Gosnell case

[Maddhattter]

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.

Unless I've missed something, I don't know of any place that the CFR denotes the scope of authority of the SCOTUS, which is what Frost is challenging.

Or was your post more of a "Yale Johnson Fact Time"?

[Forever_frost]

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 For example, the Second Amendment would have to be repealed before that right could be outlawed.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.

See, I disagree. The 10th amendment places those powers in the hands of the states and the people. Not Congress. Congress nor the SC has no power here if it's not expressly granted. The people have the power to call an Article 5 convention and put an abortion amendment in, but they have no done so. As a matter of fact, there's never been an article 5 that bypassed congress. By hearing cases that do not fall in it's enumerated mandates, it is expanding it's mandate. Same as it did with judicial review. No authority there either.

You are partially right however. We do have the right to relinquish rights. It just takes a constitutional amendment to give it to the federal government. You can give up anything you like to the states at any time

[Maddhattter]

See, I disagree. The 10th amendment places those powers in the hands of the states and the people. Not Congress. Congress nor the SC has no power here if it's not expressly granted. The people have the power to call an Article 5 convention and put an abortion amendment in, but they have no done so. As a matter of fact, there's never been an article 5 that bypassed congress. By hearing cases that do not fall in it's enumerated mandates, it is expanding it's mandate. Same as it did with judicial review. No authority there either.

You are partially right however. We do have the right to relinquish rights. It just takes a constitutional amendment to give it to the federal government. You can give up anything you like to the states at any time

So, are you saying that Congress does not, by design, act as the representative of the will of the people in the legislative branch?

If congress does act as the representative of the will of the people in the legislative branch, then the people can, through congress, give the government the any authority not explicitly forbidden to it.

Using copyright law as an analogy, the owner of the copyright holds all the rights of their intellectual property. Those rights are reserved for the person who holds the copyright.

The copyright holder can exercise those rights however they see fit, unless the law explicitly states that they cannot. If the law doesn't say that they are expressly forbidden to exercise their rights in that way, they can give, sell, transfer, or hold their rights at their discretion.

In the same way, the government has some rights it is explicitly forbidden from having authority over. Any rights that are not expressly forbidden can be granted to the federal government by the will of the people. Yes, the rights are initially reserved for the people but those rights can be transferred in the same way that the rights reserved for copyright holders can be transferred to another. No constitutional amendment would be required here, as the federal government wouldn't be doing something expressly forbidden to it by the constitution and the constitution does not forbid the people from transferring their rights to the federal government.

However, none of this is really relevant to the discussion of abortion. As this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority. The USC that I sited only clarifies that. There was no expansion of authority for the SCOTUS to rule on the constitutionality of restricting the rights of the mother to have an abortion.

If we were to interpret Article III the way you seem to want us to here, it would be a pointless addition to the constitution as it would only be a verbose way of stating that the judicial power extends to what the judicial power covers, which would be axiomatic.

[Forever_frost]

I'm saying Congress' power is limited by the constitution. It really doesn't matter what the will of the people is if there is no authority to enact it The will of the people could be to create a state religion tomorrow. 100% of the people could want it and Congress still would be unable to act as it has zero power. Or Obama could want authority to borrow because of a 'do nothing Congress.' Doesn't have the power no matter how much people scream.

The difference is, the copyright laws permit the owner to give up those rights at any point by a simple decision. The constitution permits only two ways, both require beyond supermajorities of (in one) Congress and the states and in the other, 3/4 of the states.

Any rights not expressly forbidden belongs to the states per the 10th amendment. It even says it clearly. If the people want the federal government to have more power, the Constitution itself must be amended. There is no shortcut, no trigger, nothing else. You either amend the constituiton or the federal government lacks the power.


And again, under the constitution of the United States, they do not have the authority. I listed the actual wording of the document that grants the authority and responsibilities of the Supreme Court. If the Constitution does not expressly grant them authority, it's not theirs. Case law nor US Code does not and cannot override the Constitution. It cannot grant more power nor can it expand existing power if the Constituiton does not permit it.

So your point is that the restricting of the rights of the mother is bad, but restricting the right to life of the child is good. That's pretty much what it boils down to and regardless of that, it's a state issue, not federal government. Federal government has no power over abortion or marriage or most social issues. I'm not interpreting Article 3. I'm reading it word for word. No interpretation. If you need further explaination, you are free to read the writings of the Founders.

