by Shane Musgrove
A Call from “We the People†to All State Representatives
This writing is intended to speak for “We the People†as stated in the preamble of the United States Constitution, and concerns all who are now in State leadership or running for State representation in all fifty of the respective States.
I recently ran across a profound quote which was written in response to an article I wrote. Jonathan D. Linscott of Scottsdale, Arizona wrote, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,†in reference to the federal government. Outside of the philosophical challenge of this statement, it begs the question: what is the problem?
Let me be clear in stating what should be transparent to all, a bloated federal government – one who imposes its will against the people while violating the very constitutional foundation it was meant to protect, a vast array of failing social programs, wasted tax dollars, and an insurmountable debt. This dollar amount is one that few can fathom albeit however skilled in scientific notation and magnitudes of ten you are. Even then the debt number has become increasingly desensitizing as it has moved from millions, to billions, to trillions.
“We the People” sit under an administration and Congress that are relentless in their efforts to enforce their will against the people of the United States. Furthermore, the final step in our pseudo-check-and- balance system is the Supreme Court, which rules with a loose interpretation of the Constitution as if our sacred document is dynamic.
Accordingly, to the demise of the States, their rulings apply to all. Regarding the unseen and unknown problems that take place behind closed doors, whoever endeavors to take on the task of exposing and defining them would need a literary agent along with a book contract to account for hundreds of pages of corruption, deceit, bribes, and lies.
Therefore, this is the “problem†defined: our forefather’s words and the brave men and women who fought for our freedom and liberty have slowly and assuredly fallen down as martyrs. Historically, they have now descended to a place best described by the words of Albert Camus:
“Martyrs, my friend, have to choose between being forgotten, mocked or used; as for being understood – never.â€
Our federal government mocks their words by their actions and they desire to place them in a basement while locking the cellar door behind them – disgraceful and disrespectful at best and an abomination at worst. It appears they would have us forget their words. Why? Because all that they fought and aligned themselves with stands contrary to our current federal government’s actions, philosophy, and unceasing attraction to power.
Are the States and their representatives any better? My assumption is that some, if not many, fall into the same political traps, yet not so deeply nor to the same extremity. I believe with great hope along with many others that there are representatives at the State level who do take these matters as genuinely concerning and view it as their responsibility to protect their citizens from what we can now define as “federal lawlessness.†I commend you on your courage, will, integrity, and your strength.
Now, as Linscott said, “You cannot expect the problem to fix the problem,†referring to the federal government, so we emphatically hope that these problems will be answered at the State level. So, the answer to the perplexing philosophical statement is none other than the States, their representatives, and the people that vote them into office.
Therefore, what follows is in essence, “A Call from ‘We the People’ to All State Representatives.â€
As a preface, it is a responsibility of the States to assert their rights, specifically in times such as these. It is absolutely necessary to recognize that responsibility and accountability exists among State representatives rather than open-ended, unmoving opinions based on political philosophy and liberal views of the Constitution. To the best of my knowledge, an oath is taken in all States in some form of an edict to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State.†In addition, it should be noted that this call for responsibility is void of any form of violence or sedition, lest the leftist accusations of “inciting violence†and “hate†come forth with great force.
Therefore, let it be said: For legislators who are weakly or mildly concerned with these problems and see your duty as a representative half heartedly, resign.
For governors who do not have the courage to stand and fight for State rights in accordance with the following words from James Madison, resign.
“We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.â€
–James Madison
For State Attorneys General who do not consider it an injustice against the people and whom are too weak and too politically inept to stand up for the people in your State, walk towards the door and remember these words:
“When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.â€
-Thomas Jefferson
Resign as your unwillingness to see the lawlessness of our federal government demonstrates your incompetence.
For all of those running for office for political gain and power and who do not possess the will to confront the federal government for the sake of your State, take your bow and leave the stage.
And lastly and most importantly, for all who do not regard the Constitution of the United States as a binding, unchanging document which limits the federal government from over reaching its bounds and entitles the States to rights under the Tenth Amendment, step aside.
