For effect this is best read while listening to:
Blah blah blah, today Roe v. Wade turned 40. yadda yadda yadda… on with the news…
No, seriously. I argued for one side and just to show I’m not a biased prick; I am going to argue the opposite side. I am also going to use the Constitution to do it. THEN for a bit more magic I am going to show you why both sides are legally right and legally wrong.
410 U.S. 113 (1973), 7-2 decision that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s decision to have an abortion. BUT! that right must be balanced against a catalyst:
1: Protecting Prenatal Life
2: Protecting Women’s Health
In addition the viability clause states that an abortion can occur up to the point in which life outside the womb is “viable” even with artificial aid. That viability period being as much as 28 weeks and as little as 24 weeks.
In other words: The Supreme court in a 7-2 decision placed a higher value on the rights of the woman than the rights of the unborn citizen.
On with the show…
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment XIV was adopted on July 9, 1868 as apart of the Reconstruction Amendments (Yes it is a Civil War Amendment).
The Citizenship clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overrules the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) that had held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.
The Equal Protection Clause requires each State to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown vs. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States educational system. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The Due Process Clause prohibits State and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States, as well as to recognize substantive procedural rights.
Okay. so this fourteenth amendment is a huge fucking deal. Not only those clauses but:
Loss of Citizenship
Participation in Rebellion
Validity of Public Debt
Apportion of Representatives (Confederate Leaders)
Just look at all these cases!
Supreme Court cases for the 14th Amendment
1884: Elk v. Wilkins
1898: United States v. Wong Kim Ark
1967: Afroyim v. Rusk
1980: Vance v. Terrazas
1982: Plyler v. Doe
1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad
2010: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Privileges or immunities
1868: Crandall v. Nevada
1873: Slaughter-House Cases
1908: Twining v. New Jersey
1920: United States v. Wheeler
1948: Oyama v. California
1999: Saenz v. Roe
Procedural due process/Incorporation
1833: Barron v. Baltimore
1873: Slaughter-House Cases
1883: Civil Rights Cases
1884: Hurtado v. California
1897: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago
1900: Maxwell v. Dow
1908: Twining v. New Jersey
1925: Gitlow v. New York
1932: Powell v. Alabama
1934: Snyder v. Massachusetts
1937: Palko v. Connecticut
1947: Adamson v. California
1952: Rochin v. California
1961: Mapp v. Ohio
1962: Robinson v. California
1963: Gideon v. Wainwright
1964: Malloy v. Hogan
1966: Miranda v. Arizona
1967: Reitman v. Mulkey
1968: Duncan v. Louisiana
1969: Benton v. Maryland
1970: Goldberg v. Kelly
1972: Furman v. Georgia
1974: Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co.
1974: Goss v. Lopez
1975: O’Connor v. Donaldson
1976: Gregg v. Georgia
2010: McDonald v. Chicago
Substantive due process
1876: Munn v. Illinois
1887: Mugler v. Kansas
1897: Allgeyer v. Louisiana
1905: Lochner v. New York
1908: Muller v. Oregon
1923: Adkins v. Children’s Hospital
1923: Meyer v. Nebraska
1925: Pierce v. Society of Sisters
1934: Nebbia v. New York
1937: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
1965: Griswold v. Connecticut
1973: Roe v. Wade
1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey
1996: BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
2003: State Farm v. Campbell
2003: Lawrence v. Texas
1880: Strauder v. West Virginia
1886: Yick Wo v. Hopkins
1896: Plessy v. Ferguson
1908: Berea College v. Kentucky
1917: Buchanan v. Warley
1942: Skinner v. Oklahoma
1944: Korematsu v. United States
1948: Shelley v. Kraemer
1954: Hernandez v. Texas
1954: Brown v. Board of Education
1962: Baker v. Carr
1967: Loving v. Virginia
1971: Reed v. Reed
1973: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez
1976: Examining Board v. Flores de Otero
1978: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
1982: Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
1986: Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
1996: United States v. Virginia
1996: Romer v. Evans
2000: Bush v. Gore
Apportionment of Representatives
1974: Richardson v. Ramirez
Power of enforcement
1883: Civil Rights Cases
1966: Katzenbach v. Morgan
1997: City of Boerne v. Flores
1999: Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank
2000: United States v. Morrison
Okay go a little off track but here we go. 14th Amendment and Due process Clause.
Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the Due Process Clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.There is no change in that respect so far as the States are concerned, and the Federal Government cannot interfere with the States so long as they do not deprive some person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
There you have it. Plain, simple, in English. The Supreme court used the wording of the law to apply it to the mother individually instead of its intention which is in fact globally. In fact giving ground to circumvent their OWN catalyst.
