Gosnell case

[Forever_frost]

Did you just gloss over the part where it says:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States....

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority" If the constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to have a law on something, the SC can't rule on it. And if you read Roe v Wade, there is no constitutional right to abortion, just to privacy.

Borrowed from an email: "Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Then the High Court made a key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

[Forever_frost]

You keep forgetting to read the whole sentence. IN THEIR AUTHORITY. You are lousy at this. Try again

[Maddhattter]

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"

Per sentance structure of the english language, the "under their authority" that you're citing only applies to "treaties made, or which shall be made,". So, as this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority.

Especially when you consider that, per US Code (Title 28, Part 4, Chapter 81), states that "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States." (Emphasis mine)

This goes to show that both the Constitution and US Law, which the US code is, support the Supreme Court's authroity in this case.

If the constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to have a law on something, the SC can't rule on it.

The case wasn't to challenge a federal law, it was to question the constitutionality of a state law. It was a case that was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, as the law allows.

And if you read Roe v Wade, there is no constitutional right to abortion, just to privacy.

Actually, if you read Rod v Wade it states that the court decided that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, thereby making all laws preventing it unconstitutional.

Borrowed from an email: "Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Full quote: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge. is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. - Justice Blackmun

These were his opinions of the case, not what the Supreme Court "said". Giving that he supported the verdict the Supreme Court made, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this quote.

Then the High Court made a key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

Again, Justice Blackmun made this statement as his closing remarks about the majority opinion. However, I'd agree that he is correct here. Which brings us back to my earlier post.

[The King]

Per sentance structure of the english language, the "under their authority" that you're citing only applies to "treaties made, or which shall be made,". So, as this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority.

Actually, if you read Rod v Wade it states that the court decided that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, thereby making all laws preventing it unconstitutional.

.....ahem.....

your (sic) slipping, 'hattter

[Maddhattter]

.....ahem.....

your (sic) slipping, 'hattter

Curses...

[racrguy]

Per sentance structure of the english language, the "under their authority" that you're citing only applies to "treaties made, or which shall be made,". So, as this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority.

Especially when you consider that, per US Code (Title 28, Part 4, Chapter 81), states that "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States." (Emphasis mine)

This goes to show that both the Constitution and US Law, which the US code is, support the Supreme Court's authroity in this case.



The case wasn't to challenge a federal law, it was to question the constitutionality of a state law. It was a case that was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, as the law allows.



Actually, if you read Rod v Wade it states that the court decided that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, thereby making all laws preventing it unconstitutional.



Full quote: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge. is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. - Justice Blackmun

These were his opinions of the case, not what the Supreme Court "said". Giving that he supported the verdict the Supreme Court made, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this quote.



Again, Justice Blackmun made this statement as his closing remarks about the majority opinion. However, I'd agree that he is correct here. Which brings us back to my earlier post.

What this guy said, Jim.

[Forever_frost]

Quick question: Remind me where in the Constitution it states that any code or law may expand the authority of the federal government of any branch. Not US Code, actual words of the Constitution.

And Racr, I much prefer these discussions with Hatter. There's actual logic behind the discussion instead of retarded pictures and a "la la la" fingers in the ears response. I look forward to this discussion Hatter.

[likeitfast55]

Now you did it, you brought fact and logic into the "Frost" bubble of self denial and insanity.

That is as dangerous as crossing the two energy streams. You know "Ghost Busters".

Bad mistake, now comes the name calling and double talking rhetoric.


Well I humbly offer my apologies Frost, your response was more in line with your potential. Bravo.

[Forever_frost]

Now you did it, you brought fact and logic into the "Frost" bubble of self denial and insanity.

That is as dangerous as crossing the two energy streams. You know "Ghost Busters".

Bad mistake, now comes the name calling and double talking rhetoric.

I don't tend to resort to name calling or double talking. I asked for constitutional citation.

[likeitfast55]

I withdraw from the debate sir. You have the floor and my respect.

[jyro]

the Fox news story was from myfoxphilly--- local story
CBS story was also a local story from CBS/KYW/AP (news radio 1060) CRIMESIDER


looks like CBS had more coverage than most, I could be wrong.

[Maddhattter]

Quick question: Remind me where in the Constitution it states that any code or law may expand the authority of the federal government of any branch. Not US Code, actual words of the Constitution.