State Sovereignty is of consequential value although the federal government would have you believe otherwise as they tread on the graves and words of those who came before us. Accordingly, my great anticipation is that all who read this will advance it to their respective State Governors, Legislators, Attorneys General and all who represent their State, including those who are seeking political office. Let this be a resounding call from the people to our elected State officials to stand with us no matter where you or they land in the political spectrum. Let the mantra from old ring out clearly and loudly – “Don’t tread on me,†and let us no longer retain optimism that “our problem will fix the problem.â€
As the federal government grows, we inevitably shrink and our resolve rests in “We the people†as voters and a call to all State Representatives to honor their oath with fortitude, integrity, will, wisdom, and a steadfast position on the literal meaning of the United States Constitution and the Tenth Amendment as stated:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â€
–The United States Constitution, Tenth Amendment, Ratified 12/15/1791
Therefore, “We the People†have a simple yet powerful message: No longer can the federal government tread on the amendment stated above as they have neither the right nor the power – not on this ground nor on this day.
Shane Musgrove [send him email] is a freelance writer living in Vail and Denver, Colorado.
Great article! I doubt many problem politicians will resign. They seem to run for office and win forever. And, they seem to live longer than average, as well!
As a lawyer, I see the opinions of the US Supreme Court (USSC) as binding only on the litigants in the given case and NOT on the country as a whole. Nothing in the US Constitution itself says that rulings of the USSC are the supreme law of the land. That's just the USSC's opinion of its own power in Marbury v. Madison. It's pure bootstrapping.
It is only the policy of stare decisis (latin for 'let the decision stand') and its very liberal interpretation and so-called 'binding precedent' that make the USSC rulings so powerful. Again, court rulings are only binding on the litigants in the case – NOT everyone else.
One way to help limit federal power would be to recognize that "lower" courts are NOT required to follow the rationale of the USSC opinions – only the ruling in the case in question. So, for example, Jane Roe can have an abortion but that doesn't tell us whether Susan Doe can have one.
If a statute is unconstitutional in a given case, that's all we know. Congress may choose to repeal it or amend it or the executive may decide not to enforce it but such a court ruling only applies to the litigants who brought the case before the court. It resolves THEIR dispute and that's it.
Think of the court system as a way to peacefully resolve disputes BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE – not a way to legislate for everyone. The USSC is NOT a super-legislature for the country. In other words, Marbury v. Madison is wrong.
While in theory you are correct, the fact is (from a citizen stand point) that if you stray from the decision of the USSC, you are putting yourself on the hook for some serious financial pain. USSC decisions are the rulings by which all courts go by generally. So if you defy what they say, you already know how they rule and the appeals courts generally will fall in line with what has been done in the past and punish you severely for doing your own thing. Although I'm not an attorney, I do have practical experience in dealing with the courts and watching the outcomes of defiance of the law of the land by citizenry.
In order for your thought process to be followed through with, you'd have to find a ton of lower court judges (and appeals court judges) to "buck the system" and overload the supreme court with cases so you could get the bulk of them past the supreme court. Not likely to happen, especially since these justices are appointed for life by the executive branch of the same government. Don't forget all these lower court judges are looking for appeals court or supreme court jobs, so they have another incentive not to bite the hand that feeds them by "bucking the system".
Although I must say I agree with your overall thought process.
Hi,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
In Oregon, judges are elected and are much closer to 'the people' than the federal judges.
Great article but I think we need to take it a step further. I think we need a real Tea party movement, I think the 50 percent who actually pay taxes need to do something. The something I suggest would be to not file income tax next april, all of the million who are outraged need to stop regonizing the authority of the federal goverment.
Perhaps a better suggestion would be to file a T-W4 which, to my understanding, terminates the voluntary withholding agreement you have with your employer. It basically places the responsibility in the hands of the IRS at that point to do all the leg-work that your employer does now. After the termination of your W4 agreement with your employer, the employer can no longer withhold or report or even use your SSN. Imagine a massive termination of W4 agreements across the country, there would simply be no way for the IRS to collect the information, compile it in a usable form and, as such, it would be virtually impossible for it to collect the money effectively. It would be an administrative nightmare, a bureaucratic quagmire that would be difficult to escape or explain. It would however take a concerted effort to get enough people involved with such a protest to make it effective, but if it could be done then it would definitely wake up a few people in D.C., as well as around the country.
