconds of investigation. For instance, due process is interpreted to give non-stated rights, but those rights (like all the rest) aren't absolute. Something was said about the government being able to curtail rights in a limited manner for specific purposes (can't yell fire in a theater)(freedom of association doesn't mean you can't get slapped with a restraining order)(etc). I could argue that neither of your quotes refer to privacy at all. My guess is that both White and Rehnquist believe in a right to privacy. What they seem to be arguing is against the ease of deriving new rights (right to abortion) based on old rights (right to privacy). As a "for instance", I believe in a right to privacy, but if someone used that as an argument for a right to not being taxed (they want to stay private enough that the government isn't even aware of them), I would disagree, and would say the exact same thing as the two dissenting Justices: that is a bad application of one right to incorrectly create another. But it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether the original right or privacy actually did exist or not. I don't necessarily think your opinions are wrong, just your facts. It is factually incorrect to state that the decision in Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with privacy. It obviously had everything to do with privacy. You are certainly free to argue that the right to life (which you'll be interested to know is also not mentioned in the constitution) should take precedence over a right to privacy. That would be a fine argument. But of course that isn't what you did. You said that the "justification for Roe v. Wade was not privacy". You also said you had read the opinions. Any fool can plainly see that the decision in Roe vs Wade was based on an idea that the right to privacy implied a derived right to abortion. I have no choice to conclude that either you are lying about reading it, were unwilling to accept what you read, or unable to understand what you read. Since I assume you're a smart guy, and if you are capable of finding legal opinions online, are able to read and identify the word "privacy", I'll assume it wasn't an inability to understand. So either you are lying (which I doubt), or willfully ignorant. I've got no problem with you disagreeing with the decision; I do have a problem with you saying the d
Nathan Addy wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. I certainly never said that there weren't opinions that could be held, and arguments that couldn't be made against abortion. I saw PLENTY of fodder in my 30 seconds of investigation. For instance, due process is interpreted to give non-stated rights, but those rights (like all the rest) aren't absolute. Something was said about the government being able to curtail rights in a limited manner for specific purposes (can't yell fire in a theater)(freedom of association doesn't mean you can't get slapped with a restraining order)(etc).
But you did say that there was constitutional support for abortion. Neither you nor the justices who handed down Roe v. Wade, however, are able to find any constitutional basis for your arguments (as stated by Rehnquist). I stated that there is no constitutional basis for it and your response was tertiary unrelated rulings. This is the danger of the arbitrary "living constitution" approach to the judiciary. Democracy is undermined by arbitrary decisions handed down by an oligarchy.
Nathan Addy wrote:
I could argue that neither of your quotes refer to privacy at all. My guess is that both White and Rehnquist believe in a right to privacy. What they seem to be arguing is against the ease of deriving new rights (right to abortion) based on old rights (right to privacy). As a "for instance", I believe in a right to privacy, but if someone used that as an argument for a right to not being taxed (they want to stay private enough that the government isn't even aware of them), I would disagree, and would say the exact same thing as the two dissenting Justices: that is a bad application of one right to incorrectly create another. But it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether the original right or privacy actually did exist or not.
Once again you're asserting your personal beliefs of what constitutes a "right". That's simply not how it works in a democracy. Fundamental rights exist to ensure democracy, not to ensure personal liberty, which is the antithesis of democracy.
Nathan Addy wrote:
I don't necessarily think your opinions are wrong, just your facts. It is factually incorrect to state that the decision in Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with privacy. It obviously had everything to do with privacy.
I specifically said "the justification for Roe v. Wade was not pr
-
Nathan Addy wrote:
This is getting ridiculous. I certainly never said that there weren't opinions that could be held, and arguments that couldn't be made against abortion. I saw PLENTY of fodder in my 30 seconds of investigation. For instance, due process is interpreted to give non-stated rights, but those rights (like all the rest) aren't absolute. Something was said about the government being able to curtail rights in a limited manner for specific purposes (can't yell fire in a theater)(freedom of association doesn't mean you can't get slapped with a restraining order)(etc).
But you did say that there was constitutional support for abortion. Neither you nor the justices who handed down Roe v. Wade, however, are able to find any constitutional basis for your arguments (as stated by Rehnquist). I stated that there is no constitutional basis for it and your response was tertiary unrelated rulings. This is the danger of the arbitrary "living constitution" approach to the judiciary. Democracy is undermined by arbitrary decisions handed down by an oligarchy.