[Maddhattter]

I'm saying Congress' power is limited by the constitution. It really doesn't matter what the will of the people is if there is no authority to enact it

Congress' power is granted by the constitution. Most notably that its "power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States". Again, if you add the "under it's authority" to anything other than "treaties made, or which shall be made" you negate the entire point of Article III of the constitution.

This gives the SCOTUS the power to rule on whether or not it is a violation of the mother's constitutional rights when a state outlaws abortions.

The will of the people could be to create a state religion tomorrow. 100% of the people could want it and Congress still would be unable to act as it has zero power. Or Obama could want authority to borrow because of a 'do nothing Congress.' Doesn't have the power no matter how much people scream.

That's because both of these powers are explicitly removed from everyone (in the case of creating a state religion) and anyone but Congress (in the case of the budget).

So, we agree that neither of these things can legally happen.

The difference is, the copyright laws permit the owner to give up those rights at any point by a simple decision.

Then, from your perspective, there really is no difference. The constitution only grants Congress the power "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries". This does not allow them to transfer it. Unless, of course, the people can do what they please with their rights, including giving them away.

The constitution permits only two ways, both require beyond supermajorities of (in one) Congress and the states and in the other, 3/4 of the states.

We agree that this is required to amend the constitution. Considering that amending it is not required in any of the situations being discussed, I'll not drag on about it.

Any rights not expressly forbidden belongs to the states per the 10th amendment. It even says it clearly. If the people want the federal government to have more power, the Constitution itself must be amended. There is no shortcut, no trigger, nothing else. You either amend the constituiton or the federal government lacks the power.

Much like the copyright clause, if the people have a right, then they may do with it what they please.

And again, under the constitution of the United States, they do not have the authority. I listed the actual wording of the document that grants the authority and responsibilities of the Supreme Court. If the Constitution does not expressly grant them authority, it's not theirs. Case law nor US Code does not and cannot override the Constitution. It cannot grant more power nor can it expand existing power if the Constituiton does not permit it.

Considering what they were ruling on was the constitutionality of restricting the mother's rights to biological autonomy, they did have the authroity. Article III does not support your reading of it, unless you completely negate the point of it existing at all.

So your point is that the restricting of the rights of the mother is bad, but restricting the right to life of the child is good.

No. My point is that the mother has the right to biological autonomy, in the same way that you and I do. If she does not want to provide biological services/support to the fetus, she cannot be legally forced to do so. The fetus has no rights to the mother's body, so the rights of the fetus (if it can be granted rights) are no more being violated than a person sitting on a doner list while you or I are refusing to donate blood/ a kidney/heart/etc.

That's pretty much what it boils down to and regardless of that, it's a state issue, not federal government. Federal government has no power over abortion or marriage or most social issues.

Unless the regulation of those issues violates the constitution. Then the SCOTUS can rule on it and override the lower courts rulings and overturn state law. That is, of course, the entire purpose of our court system.

I'm not interpreting Article 3. I'm reading it word for word. No interpretation. If you need further explaination, you are free to read the writings of the Founders.

We are both interpreting, it's unavoidable. Without interpretation, the constitution is nothing more than pointless scribbles on parchment. You and I must take those scribbles and interpret them into information for the document to actually mean anything.

[bcoop]

.....

Surely you realize by now, that he is always right, and you're never going to convince him otherwise...

[Forever_frost]

See Bcoop, Hatter makes good arguments and I enjoy the education. It requires I study to debate him.

How does a woman's right to privacy (which is what the SC decided on) override the right to life that a baby has? Constitutionally speaking of course.

As far as interpreting the constitution, there is no authority of anyone to do so. You may look at the constitution to decide if a law is valid within the bounds of the authority granted to the SC but you cannot interpret the constitution itself. If you doubt anything that is written in it, the Founders wrote reams of papers on the thoughts and definitions for the wording they used. The document means exactly what it says, no interpretation needed. If more authority is wanted (the power to decide on abortion for instance), authority must be granted by amendment.

From my reading of the document, I find no mention of abortion. Perhaps you can show me where such is mentioned.

Again Hatter, you're probably my favorite person to debate with.

[Geor!]

Guilty of Murder in the First Degree x3

[Forever_frost]

Should be death penalty. Next up? Going after other murderers who call themselves 'women's health providers' while killing children

[Maddhattter]

Guilty of Murder in the First Degree x3

Should be death penalty.

/Agreed.

Next up? Going after other murderers who call themselves 'women's health providers' while killing children

Next up? That is exactly what they did.