Could There ever be a case FOR Eugenics?

posted by The Vagabond

posted by donwhite
I have little or no regard for Amendments 9 and 10. Both are rhetorical. Both are too vague

The same could be said of 4 (no definition of unreasonable and what is cause for a search, or a standard of probability being undefined), 6 (how slow can speedy be exactly? Imagine how long we'd have to deal with Bush if we had "speedy elections" rather than a time line), 8 (compare it with 7... it's dollar amounts when we are defining who doesn't have a right to legal redress, but it's vague when we're talking about what the government can set as your bail). If you wanted to get really picky, you could add 1, since there is no definition of speech or religion- is it a religion if it doesn't revere a traditional Western god? Is burning someone in effigy speech or an act of intimidation? If we wanted to, we could invalidate half of the bill of rights . . It gets confusing mainly when read in the context of 200 years of abuse and flat out ignorance of the constitution. [Edited by Don W]

I want to address only your commentary to my demigration of the 9th and 10th amendments. American jurisprudence (except Louisiana) is based on the English Common Law. That in turn is based on the legal principle of “stare decisis” or prior decisions. In other words, Common Law is also case law and is not limited to enforcing statutory law.

Except in cases of “first impression” a court is obliged to follow the applicable prior decisions or case law. Even this rule - stare decisis - is not sacrosanct. The 1954 Brown v. Topeka Board case set aside or overruled the earlier 1896 Plessey v. Fergusson case and thereby abolished Jim Crow, the popular term for “separate but equal” approved by the Plessey case. Sometimes courts have to be smart say wise enough to NOT follow stare decisis. To do that appropriately is what makes a great jurist. Every descriptive word or general term in our Constitution and its amendments has been legally defined since the beginning of our current government. And some of those decisions are founded in cases that took place before the 1787 Constitution.

Anglo-Saxon based “Due Process” is mentioned in the 5th and 14th Amendments. “Due Process” is the grand catch-all phrase that embodies all the other “rights” of Englishmen and their legal descendants. It has been defined 100s of times. The writers of our Constitution thought it better to use 2 words when a 1000 could have been employed. “Bail” has also been often defined and from my poor memory, is primally that smallest amount most likely to assure the accused’s regular attendance in court as the case progresses and secondarily, a sum the accused can afford. In most states the charge of murder is the only non-bailable offense, and that must be in cases where the “proof is great and the probability likely.” Half of tort law and half of criminal law relates to defining and explaining the conduct of a “reasonable man” in like or similar circumstances.

Fortunately for all of us, our Constitution does not anywhere require that it be interpreted only as it was meant to be in 1789. Heck, the people who wrote it could not agree on what it meant. Federalist Paper No. 84 argues against a Bill of Rights. “Original intent” is a place to hide behind when you want to do evil things. I say that because it is a lie to claim to “know” the original intent of the Foundling Fathers. Not only did they not “know” but they frequently changed their minds and ultimately had to compromise on many issues.

There is no provision in our Constitution for the Judiciary to have power to review the acts of the Legislative or the Executive branches. It was always argued that was the case, but it took the leading case, Marbury v. Madison in 1803, under Federalist Chief Justice Marshall (who Jefferson hated) to make the ruling all future cases cited as the basis for that authority. Today it is well accepted the Supreme Court has the last word. I give you the US v. Nixon case where Nixon surrendered the tapes he knew would force his resignation. I give you the 2000 election. Choosing our president , on a 5 to 4 vote. Talk about power!

[edit on 5/14/2007 by donwhite]

Dock6

As one of those "it happened to me" stories, I'd like to point out the flaw in your logic. I don't know who you've been hanging around but most of us are NOT "excreta, worthless, pointles lives", etc. "Absolutely no value"? To whom? I don't live my life for others and I don't expect others to live their lives for me.

MY life has value and is not pointless. Your logic suggests that because I have invented no great technologies (I have invented a few things that were not earth-shattering), have painted no masterpieces, have only produced 5 children that have also not invented great technologies, etc. that my life is "so what?" in your value system. I wasn't put on this planet to give meaning to your life or improve your life style. If I only eat, produce excreta, breed and own a beauty shop (I don't own a beauty shop) then in your estimation, I'm not worthy of life? Shame on you.

Some of us would prefer to be "useless eaters" than to live up to our full potential (if we were given half the opportunity to do so) than to knock ourselves out casting our pearls before swine who think that most of their fellow beings are not even worth sharing the same air space with.

Maybe when we learn to consider our fellow beings as valuable then we'll finally be motivated enough to end their suffering by eradicating the causes of their suffering. Maybe then we'll start thinking of ways to give everyone a piece of the pie rather than trying to shoo as many of them away from the table as possible to make sure our own bellies stay full.

I'd rather light a candle than to curse the darkness.