This is "Jonathan D Linscott of Scottsdale, AZ", whom Shane Musgrove quoted in his fine article above.
I agree wholeheartedly with "grapeape68's" suggestions that we ratchet up the resistance, but I think we have better avenues and recourse at our disposal, which are within the confines of the current laws.
This federal government reminds me of a bad condo homeowner's association I once quarreled with, which was managed by an arrogant, self-dealing chairman, who got elected by promising the moon to widows and meek people in the association who could not see through him. He surrounded himself with "believers", greased their palms with leniency on condo fees, gave them petty powers to stroke their egos, and lined all their pockets with kickbacks from vendors, etc. Wherever it was expedient, he/they would cite our association by-laws (our owner's "constitution", if you will) verbatim, and would hold you strictly accountable to it (especially if you disagreed with him). However, wherever it was inconvenient to him/them, the by-laws (our "constitution") were dismissed to the extent necessary as a "guideline" that shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of the great things he/they were doing for our association.
Mind you, our association was BROKE, the building was in need of many repairs, the parking lot for the condo complex was the eyesore of a revitalizing urban area, and within 18 months of buying that unit I had to cough up "special assessments" (i.e. taxes) that totaled more than 10% of what I had bought the condo for in the first place. Sound familiar???
I went after this guy with vigor, and passion. He, of course used my passion against me, to paint me as a rabble-rouser, and to marginalize my legitimate issues to the point where he could basically neutralize them administratively (strictly citing our by-laws, of course, wherever he could). Beyond that, regardless of promises made in each gathering of owners and/or rules set forth in our by-laws themselves, board meetings were routinely held behind closed doors, favoritism was granted to the “non trouble makers”, and votes for board seats were counted off-site. The one time I was able to force a recount in person, I learned I had been granted 50.86% of the ownership vote (and over 85% of the actual votes cast, with one vote conveniently denied me because it was “faxed in an hour late”), and because our by-laws (constitution) required a board member to get 51% of the ownership vote, he/they rallied behind that requirement vehemently, and denied me a board seat, choosing instead to exercise another option in the by-laws to re-appoint the incumbent who had gotten less than 15% of the votes cast (a form of “reconciliation” of sorts to get the desired result). They knew that, if I got on the board, I would profoundly disrupt their fiefdom. I would do things like demand competing bids from vendors, disallow “management fees” for board members, and seek a retroactive audit. Well, they just couldn't have that…now could they? They were the problem, so how was I going to get them to fix the problem when they were clearly willing to bend and break the rules in their favor, and do whatever they could to hold their “power”??
After 2+ years of going back and forth like this, I finally went around the association board, and sued the board chairman in court, at which time he promptly put his unit up for sale and fled to another association. Once I learned he had gotten the association to pay for his legal fees (our constitution mattered where it was convenient to him, of course, and he pressed for this, of course), I dropped the case, and simply bid him good riddance. I was able to get the “rich” owner on the board (he owned 30% of the units), and trusted that we would act in the best interests of himself, as an owner of many units, and this would in turn benefit everyone except the corrupt board. It has – for years now.
The moral of this story is that I took a small provision in our by-laws (constitution) and went OUTSIDE the board to pursue a more fair and fiscally sound arrangement for ALL the owners, not just the 5 on the board; I went to District Court at my own expense to root them out, and while I had hoped to recoup the tens of thousands of dollars this self-serving, condescending board chairman had stuffed in his pockets at the expense of the majority of the owners, I did at least chase him out of there and restore a modicum of order to the place. A small victory that has produced enduring results!
Now, it strikes me that this condo board was a true microcosm of the current condition in our federal government: they are the problem, and we can't expect the problem to fix itself. WE need to do something about it, outside of the scope of the problem itself, and I am concerned that our collective efforts our being diluted and not directed in a profitable way. We are NOT going to send a golden boy (or girl) off to DC and have them reverse the momentum of corruption and self-dealing that has taken root there; it is delusional to think so. Thus, it occurs to me that a REAL SOLUTION to this would be to find a way to dispense with any individual notion of ego, stop viewing this as a Tenth Amendment movement, or a Tea Party movement, or whatever, and COALESCE into a peaceful, legally-motivated AMERICAN MOVEMENT, on a par with our original founding. Article V provides a road map to this, as I am sure Mr. Boldin of this organization would agree.
Article V provides a means for the STATES to call and conduct an actual Constitutional Convention, wherein the STATES themselves, outside the scope of the federal government (i.e. “the problem”), can vote on a new 'Bill of Rights' of sorts — call it the "Bill of Federal Limitations" or something like that — and impose it on the federal government. Just for kicks, some great legal minds, some conservative professor contacts of mine, and some very successful business persons and I have laid out five new possible Amendments for such a "Bill of Federal Limitations"; they include:
a) An absolute cap on the % of personal and corporate taxes that can be collected, one that puts a ceiling on the "revenues" the federal government can extract from private individuals and businesses, and associates it with a prohibition on any deficit spending (0% of GDP, or less), and demands that 25% of any revenues be directed toward debt service until all debts are paid — we call it the "Allowance Amendment". This ties and pegs government revenues to economic prosperity in the private sector, if the federal government wants more "revenues", they will need to create policies that produce them. Or, failing that, it will force them to impose unpopular taxes that will get noticed, ones that are voluntary in that they come only from discretionary spending related sources (food, water all exempt), and ones whose pain is spread amongst everyone. In emergency cases only, the government may impose bonds on wealthier individuals, not to exceed a certain additional percentage, but will pay TAX-FREE INTEREST on those to these people, or their estates/assigns, within a reasonable time-frame — no more unchecked borrowing from the Chinese, or elsewhere — keep the money here.
b) A line-item veto power granted to the President, so he/she can have an extra weapon in the War on Pork — call it a "Super Severability" Amendment.
c) Term limits of 12 years for the House and Senate (6 and 3 terms, respectively), with no grandfather clause for incumbents. We need to put an end to the practice of turning our citizen legislature into a lucrative career whose side effect is a perverse sort of celebrity status for many. This is the only way to restore those chambers to a state where they are serving the People, and not themselves.
d) A clarification of the Commerce Clause, which will put an end to the federal government's increasing abuses of this important provision as a carte blanche for unlimited power grabbing from the States. There needs to be real teeth in this one, and it bears much discussion, analysis, and revision.
e) Last, but not least, a serious upgrade to the 10th Amendment, one that gives it more teeth, more recourse, and more ability to exact local – over federal – control.
Now, how do we get there??? I have some thoughts on this, the prevailing one being the need to somehow create a coalition of all these various movements. I would suggest the possibility of organizing the leaders of this movement (Boldin?), and a few of the leaders of the other major movements (Tea Party, etc.), to create the basis for an actual Citizen-driven Constitutional Convention. You will also need state-level support to make this work, so I would propose five "administrative" delegates (from the major movements), and one each from the 50 states, to send another 55 "delegates" to Philadelphia again to revise and vote on some sort of proposed Bill of Federal Limitations, and plot a strategy for pushing it through the States, outside the control or influence of the unruly children in Washington; it is time the parents took back control of the house…
But, how to organize the 50 states??? There are surely numerous ways to accomplish that, some better than others, and I have what I believe is a unique possible approach that I think could generate that next level of front line participation we'd need to make this thing work — a theory I'd be interested in testing out, but it will go nowhere if we don't first find a way to coalesce all of these legitimate, law-abiding movements.
If anyone is interested in discussing the possibilities I have brain dumped herein, please feel free to contact me. My e-mail is so cluttered by now that I'll invite you to "friend" me in Facebook; I can be found under "Jonathan D Linscott" in Scottsdale, AZ. Please mention “10th Amendment” in your message, so I will know where it came from.
No matter how things pan out, I will continue to support this movement both financially and in spirit, as I believe very strongly in it — I'd just like to take it the next level and I am floating ideas out there for consideration.
That is my $.02, which, if we wait too much, will deflate itself to the relative value of $.01, leaving me only one more toss in the wishing well.
Yours in Liberty,
Jonathan D. Linscott
Scottsdale, AZ
Excellent post Jonathan D. Linscott!
