reply to post by Honor93
since Roe vs Wade is already established Federal law, what is your point here, exactly ?
this proposal removes an individuals ability to have their applicable case presented whether the court finds it worthy or not.
removing Constitutional pathways to resolution is a failed misdirection, try again.
I know this will likely just extend the debate further, but I stand with Marbury v. Madison on this one -
Any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void
My point is that it's invalid, and would be nullified by the legislation being discussed. And I don't feel it's removing a constitutional pathway
since the matter lies outside the valid purview of the federal government in the first place.
hardly or i woundn't have asked you to explain this preposterous presumption.
It's honestly a somewhat difficult point for me to clarify well, but in root lies in my understanding of due process (good
), dealing mainly with fairness under the applicable state laws in light of the rights of
the mother as compared to the status and rights of the fetus, as well as the legal standing in whatever state we're dealing with. This matter, to my
view at least, does not seem to be a violation of due process in light of all related facts. Likely one of those "agree to disagree" points the two
of us will catch on.
currently, the legal finality lies with the Supreme Court as directed in the Constitution and especially when the state errors in the application of
its granted authority.
And if SCOTUS' invalid authority (my opinion) is nullified by this (unlikely) legislation, that will no longer apply and the states will have the
no, it is not "just like every other matter dealing iwth premature termination of life".
all of the other matters deal with living, breathing and previously born humans.
this, not so much.
Granted, but obvious parallels definitely exist, and the few differences are - once again, in my opinion - resolved otherwise and appropriate to leave
up to the individual states. Much better as I view it than the possibility that in the future, a wave of wrongly-minded political change may sweep
the national landscape and impose a restriction on abortions for ALL with no way out.
That said, there are some "in absentia" allowances that could also be argued to apply in this sort of matter, although I don't see many in the
legal realm even trying to push the due process clause that far for this issue.
i'm positive ScOTUS wouldn't hear such an argument as Roe vs Wade prevents it from ever appearing and SLA prohibits the possibility even
though the need may very well arise.
I was referring to a hypothetical case where this legislation had not been implemented but Roe v. Wade were either under serious challenge otherwise
or no longer in effect. Apologies for lack of clarity.
this is an illusion. i defer to the bill, section 2, article 1, parts A&B.
Then I suppose I'll have to counter-defer to the entirety of section 3.
you are welcome to your opinion, some of which i happen to agree.
Dr Paul is not the target of this conversation, this legislation is.
i too, favor Dr Paul over all other current candidates, however, on this issue, we are polar opposites and just because i favor some of his theories
doesn't mean i'm going to lie down and roll over when something this disturbing comes down the pike.
Fair enough, and we'll have to continue to disagree on the apparent intent and likely interpretation/application of the legislation. In consider it
a far cry better than other (equally unlikely) future possibilities.
now is the time to assess his positions, proposals, voting history, blah, blah, blah, not after the elections. please do not try to lead this
into a Paul bashing thread, it is not.
Agreed, and not my intent - just clarifying as this is a favorite stalking horse of those willing to overlook other ongoing and more egregious
violations of life and liberty.
it is what it is, submitted legislation which is being considered on the Hill, it is a relevant topic.
no offense, but the old adage ... ya gotta take the bad with the good ... is BS.
we don't 'gotta' and we should hold out for a higher standard, Paul is a representative, not a dictator.
and on that note, when Dr Paul decides to push for legislation that limits abortions based on medical necessity, he'll receive support from me and
others of similar opinion.
Fair enough - I don't, can't at this point anyway, see this is bad to be taken with good. It's a valid solution to yet another example of
governmental overreach, limitation of liberty, and offense to defense of (disputed) life.