Is it Constitutional for the Government to recognize a Human Being as a Person in one Situation but Deny their Personhood in all other Situations?

[progressive hunter]

Bull shit.

Using that logic, the ONLY persons who can challenge the Constitutionality of any given piece of legislation, would be the SCOTUS itself.

No, the USSC is the ultimate ruler on the constitutionality of any given piece of legislation.

I'm not even a Yank and I know this.

true but thats it,,,they cant make laws or decisions beyond that,,,

that aside a law can still be unconstitutional without their ruling,,,

 

[TNHarley]

Bull shit.

Using that logic, the ONLY persons who can challenge the Constitutionality of any given piece of legislation, would be the SCOTUS itself.

No, the USSC is the ultimate ruler on the constitutionality of any given piece of legislation.

I'm not even a Yank and I know this.

Yea and they also abuse their power.
Fuck those political activists. The constitution is quite clear

 

[progressive hunter]

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

All legislation is deemed constitutional until the USSC rules otherwise. Therefore if legislation exists where a position is had both ways, it is deemed constitutional. The USSC gets to decide.

thats like saying murder is legal until someone complains and takes you to court,,,

 

[Coyote]

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

LINK?

I understand why you think that is the inference.

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

EDITED TO ADD: Once that precedence has been established, how would it not reopen the door for all sorts of previously bad situations, like Slavery, again?

Recognizing the rights of something that is inhabiting and growing in another person's body, as equal to that of the owner of that body would in itself open the door to all sorts of bad situations.

name one???

Slavery

 

[progressive hunter]

The USSC says having it both ways is constitutional. And they get to decide.

LINK?

I understand why you think that is the inference.

Can you provide a link where the Supreme Court actually makes THAT specific declaration?

EDITED TO ADD: Once that precedence has been established, how would it not reopen the door for all sorts of previously bad situations, like Slavery, again?

Recognizing the rights of something that is inhabiting and growing in another person's body, as equal to that of the owner of that body would in itself open the door to all sorts of bad situations.

name one???

Slavery

youre kidding right???
unwanted babys are going to be turned into slaves???

thats illegal in this country already unless the dems are planning to revive it,,,


now do you have just one that doesnt sound dumb???

 

[cnm]

Your laxy minded appeal to authority is noted.

Your refusal to face reality is completely expected.

 

[cnm]

true but thats it,,,they cant make laws or decisions beyond that,,,

that aside a law can still be unconstitutional without their ruling,,,

If a law has not been ruled unconstitutional, or whatever the term or process is, then that law is deemed constitutional. I'm not a Yank and I know that. It may well be that it doesn't take the USSC to rule legislation unconstitutional, other courts may do so. Even so.

 

[cnm]

The constitution is quite clear

As interpreted by the USSC. Funny how a well regulated militia meant handguns for self defence. Couldn't find that anywhere in the Constitution yet Scalia interpreted it.

 

[progressive hunter]

true but thats it,,,they cant make laws or decisions beyond that,,,

that aside a law can still be unconstitutional without their ruling,,,

If a law has not been ruled unconstitutional, or whatever the term or process is, then that law is deemed constitutional. I'm not even a Yank and I know that.

not true,,
thats like saying murder is legal until someone complains and takes you to court,,,


if the constitution doesnt authorize it its against the constitution,,ie unconstitutional,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The constitution is quite clear

As interpreted by the USSC. Funny how a well regulated militia meant handguns for self defence. Couldn't find that anywhere in the Constitution yet Scalia interpreted it.

scalias a dumbass traitor,,,

 

[luchitociencia]

While I appreciate your views on abortion. This thread is specifically about whether or not the government can CONSTITUTIONALLY recognize a himan being in one set of circumstances ASa person and then DENY that human being is a person in any or all other circumstances.

It goes far beyond abortion.

Having the Constitution projected for the preservation of the integrity of human being as a person and as part of society, and knowing the existence of rules which are contrary to the establishments of the Constitution, can you please provide any other circumstances where the condition of a "human being" is not considered as a person, other than being inside the womb of a woman?

If none, where those rules against the recognition of a human being as a person are originated from, other than abortion issues?

 

[Chuz Life]

Fucking Christ, this is like herding cats.

If a law was written that said blacks are not "person" for the purpose of making slavery legal again, and the Supreme Court refused to rule on whether or not that law was Constitutional. . . Would that fucking law ACTUALLY be Constitutional? Or not?

 

[luchitociencia]

If a law was written that said blacks are not "person" for the purpose of making slavery legal again...

Now you are talking.

You are giving the "purpose".

However, the Constitution is not about the definition of an individual as a person but about human rights. In this case, the rights of the black person.

Every time the Constitution is used, the issue in question has been rights for marriage, rights for life, rights for carrying arms, rights, rights, rights..

(To define "person" you must consult the US Code Title 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION Section 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant:

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development...)