Regarding point (a), we also need to consider the following. As a consequence of voters unthinkingly electing state sovereignty-ignorant lawmakers to the state governments, state governments have been arguably been reduced to being grants-writing agencies for federal funding. The problem with this situation is the following. Chief Justice Marshall had appropriately established the following case precedent, now wrongly ignored by both federal and state lawmakers, that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." –Chief Justice Marshall, GIBBONS V. OGDEN, 1824. http://supreme.justia.com/us/22/1/case.html
So not only is federal Obamacare, for example, constitutionally unauthorized as evidenced by the Constitution's silence on public healthcare, but based on Justice Marshall's official words, corrupt Congress doesn't have the power to lay taxes to fund Obamacare.
Getting back to our grants-writing state legislatures, these clowns don't seem to understand that the federal funding that they apply for is based largely on constitutionally unlawful federal taxes, money corrupt Congress stole from the states in the first place in the name of federal taxes.
But several states, Georgia, Oklahoma and Washington, are evidently considering legislation that would prohibit illegal federal taxes from leaving their states. (Did you hear that bankrupt California?) See the following.
ResistDC: The Federal Tax Funds Act
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/18/re…
So along with caps on taxes, we need to also put a stop to illegal federal taxes.
Next, regarding point (b), the states need to destroy the phony powers of the Oval Office and Congress. And once the states put the federal government back on its constitutional leash, forcing the Oval Office and Congress to operate within its Section 8 restraints, the crooks are probably going to lose interest in DC anyway. In fact, I wouldn't be surprise if Obama quickly gets bored with Section 8 and either resigns or starts spending most of his time on the golf course.
Regarding point (c) concerning term limits, the states are probably going to have to ask for volunteer lawmakers to go to DC after the states destroy the phony powers now associated with DC.
Regarding point (d), if FDR's outcome-driven justices hadn't "lost" Jefferson's writings about the Commerce Clause, we wouldn't be having the problems with Congress's liberal interpretation of that clause today.
"For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson's Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.a…
With terms like “does not extend” and “exclusively,” Jefferson made it clear that Congress has no authority to interfere with intrastate commerce.
Next, regarding point (e), consider this. Yes, let's consider upgrading the 10th Amendment. But let's also consider repealing the ill-considered, anti-state sovereignty 16th and 17th Amendments. The 16th and 17th A.'s have amounted to a repeal of the 10th A., IMO, making it difficult for state lawmakers to protect citizens from illegal federal government interference in people's live, including illegal federal taxes.
Next, citizens need to light a fire under their federal and state lawmakers to do the following. Just as states require candidate drivers to pass a battery of driver’s tests before being granted a license to drive, states need to make laws requiring candidate lawmakers to pass a Constituion test before they can run for office, such a test emphasizing state sovereignty and Justice Marshall’s case precedent concerning prohibited federal taxes.
Finally, the states need to make recall laws to weed out federal and state lawmakers, executives, and judges who get through the Constitution test, but later show that they had no intention of respecting the Constitution that they swore to defend.
Hi Jonathan,
We haven't yet met. Anyway, check out my blogs athttp://www.campaignforliberty.com. I agree that a constitutional convention, called by the states, for the express purpose of returning power to the states and taking that power AWAY from Washington, is a viable idea.
Seehttp://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=3…
We don't need a constitutional convention. There isn't much wrong with the constitution. We just need a return to using it as the law of the land.
I agree with you in principle. However, the states should never have ratified the ill-conceived, anti-state sovereignty 17th Amendment. By doing so, state legislatures foolishly nuked Clause 1 of Section 3 of Article I, unthinkingly changing the country from a republic to a mob-ruled democracy which the Founders had been careful to avoid.
Great article! I doubt many problem politicians will resign. They seem to run for office and win forever. And, they seem to live longer than average, as well!
As a lawyer, I see the opinions of the US Supreme Court (USSC) as binding only on the litigants in the given case and NOT on the country as a whole. Nothing in the US Constitution itself says that rulings of the USSC are the supreme law of the land. That's just the USSC's opinion of its own power in Marbury v. Madison. It's pure bootstrapping.
It is only the policy of stare decisis (latin for 'let the decision stand') and its very liberal interpretation and so-called 'binding precedent' that make the USSC rulings so powerful. Again, court rulings are only binding on the litigants in the case – NOT everyone else.