In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court stated that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause
“[w]ithout doubt…denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”
Isn’t that a bitch. The 14th Amendment says gays can marry but conflicts with existing law.
The supreme court in fact did not over step their bounds in declaring a sanctuary to Roe v. Wade under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause. This all goes back to what I have said previously. Unborn children are not U.S. Citizens.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had just granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted this principle enshrined into the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.
By the first section of the bill all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.… It does not purport to give these classes of persons any status as citizens of States, except that which may result from their status as citizens of the United States. The power to confer the right of State citizenship is just as exclusively with the several States as the power to confer the right of Federal citizenship is with Congress.
Wait a damn minute! Whose Side are you on anyway?
sounds like Roe v. Wade was right doesn’t it? you just read all that and I paint a nice pretty picture for you? Wrong!
The Supreme court misused and ignored the intent of the law and its implied use and used the language to extend its intention to cover the Roe v. Wade argument. They used the law like taffy. Ever made taffy? good times…
The Supreme Court Case You never heard about
(cause it didn’t happen)
Interpretations of the U.S. Constitution have historically divided on the “Letter v. Spirit” debate. For example, at the founding, the Federalist Party argued for a looser interpretation of the Constitution, granting Congress broad powers in keeping with the spirit of the broader purpose of some founders (notably including the Federalist founders’ purposes). The Federalists would have represented the “spirit” aspect. In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans, who favored a limited federal government, argued for the strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that the federal government was granted only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing not explicitly stated; they represented the “letter” interpretation.
“I am to this day and have been a Federalist, which was in the founding fathers day a liberal, and everyone else would have been a Conservative. So here that todays conservative and liberal? Buddies 236 years ago, today you want to kill each other, by all means, strike deep and true so that you both fall and allow those like me to usurp you. ” – Bret
Modern Constitutional interpretation also divides on these lines. Currently, Living Constitution scholars advocate a “spirit”-esque interpretative strategy, although one grounded in a spirit that reflects broad powers. Originalist or Textualist scholars advocate a more “letter”-based approach, arguing that the Amendment process of the Constitution necessarily forecloses broader interpretations that can be accomplished simply by passing an amendment.
I’m a nerd so i have played D-n-D more than a few times. Roll me a D20, I got some pally to cleave in twain with my Grey Orc Barbarian and my pretty D12 Axe with +1 Gnome Slaying. yeah.. fuck gnomes
Got this one from wiki as well…
Gaming the system
Gaming the system, also called “rules lawyering”, is the following of the letter (sometimes referred to as RaW or Rules as Written) over, or contrary to, the spirit (sometimes referred to as RaI or Rules as Intended) of the law. It is used negatively to describe the act of manipulating the rules to achieve a personal advantage. It may also mean acting in an antisocial, irritating manner while technically staying within the bounds of the rules.
In nerd speak? The dudes were hiding behind the Dungeon Master mat, rolling dice, not showing anyone what the dice actually said, and just did what they wanted to do because the DM gets final say. The DM can roll a dice mid sentence and say” You got crushed by a meteor, to the wall of shame you go”. you get up from the table, grab a Mountain Dew and go play some Final Fantasy VII. Your out.
In mother fucking vernacular: They cheated.
They cheated legitimately though. Its a damn paradox. Its that moment when you think about:
If A compulsive liar says they are a compulsive liar. Are they still lying?
A voice mail you receive says: If you didn’t get this message, call me.
You can Save money by spending it.
Youth is wasted on the young.
Makes your brain hurt. It is a damn Schrodinger’s cat!
In other words: Neither side is right because everyone is wrong. Legally.
Go chase all the loose ends and what law ties into this one and that one and so forth and you still end up the same. The supreme courts ruling makes it legal, but the law used to make that decision was stretched and malformed to make it legal. Over turn the supreme court? Good luck on that one. Just as democrats want to stretch and malform the 2nd amendment and republicans want to stretch and malform the first amendment and anything else that doesnt agree with them. Gay Marriage is already legal and precedent was set back in 1932. The Patriot act and other acts that take away from my Freedom are also illegal and that precedent was set in 1777,81,86,1881,1886-7,1932,1956,1959, and 1972.
To me.. both sides of the isle are just as crooked and wrong and I’d be tickled fucking pink if they all walked outside the senate building and had a “nice shot” of their own doing.
The thought experiment:
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter, there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small that perhaps in the course of the hour, one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges, and through a relay releases a hammer that shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal parts. It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a “blurred model” for representing reality. In itself, it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.
—Erwin Schrödinger, Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik (The present situation in quantum mechanics), Naturwissenschaften
(translated by John D. Trimmer in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society)