# Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .



## Chuz Life (Jun 12, 2017)

*Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .*

To say that a human being in one set of circumstances is a "person" but that same human being in another set of circumstances, is not?

The relevant part of the Constitution (as far as I can tell) simply says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws" - 14th amendment.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2017)

I think it is overwhelmingly pronounced that a baby in the womb is indeed a person and who ever tries to deny that is grasping for straws to make a case for ending the life for their own reasons such as unwilling to bring a baby to term for their own selfish reasons.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 12, 2017)

So we better be ready to pay for all the children that are born forcefully into this world...We don't want them to starve and they deserve equal protection.


----------



## cnm (Jun 12, 2017)

Does the Constitution give the government authority to say a zygote is a person?


----------



## Ringel05 (Jun 12, 2017)

cnm said:


> Does the Constitution give the government authority to say a zygote is a person?


In California maybe.......


----------



## SYTFE (Jun 12, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> *Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .*
> 
> To say that a human being in one set of circumstances is a "person" but that same human being in another set of circumstances, is not?
> 
> The relevant part of the Constitution (as far as I can tell) simply says that "all persons are entitled to the equal protections of our laws" - 14th amendment.



Man, you've really got a one track mind.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Jun 12, 2017)

It should be a state issue. The US Constitution does not provide for it. Conservatives, which I am one, need to heed the wisdom of the great judgement of Anthony Scalia. Watch this video, pay particular attention to what the judge says around 2:50 mark.


----------



## depotoo (Jun 12, 2017)

Madeline, born 9.9 oz, in 1989, and at 22.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 12, 2017)

cnm said:


> Does the Constitution give the government authority to say a zygote is a person?



Of course it does....as long as that zygote is the child of two human beings... then it too is also a human being and as such, they are PERSONS.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 12, 2017)

Why not do the honest thing and allow a childless couple to have a child!


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

BuckToothMoron said:


> It should be a state issue. The US Constitution does not provide for it. Conservatives, which I am one, need to heed the wisdom of the great judgement of Anthony Scalia. Watch this video, pay particular attention to what the judge says around 2:50 mark.



If Scalia died thinking that "personhood" is something that each State has a right to decide as each state sees fit? 

Scalia died an idiot.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

SYTFE said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > *Does the US Constitution give the govt. the authority. . .*
> ...



That's not true.... but I'm flattered that I've been able to make you think so.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

Where are all of pur Constitutional scholars on this?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

Suppose the lawmakers decide to make a new law saying any human being that is here legally is a "person" but any human being that is not here legally is NOT... and therefore has no rights as a person. 

Would that be Constitutional?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

Crickets.wav


----------



## Jackson (Jun 13, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Suppose the lawmakers decide to make a new law saying any human being that is here legally is a "person" but any human being that is not here legally is NOT... and therefore has no rights as a person.
> 
> Would that be Constitutional?


That is a bazarre question.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 13, 2017)

Jackson said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose the lawmakers decide to make a new law saying any human being that is here legally is a "person" but any human being that is not here legally is NOT... and therefore has no rights as a person.
> ...




Why is that any more bizarre than what we have today - with laws that say a "child in the womb " is a human being in one set of circumstances but not in others?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 14, 2017)

. . .  and waiting


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 14, 2017)

The federal government has supremacy over the states. If it isn't limited by the constitution directly saying so then it is up to case law. How hard is it for you to understand?


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 14, 2017)

Matthew said:


> The federal government has supremacy over the states. If it isn't limited by the constitution directly saying so then it is up to case law. How hard is it for you to understand?



  The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that the federal government only has those powers that the Constitution explicitly assigns to it; all other powers being reserved to the states or to the people.  The vast majority of what the federal government now does, it does illegally, usurping powers that the Constitution does not assign to it.


----------



## Jackson (Jun 14, 2017)

Matthew said:


> The federal government has supremacy over the states. If it isn't limited by the constitution directly saying so then it is up to case law. How hard is it for you to understand?


I'm not sure what you said.  But, States rights denotes that if the constitution does not blatantly give the Federal government rights, it is expected it is a States the have the power to determine their own future.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 14, 2017)

Matthew said:


> The federal government has supremacy over the states. If it isn't limited by the constitution directly saying so then it is up to case law. How hard is it for you to understand?



Was that a yes or a no? Does the government have the power (through case law or any other way) to recognize a human being in one set of circumstances as a person... but that same human being in any other set of circumstances is NOT a person?

Yes or no.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 14, 2017)

Where are my Pro life and antiabortion colleagues on this? Do you see the point I am getting at?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 14, 2017)

Unless I  see some damn good explanations for how the government has the Constitutional authority to say a human being in one situation is a person... but that same human being is not a person in any other set of circumstances . . .?

I'm going to take everyone's silence on this as a NO!

My point is validated by your silence.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 15, 2017)

I wonder how a Supreme Court Justice would answer this question and poll. It would be nice if that branch of the government was accessible and accountable as the other two are.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 15, 2017)

Matthew said:


> The federal government has supremacy over the states. If it isn't limited by the constitution directly saying so then it is up to case law. How hard is it for you to understand?



Just as a woman has supremacy over what is going on inside her body


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 15, 2017)

Mr Clean said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > The federal government has supremacy over the states. If it isn't limited by the constitution directly saying so then it is up to case law. How hard is it for you to understand?
> ...



If that is true.... how do explain the cutoff dates for when it's too late for a woman to get a legal abortion?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 16, 2017)

No comments, votes or discussions on this?

Maybe I will just start a new thread every five minutes like everyone else does.