One way to help limit federal power would be to recognize that "lower" courts are NOT required to follow the rationale of the USSC opinions – only the ruling in the case in question. So, for example, Jane Roe can have an abortion but that doesn't tell us whether Susan Doe can have one.
If a statute is unconstitutional in a given case, that's all we know. Congress may choose to repeal it or amend it or the executive may decide not to enforce it but such a court ruling only applies to the litigants who brought the case before the court. It resolves THEIR dispute and that's it.
Think of the court system as a way to peacefully resolve disputes BETWEEN TWO PEOPLE – not a way to legislate for everyone. The USSC is NOT a super-legislature for the country. In other words, Marbury v. Madison is wrong.
I couldn't have stated my campaign any better for Governor of Colorado. You have the opportunity being located in Colorado to put your action to work by supporting my campaign.
Take a look at my websitehttp://www.whoisRichHand.com and put your words to work. I could use all the help I can get! Not money but help getting the word out to sign a petition…
Rich
Several of them!!!!!!
Is the insurance agency a fictitious entity? The constitution is designed to govern individuals in their respective capacities as servant in the civil body.
If the insurance agency is allowed to be created by authority and purvue of the body politic then it becomes governed by the creator (state grant of priviledge, licensed by the state or Federal government body). God governs his creation –man. Know one has mastered an ability to create individual man. All mankind acts in repect to that creator or they will suffer. The constitution is a document governing the activities of men in accordance with that creator although they seemed to be unwilling to state so despite numerous opportunities to state so within the physical words of the document.
Therefore God is to govern in the affairs of individual man. When man attempts to be creator this fictitios entity can operate with near impunity as long as the creator (state/Fed ) will revise the rules or regulations necessary to keep the individual men from realizing the “creat-ure) is engaged in wholesale plunder under the guise of ‘service’—understand????
Shane approached my website (MilitantLibertarian.org), where I'd reprinted this article, and requested its removal. He's a jackass for sure.
In the revised post, it says, "…That’s by definition. D.C. has no constitutional authority over abortion…."
I don't think that it's this cut & dry. I have my own opinion on this issue, but I'm going to keep it to myself. I will say that it seems to me that there are two possible assumptions that lead to conflicting logical results.
Assumption 1: *human* life begins at conception.
If that is true, then Constitutional authority over abortion comes from the Fifth amendment, "…nor be deprived of ***life***, liberty, or property, without due process of law…". In fact, if "Assumption 1" is true, the federal government is Constitutionally *required* to disallow abortion.
Assumption 2: *human* life begins at birth.
If this assumption is true, then there is no federal constitutional authority over abortion.
I happen to think that both positions are reasonable, depending upon which assumption a person makes. I'm sorry to say that I don't think that an appeal to the Constitution can sort this one out.
http://colorado.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/the-constitution-abortion-and-the-road-less-traveled/
Between us Michael, there is a lot of truth in this. Things were blown way out of proportion and I do not think the above editor's note reflects it accurately. I can always be a believer in things can be reconciled and Geoff makes some good points here.
Oh, and BTW, I do believe it possible for Shane and Michael to possibly get past this recent hurdle. Michael and I have had a number of spirited debates. Neither of us has ever told the other where there must be a line in the sand. In defense of my "controversial" article, which I really think should not be controversial at all, I hope Shane will reconsider the importance of our efforts on demanding strict adherence to the Constitution. It's all the excuses for not doing so that have gotten us where we are. At some point, we have to put away our social biases and simply agree to follow the law. Perhaps Shane will reconsider. I in no way perceive him as a bad or evil guy – just opinionated, like the rest of us. I have had to eat crow when debating Michael a handful of times. No problem. It's part of progress. I consider myself fairly intelligent but not above reproach, and I'll gladly admit when I have a change of opinion based on a prior misconception.
you haven't been the only one eating crow!!
In the revised post, it says, "…That’s by definition. D.C. has no constitutional authority over abortion…."
I don't think that it's this cut & dry. I have my own opinion on this issue, but I'm going to keep it to myself. I will say that it seems to me that there are two possible assumptions that lead to conflicting logical results.