(I don't agree with such a definition but such is what the Act of Congress has stipulated)

In the past, blacks were always considered as persons, only "three fifths of a person" but persons at last. The reason for this condition was to avoid their right of vote.

Then, you have a definition -of three fifths of a person - which was valid in those times to take away some rights from a group of the population.

However, it was established that slavery was to be ended in a certain number of years after the writing of the Constitution.

Your hypothetical question can't be answered if you are not establishing first what is the position of the Constitution in your example about slavery, slavery rights, slavery trade, etc.

But, if you use your hypothetical question applying the current Constitutional determination, then you have:

The 13th Amendment. Section 1:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

There you finally have the answer to your question, an answer based on the 13th Amendment, where no matter if blacks are or are not considered "persons": slavery is not constitutional.

Then, the Supreme Court doesn't have to make deliberations about the law of blacks as persons as being constitutional or not for the purpose of slavery, simply because slavery is not allowed in the United States.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court might be called to intervene and decide or give an opinion on the internal conflict in Congress between the Act of Congress Section 8 and the new law of blacks as "no persons".

If the Supreme Court -of your example- refuses to take sides on the issue -from above-discussed in Congress, then, can you please change your question? I don't know sh*t about legal stuff...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

true but thats it,,,they cant make laws or decisions beyond that,,,

that aside a law can still be unconstitutional without their ruling,,,

If a law has not been ruled unconstitutional, or whatever the term or process is, then that law is deemed constitutional. I'm not a Yank and I know that. It may well be that it doesn't take the USSC to rule legislation unconstitutional, other courts may do so. Even so.

Correct.

Laws are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise; and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws which compel women to give birth against their will are in fact un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“If a law was written that said blacks are not "person" for the purpose of making slavery legal again...”

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to due process of the law, the rights and protected liberties of the woman being paramount.

 

[Chuz Life]

As a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, an embryo/fetus is not a person, and not entitled to due process of the law, the rights and protected liberties of the woman being paramount.

Fucking Donny.

Why are you letting people sit in jail for MURDER, when their alleged victim was NOT even a "person" and (according to you) NOT entitled to the "equal protections of our laws? "

You do know what the definition of MURDER is.

Don't you? DONNY?

 

[Chuz Life]

If a law was written that said blacks are not "person" for the purpose of making slavery legal again...

Now you are talking.

You are giving the "purpose".

However, the Constitution is not about the definition of an individual as a person but about human rights. In this case, the rights of the black person.

Every time the Constitution is used, the issue in question has been rights for marriage, rights for life, rights for carrying arms, rights, rights, rights..

(To define "person" you must consult the US Code Title 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS Chapter 1. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION Section 8. “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant:

(a)
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development...)

(I don't agree with such a definition but such is what the Act of Congress has stipulated)

In the past, blacks were always considered as persons, only "three fifths of a person" but persons at last. The reason for this condition was to avoid their right of vote.

Then, you have a definition -of three fifths of a person - which was valid in those times to take away some rights from a group of the population.

However, it was established that slavery was to be ended in a certain number of years after the writing of the Constitution.

Your hypothetical question can't be answered if you are not establishing first what is the position of the Constitution in your example about slavery, slavery rights, slavery trade, etc.

But, if you use your hypothetical question applying the current Constitutional determination, then you have:

The 13th Amendment. Section 1:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

There you finally have the answer to your question, an answer based on the 13th Amendment, where no matter if blacks are or are not considered "persons": slavery is not constitutional.

Then, the Supreme Court doesn't have to make deliberations about the law of blacks as persons as being constitutional or not for the purpose of slavery, simply because slavery is not allowed in the United States.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court might be called to intervene and decide or give an opinion on the internal conflict in Congress between the Act of Congress Section 8 and the new law of blacks as "no persons".

If the Supreme Court -of your example- refuses to take sides on the issue -from above-discussed in Congress, then, can you please change your question? I don't know sh*t about legal stuff...

Way to completely miss the point of the hypothetical. And, for what it is worth, there are more than just one legal definition about the personhood of children in the womb. The so called "legal" definitions can and do contradict one another and that is the one of the reasons for my OP.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The constitution is quite clear

As interpreted by the USSC. Funny how a well regulated militia meant handguns for self defence. Couldn't find that anywhere in the Constitution yet Scalia interpreted it.

True.

The hypocrisy of conservatives is infamous.

Conservatives are all for “states’ rights” when it comes to the states seeking to compel women to give birth against their will or denying same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.

But when the states enact firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law “states’ rights” goes out the window and conservatives sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Chuz Life]

Off topic posts from all sides have been reported.

Why is it so hard to stay on topic?

 

[TNHarley]

The constitution is quite clear

As interpreted by the USSC. Funny how a well regulated militia meant handguns for self defence. Couldn't find that anywhere in the Constitution yet Scalia interpreted it.

A well regulated militia means any gun for everyone abive a certain age.
And btw, scalia sucked.
There hasnt been an originalist in over a century.