----------



## koshergrl (Jun 16, 2017)

Human rights do not emanate from the Constitution, they are not "granted" by our government. They are protected by it.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 16, 2017)

koshergrl said:


> Human rights do not emanate from the Constitution, they are not "granted" by our government. They are protected by it.




100% correct.

At least that's how it was intended to be. 

Isn't it interesting that none of our usmb abortion proponents want to discuss this any further?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 17, 2017)

How about it, Clayton.... You want to address this issue?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 18, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> . . .  and waiting




If you're going to spend your life obsessing about running the lives of others, learn to do your own research instead of always demanding to be spoon fed like the dumb ass baby you are. 

Meanwhile, read the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 19, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > . . .  and waiting
> ...




The 14th  amendment says that "ALL persons" are entitled to the equal protection of our laws. 

Funny how Conservatives read that as being INCLUSIVE of the rights of children in the womb and leftarded fuckstains like yourself see it as *EX*clusive of their rights.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 19, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> . . .  and waiting




If you're going to spend your life obsessing about running the lives of others, learn to do your own research instead of always demanding to be spoon fed like the dumb ass baby you are. 

Meanwhile, read the 14th Amendment.




Chuz Life said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...



Chuz Life 

And STILL, anti-freedom fundies can't be bothered to read their own constitution or how their own govt works. 

Ever hear of the SCOTUS? Do you know what their job is? 

I suggest you read the SCOTUS Blog. Don't worry. Its pretty simple reading. If you do, you will find the constitution does indeed guarantee the right to abortion. I've read half a dozen links just this morning. Why haven't you? And no, I'm not going to do it for you.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 19, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > . . .  and waiting
> ...



During Roe, the SCOTUS said (and the pro abort lawyers agreed) that any States recognition of the personhood of children in the womb would make the case for abortion "nearly impossible" to make.

Read my signature!

Then, try to wrap your head around the number of fetal HOMICIDE laws that have been passed since the SCOTUS made that statement.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 20, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > Chuz Life said:
> ...




So, if you already knew that, why did you ask the question? Why did you start this thread? 

Oh, that's right. Because you want to spam and harass and control other people's lives.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 20, 2017)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...




Asking if the government HAS done something in the past is one question. . . asking if the government has or had the Constitutional authority to do it, is another. 

Funny how you missed that.


----------



## Vastator (Jun 20, 2017)

People's pro abortion stance is little more than a thinly veiled fraud. On one hand; if they wish to kill the baby by having an abortion, they say it wasn't a person.
Then some thug comes along and shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach, then they want to charge them with a double homicide...

So... Like most "serious" issues with lefties; it is merely their feelings in a given moment that shape the reality they live in. Including what determines, what a person is, or isnt, and when...


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 20, 2017)

Vastator said:


> People's pro abortion stance is little more than a thinly veiled fraud. On one hand; if they wish to kill the baby by having an abortion, they say it wasn't a person.
> Then some thug comes along and shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach, then they want to charge them with a double homicide...
> 
> So... Like most "serious" issues with lefties; it is merely their feelings in a given moment that shape the reality they live in. Including what determines, what a person is, or isnt, and when...



The question is - does our government have the Constitutional authority to say that same human being / child IS a person in one situation but NOT a person in any other situation.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jun 20, 2017)

Vastator said:


> People's pro abortion stance is little more than a thinly veiled fraud. On one hand; if they wish to kill the baby by having an abortion, they say it wasn't a person.
> Then some thug comes along and shoots a pregnant woman in the stomach, then they want to charge them with a double homicide...
> 
> So... Like most "serious" issues with lefties; it is merely their feelings in a given moment that shape the reality they live in. Including what determines, what a person is, or isnt, and when...



  They really haven't changed, that much.  A few centuries ago, it was black people, abducted from Africa, whose humanity was denied, in order to promote the Democrat's immoral and insane agenda.  Now, it's unborn children.


----------



## mamooth (Jun 20, 2017)

Chuz Life said:


> The question is - does our government have the Constitutional authority to say that same human being / child IS a person in one situation but NOT a person in any other situation.



Sure. Pro-lifers are allowed to convince government to do stupid things, like make laws proclaiming that zygotes are people. The big fallacy in your reasoning is how you think "person" is defined by government whim, instead of by reason, science, history and common sense.

You can convince government to pass a law saying an apple is an orange, but that won't make an apple an orange. Pro-lifers can convince government to pass a loopy law saying a zygote is a person, but that won't make a zygote into a person.

That's the problem with you righties. You "feel" that you can force reality to be whatever you want it to be, just by bribing someone into passing a law. The edicts of big government are the source of your belief system. In stark contrast, we on the left always work from a rock-solid foundation of reason and good morality.

Oh, there's another flaw in your "reasoning". Fetal homicide laws don't say that a fetus is a person. For example, you'd be penalized heavily for killing an eagle, but that doesn't mean eagles are people.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 20, 2017)

mamooth said:


> . . .
> 
> Oh, there's another flaw in your "reasoning". Fetal homicide laws don't say that a fetus is a person. For example, you'd be penalized heavily for killing an eagle, but that doesn't mean eagles are people.



The charge for killing a child in the womb, under our fetal HOMICIDE laws is MURDER. 

How does the charge of MURDER not trigger enough of the few brain cells you have - to conclude that the thing that was killed was an actual human being / person?


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 22, 2017)

Can you be charged with MURDER for killing an eagle? Would a law that made it a crime of MURDER to kill an eagle be Constitutional?


----------

