Monday, 24 October 2016

P.S To Roe v. Wade v. The Law

In the spirit of providing a little more detail on this matter, of the arguments for Roe specifically and the ‘modern’ trend in American jurisprudence in general:

The ‘progressives’ have tried to argue the Bill of Rights as the basis for the Roe decision; that the BoR gives a “zone of privacy” to the American people, that the 'progressives' then used to shoehorn in the presumptive constitutional ’right’ of/to abortion.  But this argument is specious, and silly on its face.  First: The BoR is a set of spelled-out examples of limitation on actions of the federal government; we are secured our basic rights and powers by our several States’ constitutions.  Otherwise, there is no point in having State constitutions, if the American republic was simply a national form of government (capable of being taken over wholesale in and from the center).  The argument then shifts to the 14th Amendment.  Let’s look at that argument.

The argument hinges on two clauses of the 14th Amendment, the so-called ‘due process’ clause and the ‘equal protection’ clause.1  

1) Neither clause - as the ‘progressives’ have tried to claim - states in effect that “the powers formerly reserved to the States respectively or to the people” [10th Amendment clarity on that issue, of the difference between the enumerated powers granted to the federal government and those retained by the States] ‘shall now reside in the federal government’.     

2) The ’original intent’ of the ’due process’ clause, according to its authors and the understanding of the Congress which voted it into being, in concert with the other parties to the Constitutional contract, the States,2 was so that all U.S. citizens, including, then, by the 14th Amendment, the former black slaves, were to be secure in their persons and property, under the law - that the law applied to all the citizenry, including the new citizens, the former black slaves; that they had the same basic rights under law as the white citizens (and shall be subject to the same punishments, taxers, etc. under the law; whatever the relevant law is).3   

3) The ’original intent’ of the ‘equal protection’ clause, according to the same, rather authoritative sources, was that State laws must apply equally to whites AND blacks; there could be no ‘respecter of  persons’.  In effect, that the law must be color blind, in the way of holding property, entering into contracts, equal criminal penalties; etc.- i.e., no more so-called ’Black Codes;’ but “one measure of justice to be meted out” to all the U.S. citizenry, wherever and whatever that ‘justice’.4

And specious 'precedent' is specious precedent.  That is all.

That’s it.  All the rest is sophistry.

In summary.

The ‘progressives’ have attempted to drive a coach and horses - and in more modern times, a tank - through this breach in the wall of the rule of law in the country - the Constitution.  That sort of facile, sophistic argumentation must cease.  In any event: because I will take over now; and bring The Drama - the entire, global Drama - to its proper conclusion:

in the New World Order, of the right, not reverse image, kind.  

But, thanks due to the Dark side players, for helping humanity to get here, and make that outcome, and distinction.  Of the free-will choice of one based, not on Force.  But on Love.  On Life, and Life more abundantly.  Not on Death.  

And of the worst kind:

that of spiritually.   

P.P.S. A brief, closing word ‘On Atheism’:   
     The human being template is an ingenious creation.
     Both ‘ingenious’ and ’creation’ imply intelligence.
     Intelligence implies Intelligent Design.   
     So much for atheism.


1 “…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…”   

2 About which there is some - considerable - controversy.  But to continue, in this specific context.    

3 See, e.g., originallintentdotorg

4 See, e.g, wikipediadotorg/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause.

No comments: