Help ratify the Liberty Amendment!

[migrendel]

It is illegal for any state, with the exception of Texas, to secede. That's why we sent troops to the South in the 1860s, if you recall.

I don't see how having an income tax violates the 4th Amendment, considering that IRS agents don't enter private homes without a warrant to conduct audits. They happen to send a notice which tells you the date and time. No one is frisked or has their stomach pumped in the process. The 16th Amendment has the same authority as law as any of the other amendments, including the one you cited. Since a necessary supermajority of the Congress and the states ratified it, it's in there. You can ignore if you like, but that doesn't change what the Constitution says.

I don't see how my allegiance to my country is affected by not writing a laissez-faire economic policy coupled with radical decentralization. Most Americans lost faith in states rights when states like yours used it to segregate people.

[Bono]

I don't see how having an income tax violates the 4th Amendment, considering that IRS agents don't enter private homes without a warrant to conduct audits.

They take proprety without due process of law.

[A18]

Wrong. Any state can secede and dissolve all political ties to the union. I don't know why you made an exception for Texas, because Virginia and a handful of other states also reserved that explicit right.

The laws of reason and diplomacy would apply.

The 16th amendment repealed 4th amendment recognition of property rights. It didn't repeal those property rights.

[migrendel]

The sections of the Constitution dealing with the expropriation of private property are in the Fifth Amendment, not the Fourth. That amendment deals with search and seizure rules.

[A18]

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[A18]

By the way, that's the amendment that magically says abortion is legal

[migrendel]

If you read Roe v. Wade, it was the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that made abortion legal.

[A18]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You want to try to explain what this has to do with abortion? At least I could make a huge stretch with the 4th amendment.

[migrendel]

For a state to ban to abortion, it would violate a woman's liberty without due process.

[John Dibble]

For a state to ban to abortion, it would violate a woman's liberty without due process.

Don't act as if abortion is a clear cut issue - it isn't, no matter what either side says, and I despise it when they do. Clearly there is a conflict of rights, and whenever rights conflict you must determine whose rights take priority. Especially in this conflict, and some others of this type, the law goes outside the logical(which it normally should stay in) and into the realm of the philisophical.

[A18]

For a state to ban to abortion, it would violate a woman's liberty without due process.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Give me a break. It's not fair; I want to kill my neighbor, but the state won't let me. I WAS NOT TAKEN TO TRIAL AND TOLD I COULDN'T KILL MY NEIGHBOR!!!

Forget whether abortion is right or wrong. Saying it's legal because of the Constitution is a joke.

[John Dibble]

Forget whether abortion is right or wrong. Saying it's legal because of the Constitution is a joke.

There is only one way I could say that abortion would be constitutional.

Amendmen IX: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

This is about the broadest statement in the Constitution, and the most open to interpretation - it say the Bill of Rights does not list all our rights, meaning we have other rights. Now, I think the right to control one's own body would be one of these other rights, which I think you would agree with Phillip. Using the logic that one can control their own body you could say abortion is legal.

BUT, this could be interpreted another way too! As I said, it is the most open to interpretation. So, therefore, it could also be said that the unborn have the right not to be aborted!

Since, as I said earlier, this conflicts with the right to control one's own body, a determination of which right is higher has to be made. Since the Constitution does not explicitly say this one way or another, and the only way to determine this issue via the Constitution is so complex(The Constitution was meant to be a simple document), I believe it is an issue best left to the states to determine.

[A18]

The 9th amendment does not 'grant' any additional rights to the people, it only states the enumeration of some rights can not be used to discredit others.

Everything a person does is controlling his or her own body. It's a nonsense argument.

[John Dibble]

The 9th amendment does not 'grant' any additional rights to the people, it only states the enumeration of some rights can not be used to discredit others.

Everything a person does is controlling his or her own body. It's a nonsense argument.

Well, in the first place the Constitution doesn't 'grant' rights. I never said it did. The Bill of Rights says 'These are our rights, and the government is not allowed to violate them'. Our rights are innaliable.

And by to control one's own body, someone has to have the ability to do what they wish with their own body. So, if people have the right to control their own bodies, they should be able to legally take any drugs they like - it's their bodies, let them do as they wish with them, even wreck them.

I disagree with the idea that the 9th amendment says that those listed in the constitution are our only rights - I think it says that we have other rights, just that they are not all listed, or possibly that some are implied by the others listed.

[Giant Saguaro]

I support this. I especially like sections 2 and 4.

Since the conversation got off on abortion, I don't see how anybody can talk about "rights" and ignore those of the unborn. The idea that the Constitution gives someone the right to terminate their unborn child is sadistic and completely ignores the rights of the unborn to exist.

[A18]

What if I use my body to put a knife in someone's back?

I didn't say the 9th amendment says "these are our only rights." Just the opposite; it says that the Bill of Rights can't be used to discredit other rights.

[David S]

Well if nothing else this forum gets people thinking about the constitution and that's a good thing.  

[David S]

Philip
This seems like a really bad idea. Suppose the federal government decided to make a National park in the area where your home currently stands. The law would say all private property in the area, including your home, is to be confiscated. No compensation will be paid and the Supreme Court may not hear any cases over this issue. What would be your recourse? How could you obtain justice?

Also at the time of the founders in 1795, congress decided to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing suits filed by a citizen of one state against another state. But they did that by the 11th amendment. Apparently the founders thought they needed a constitutional amendment to do this, not just a law.

OOPS. I meant to post this in the Juducial review of marriage / pledge  thread. Sorry about that.

[A18]

I believe states disputes are in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which can't be limited by Congress.

What if the Supreme Court did hear my case and ruled that I had to give it all up? Would you follow the decision? What ifs don't happen.

[Bono]

I believe states disputes are in the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, which can't be limited by Congress.

What if the Supreme Court did hear my case and ruled that I had to give it all up? Would you follow the decision? What ifs don't happen.

What happened to your avatar???  

[cwelsch]

Abortion is legal because in Griswold v. Connecticut the Court found that a birth control law harmed the privacy of married couples.  Privacy was found to exist in the "penumbra" (look it up, chillins) between the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments.  In other words, Douglas said those rights suggested an inherent right to privacy.  Abortion falls under this heading, and the 14th both secures privacy (under Due Process clause) and guarantees it from the states.  That's how they did it.

Of course it's wrong, though.  The right to life extends constitutionally to all 'persons' and makes no exceptions for those conceived but unborn.

[migrendel]

The reasoning why abortion is a constitutional right is somewhat complex, but for those of you who are open-minded enough to give the argument a read, and not preemptively issue moral condemnation.

We can all agree that citizenship is what guarantees you Constitutional rights. Citizenship is defined by the Fourteenth Amendment as beginning at birth or naturalization, so fetuses are not citizens, meaning they do not inherently have Constitutional rights.

If a legislature creates rights for fetuses, they are thus secondary to the Constitution as written. It is quite obvious that the Due Process Clause protects the life and liberty of citizens. Since fetuses are not citizens, they are not guaranteed a right to life. Women, as citizens, are entitled to their liberty, which by any reasonable interpretation extends to basic physical autonomy and reproductive liberty. Since this is Constitutionally mandated, it overrides any legislative rights fetuses might acquire. Also, it can logically be argued that denying women the right to make a choice about abortion can prevent them from exercising their political, economic, and social rights to the same extent as mankind. It can thus be said that they are denied the equal protection of the law.

I'd also like to note a glaring legal inaccuracy in cwelsch's post. The Griswold decision was based, as he said, in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, which are non-textual constructions. Roe was not based on a penumbraic theory. It was based on a text-based construction of the Fourteenth Amendment.

[A18]

You have not shown me anywhere in the Constitution where abortion is a right.

[John Dibble]

What if I use my body to put a knife in someone's back?

I didn't say the 9th amendment says "these are our only rights." Just the opposite; it says that the Bill of Rights can't be used to discredit other rights.

1. Your using the knife on another is violating the right of the other person to control their body. You know that. Don't be silly. It's benieth you.

2. If the 9th says that the Bill of Rights can't be used to discredit other rights(which you are right, that's part of it) that implies we have other rights, does it not?

[DA]

You have not shown me anywhere in the Constitution where abortion is a right.

The right recognized is free exerise of choice. Not specifically the choice to abort or not, but it isn't prohibited either. Thus as a choice it is covered.