Assumption 1: *human* life begins at conception.
If that is true, then Constitutional authority over abortion comes from the Fifth amendment, "…nor be deprived of ***life***, liberty, or property, without due process of law…". In fact, if "Assumption 1" is true, the federal government is Constitutionally *required* to disallow abortion.
Assumption 2: *human* life begins at birth.
If this assumption is true, then there is no federal constitutional authority over abortion.
I happen to think that both positions are reasonable, depending upon which assumption a person makes. I'm sorry to say that I don't think that an appeal to the Constitution can sort this one out.
Steve…good comment. As far as the 5th amendment…that would only apply if it were the federal government doing the abortions. There are, however, many state constitutions which make the practice of abortion dubious at best. Federal action…no way.
I am a life at conception kinda guy. I just want the right jurisdiction dealing with the issue.
Aaron, you have an awesome website, and we appreciate the attention you give us here at TAC. thank you.
I don't know if Shane IS a jackass, but he sure acted like one in this situation. As a website operator, when someone demands that I do something with my website, I can either do what they want, or not. Shane asked me politely, I refused politely. That continued until I refused to give in, which is when he started making nasty comments about me to other people I respect. Not cool at all.
Too bad, really – he's a really good writer, which is why I contacted him to submit articles here to TAC in the first place!
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Steve…I can definitely appreciate that! This reply is not then for you, but for the other readers.
1. Notice that the 14th refers to States….that’s because it is intended to direction the action of state governments in this area.
2. But…say we grant that states meant all the people of the states…then we’d have to assume that all murder laws, for example would be in the purview of d.c. politicians. They’re not. Or…they’d define it and states woukd enforce. But still…that leaves d.c. out of the overall jurisdiction.
Michael is correct. The 5th and 14th are limitations on the federal/state police process, and in terms of "life," they are speaking only in terms of carrying out a death penalty.
Last, last comment….
This is interesting… Not directly on topic, but definitely related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/mcdonald_v_c…
I guess I need to read about Slaughter-house and the fourteenth amendment. Cato's interpretation has consequences that are good, but also consequences that are disturbing.
Last, last comment….
This is interesting… Not directly on topic, but definitely related.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/mcdonald_v_c…
I guess I need to read about Slaughter-house and the fourteenth amendment. Cato's interpretation has consequences that are good, but also consequences that are disturbing.
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Interesting. This will be my last comment because this topic is endless and counterproductive. I'll just add that the 14th amendment says, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…".
So it seems clear to me that if human life begins at conception, then the inalienable right to life of the unborn is protected by the 5th and 14th amendments (and also by the Natural law). It also seems clear to me that if life begins at birth then the federal government has no Constitutional say in the matter. Worse, if human life begins somewhere after conception but before birth, then some state abortion laws would be constitutional and others wouldn't.
Someone could argue that the original meaning of the word "person" decides when a person is a person, and that's almost a win, but someone else could plausibly argue that the biological sciences have discovered a previously unknown group of "person"s. That's not quite the same thing as redefining the word's meaning, which would be unacceptable.
(i.e. if someone discovered a new species of fish, all existing laws that applied to "fish" would necessarily apply to the new species, even though it was unknown at the time the "fish" laws were written.)
This is why I generally avoid this topic like the plague. It's a mess! I just don't see an answer to it in the Constitution. And that's all I have to say on the matter.
Oh, and BTW, I do believe it possible for Shane and Michael to possibly get past this recent hurdle. Michael and I have had a number of spirited debates. Neither of us has ever told the other where there must be a line in the sand. In defense of my "controversial" article, which I really think should not be controversial at all, I hope Shane will reconsider the importance of our efforts on demanding strict adherence to the Constitution. It's all the excuses for not doing so that have gotten us where we are. At some point, we have to put away our social biases and simply agree to follow the law. Perhaps Shane will reconsider. I in no way perceive him as a bad or evil guy – just opinionated, like the rest of us. I have had to eat crow when debating Michael a handful of times. No problem. It's part of progress. I consider myself fairly intelligent but not above reproach, and I'll gladly admit when I have a change of opinion based on a prior misconception.
Let's talk man to man… you have my number.
Let's talk man to man… you have my number.