reply to post by Praetorius
I know this will likely just extend the debate further, but I stand with Marbury v. Madison on this one
ok but i'm not sure what you
think judicial review of RvW would accomplish at this point.
with RvW as it's been challenged and challenged again.
more waste of taxpayers $$ perhaps ???
in case i mis-understand your comment, this proposal is not reviewable by any high court as written or did you skip that part?
My point is that it's invalid
please clarify "what" you think is invalid - the Roe v Wade decision, it's challenges, the RP
proposal or the Constitution
as for the proposal being challenged, that is the UnConstitutional phrasing it contains.
any State law is supposed to be able to be challenged, this proposal would be exempt.
the matter lies outside the valid purview of the federal government in the first place.
while we can agree the matter of abortion is
beyond the reach of federal goverment officials to impose, laws concerning it should be challengable per the Constitution.
*** i'll come back to the part i intentionally skipped.
And if SCOTUS' invalid authority (my opinion) is nullified by this (unlikely) legislation, that will no longer apply and the states will have
the final word
this is not debatable as the authority of SCOTUS is clearly established.
sure wish we could agree that the State is not the proper authority
in said decision either.
resolved otherwise and appropriate to leave up to the individual states
this is where we disagree as i've stated before, these
decisions are INDIVIDUAL ones unless undetermined in advance.
no pending birth is undetermined
hence, it is far beyond the authority of the State
i'm honestly not sure why anyone thinks some form of legislation will bring forth an end to abortions
. never has, never will.
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
so long as you realize that any decision made to NOT argue
for the Constitutional rights of the fetus could be equally prosecuted as deriliction of duty or something similar.
I was referring to a hypothetical case
i understand that but under current law that hypothetical is fantasy.
under this proposal as law, that hypothetical is a sincere possibility for every non-abortion State. to me, that's a problem just waiting to rear
it's ugly head.
Then I suppose I'll have to counter-defer to the entirety of section 3.
why would you refer to a suplemental section that is
supported by the primary order in contention?
State rights are not supposed to supercede Constitutional ones and neither should this.
remember, the fetus has Constitutional rights which trump State rights.
if you are willing to "take the bad with the good", that is your preprogative.
i am holding out for better.
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.
while i appreciate your opinion, Dr Paul has been an active member of Congress for more than 30yrs.
his history is quite the reflection of his intent should he gain the nomination, his policies are fair game and this is one with which i strongly
disagree as written.
i understand his goal of national anti-abortion, i disagree and always will.
and more egregious violations of life and liberty
ya know i luv ya but wtf ??
what is more egregious than the unnecessary taking of a life ???
whether it be poison, war, abortion, murder, torture or any other method that can be construed, to me, they are all the same.
and equally, i don't believe any of them can be legislated away.
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.
fair enough. on this point we'll have to agree to disagree
although continued conversation is always welcome.
in case you want the simple version of why i claim it's the bad with the good ,,,
abortion shouldn't be a goverment issue (good)
by the State governments (bad)
personhood at the point of conception with all Constitutional rights (very bad)
States having the right to refuse a medical procedure (really bad)
No review of abuses by a higher court (UnConstitutional)
Extrmemly limited recourse for damages (doesn't get any worse than this)
have a good day and thanks for the conversation