Nathan Addy wrote:
I could argue that neither of your quotes refer to privacy at all. My guess is that both White and Rehnquist believe in a right to privacy. What they seem to be arguing is against the ease of deriving new rights (right to abortion) based on old rights (right to privacy). As a "for instance", I believe in a right to privacy, but if someone used that as an argument for a right to not being taxed (they want to stay private enough that the government isn't even aware of them), I would disagree, and would say the exact same thing as the two dissenting Justices: that is a bad application of one right to incorrectly create another. But it would have no bearing whatsoever on whether the original right or privacy actually did exist or not.
Once again you're asserting your personal beliefs of what constitutes a "right". That's simply not how it works in a democracy. Fundamental rights exist to ensure democracy, not to ensure personal liberty, which is the antithesis of democracy.
Nathan Addy wrote:
I don't necessarily think your opinions are wrong, just your facts. It is factually incorrect to state that the decision in Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with privacy. It obviously had everything to do with privacy.
I specifically said "the justification for Roe v. Wade was not pr
Red Stateler wrote:
Fundamental rights exist to ensure democracy, not to ensure personal liberty, which is the antithesis of democracy.
I think this is going to be a premise that will disqualify our continuing this argument. I just disagree, plain and simple. My own reading of the DoI/Constitution strongly suggests belief in natural law. "They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." From my perspective, the meaning is clear. The basic rights exist in a place beyond governments, given by God and nature, and are basically fundamental rules of the universe. The only reason that government exists is because those rights can be violated, and institutions need to protect them. So I personally feel that personal liberty is the whole point of democracy -- to maximize everyone's personal liberties while ensuring that your liberties don't infringe on mine. If we didn't have a priori natural rights outside of government, we wouldn't need government at all. So this is a big, big fundamental difference between our two views. As for me not providing evidence, I think I have. Tertiary judgments are "actual" law, and past precedent is all the evidence needed, as far as I'm concerned (as well as to every judicial scholar around) -- we all know that privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, so obviously I'm not going to be able to come up with non-interpretative evidence. But the same could be said of the "right to life" (along with the right to the pursuit of happiness, the right to be intimate with your wife, the right to freely enter into contracts, etc, etc.). I have no doubt that if congress somehow passed a law making random killings legal, the supreme court would easily be able to knock that down (using that same due process clause). What can I say? Clearly I believe the constitution has to be interpreted; I don't see how any person could think otherwise (at least without also acknowledging that american citizens have no fundamental rights to travel, to marry, to life, to pursue happiness, to privacy). To me, the Constitution leaves out all of the "natural rights". It's a legal framework of "unnatural rights", that has been designed to ensure that "natural rights" are preserved. You have a right to life and a right to pursue happiness; but that occurs outside the fram
-
Captain See Sharp wrote:
Well, alcohol seems to be more harmful than marijuana,
Alcohol is a drug.
Captain See Sharp wrote:
if you were to ingest marijuana it would be extremely safe
Im my experiance, with a bicycle and the giggles it can cause a couple of bruises The drug industry has a huge impact on society, from the petty criminals who pinch old ladies hand bags to pay for the next hit, the economic effects of massive untaxed trade to the cost on society of the mental repercussions of drug use, particually pot This[^] is an interesting read History shows that baning medical abortion leads to an increase in illegal amature abortion which is far more dangerous, both for the individual and society as a whole
Josh Gray wrote:
The drug industry has a huge impact on society, from the petty criminals who pinch old ladies hand bags to pay for the next hit, the economic effects of massive untaxed trade to the cost on society of the mental repercussions of drug use, particually pot
But what you are talking about is the criminal activity that results from it being illegal in the first place. Cannibis never caused those things. Its criminality under law caused them. The mental repercussions, that's a red herring. Alcohol and caffeine have mental repercussions, not to mention the hoard of drugs we have advertised on tv that do come with a list of side effects. So we're not really worried about side-effects that hurt you. Paxil has mental repercussions. If it was legalized it would be taxed. It would be regulated like alcohol and tobacco. No more criminals.
Josh Gray wrote:
History shows that baning medical abortion leads to an increase in illegal amature abortion which is far more dangerous, both for the individual and society as a whole
Which apparantly is what's happening in cannibis being illegal.
This statement was never false.