As noted in the scope of authority listed for the Supreme Court in the constitution, no additional authority is needed for it to rule on Roe v Wade.


That being said, the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause is everything needed for the law to expand on the authority of the federal government.

Per the Tenth Amendment "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." I think we agree on this.

Per Article 1, Section 8, clause 18, Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." I think we agree on this as well.

With the way the nation is designed, Congress acts on behalf of the people to implement the will of the people. Members of congress are, after all, supposed to represent the people. So, the people would be exercising their rights, or "powers", by having Congress enact laws that further clarify and enumerate the responsibilities and authority of the Supreme Court. This would also mean that the people can relinquish, forfeit or transfer their rights, or "powers", to the another entity such as the federal government.

The above scenario allows for the powers of the federal government, any branch or office, to be expanded within the confines of the Constitution without requiring an amendment. Things that are explicitly restricted by the Constitution as an obvious exemption. For example, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed before that right could be outlawed.

Again, the scope of authority of the SCOTUS has not been expanded. The US Code only puts clarifications written as law to ensure that the powers of the SCOTUS are worded as specific as possible to ensure that conversations, such as the one you and I are engaged in, are minimized.

Note: I'm not stating that relinquishing any rights is a good thing or that I support people doing so. I'm only stating that it is an option, regardless of how shitty the option may be.

[YALE]

It bears mentioning that the Constitution is not the only body of text Congress alters when it makes laws. It also alters the US Code, and the CFR (two different things), and it is often in these two bodies that a law is actually spelled out, and not the related amendment. As a certain amount of legal wrangling can result in the passage of a new bill, the USC and CFR codify, more or less, where the rubber meets the road.

[racrguy]

the Fox news story was from myfoxphilly--- local story
CBS story was also a local story from CBS/KYW/AP (news radio 1060) CRIMESIDER


looks like CBS had more coverage than most, I could be wrong.

So, it originated as a local story? Who cares? A vast majority of national news starts by a local affiliate then the national series runs with it. The fact of the matter is, it's been reported on by national news sources, something that 72 members of congress are apparently too lazy to check up on. It's odd though, you say CBS had the most coverage. Which three networks were reported to have been contacted? Oh, that's right ABC, CBS, NBC.

Here's ABC's story, just so you can scream "IT'S A LOCAL STORY" some more.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/alleged-victim-calls-philadelphia-abortion-doctor-kermit-gosnell/story?id=12731387#.UXGSdqKG3zg

[racrguy]

As noted in the scope of authority listed for the Supreme Court in the constitution, no additional authority is needed for it to rule on Roe v Wade.


That being said, the Tenth Amendment and the Necessary and Proper Clause is everything needed for the law to expand on the authority of the federal government.

Per the Tenth Amendment "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." I think we agree on this.

Per Article 1, Section 8, clause 18, Congress can "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." I think we agree on this as well.

With the way the nation is designed, Congress acts on behalf of the people to implement the will of the people. Members of congress are, after all, supposed to represent the people. So, the people would be exercising their rights, or "powers", by having Congress enact laws that further clarify and enumerate the responsibilities and authority of the Supreme Court. This would also mean that the people can relinquish, forfeit or transfer their rights, or "powers", to the another entity such as the federal government.

The above scenario allows for the powers of the federal government, any branch or office, to be expanded within the confines of the Constitution without requiring an amendment. Things that are explicitly restricted by the Constitution as an obvious exemption. For example, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed before that right could be outlawed.

Again, the scope of authority of the SCOTUS has not been expanded. The US Code only puts clarifications written as law to ensure that the powers of the SCOTUS are worded as specific as possible to ensure that conversations, such as the one you and I are engaged in, are minimized.

Note: I'm not stating that relinquishing any rights is a good thing or that I support people doing so. I'm only stating that it is an option, regardless of how shitty the option may be.

It bears mentioning that the Constitution is not the only body of text Congress alters when it makes laws. It also alters the US Code, and the CFR (two different things), and it is often in these two bodies that a law is actually spelled out, and not the related amendment. As a certain amount of legal wrangling can result in the passage of a new bill, the USC and CFR codify, more or less, where the rubber meets the road.

Neither of you know what you're talking about. Just sayin'