From: mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stop the Carnage NOW!
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 19 Jul 92 20:03:58 PST
Organization: Amiga makes it possible

In article <Brn65w.DB5@acsu.buffalo.edu> v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty) writes:
> In article <mykes.09d8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>, mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG
> (Mike Schwartz) writes...
> >> Sorry, Jack.  As you yourself pointed out above, the fourteenth amendment refers
> >> only to procedural due process, not substantive due process as judicial
> >> activists have "interpreted" it to mean.  Any violation of rights which
> >> procedurally goes through due process of law is ok.
> >Being heard at the Suppreme Court level IS due process.
>
> Mike, this is incredibly circular reasoning, and you know it. Yes,
> you have the right to be heard in the Supreme Court if the government
> violated the Constitution. That does NOT mean that the Supreme Court
> can just make up rights out of nowhere under the guise of due process.
>

The Supreme Court is an appelate court, which means that Roe was heard
at several levels of the court system, which certainly means due process
was applied.  Due process is also an Amendment to the constitution or
legislation by congress deemed constitutional by the Court.

The right to 14th Amendment rights to be secured by a fetus was
argued by the STATE of Texas (Wade) as the compelling state interest
in keeping Abortion illegal.  This compelling state interest
was weighed against the woman's right to "secure the blessings
of liberty" (Preamble, 14th Amendment) to herself.  This was certainly
a conflict in the constitution and was resolved by the Supreme
Court.  The power to resolve this conflict is certainly given to
the Supreme Court.  In fact, Article III section 2b states that
"In all cases ... in which a state shall be a party, the Supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction."  Wade was a representative
of the STATE of Texas.

> >The Constitution prohibits direct taxation of the people by the federal
> >government, yet we have the IRS and income tax.  The Constitution itself
> >grants many powers of the states to the federal government - like the
> >right to regulate the air waves...
>
> Mike, you're very, very confused. The Sixteenth Amendment quite
> clearly gives congress the power to tax incomes. No part of the
> constitution mentions regulation of the airwaves. Are you sure
> you're looking at the same constitution the rest of us use?
>

Article I secsion 2c.  "Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several states which may be included in the
union..."  Federal Income Tax is a direct tax.  This is in direct
contrast with the 16th Amendmend which rewrote a portion of the
constition that existed at the time.  Many things in the constitution
were put there by the founding fathers because of the way England
treated the colonists.  The result was a government designed to have the
states run things and have the central government to prevent costly
redundancies.  People were granted freedom from intrusion by the
federal government in their daily lives, on all levels.  States are
NOT granted this same right.

> >I will not quote it here, but you are ignoring Article IV, sections 1 and 2,
> >of the Constitution.  And there are other provisions in the Constitution
> >which specifically direct the federal government to control interstate
> >trade, which is what Legal Abortion was before Roe.
>
> Abortion was interstate commerce? WHAT are you talking about?? Roe
> was about the right of STATES to regulate abortion, not the Fed. Gov't.
>

Abortion was indeed interstate commerce.  Women traveled across state
lines to have abortions in states where it was legal to have one.  I did
not say Roe was about interstate commerce.  I brought this point up
because if you look at only one phrase of the constitution, you may miss
other parts that are relevant.  I do not accuse you of missing anything,
but I do accuse the original poster :)

> >The Supreme Court ruling on Roe specifically deals with this issue.  The test of
> >viability is explained in explicit detail, and the logic as to how this test
> >was arrived at is also explained.  I believe it is a big flaw in the decision,
> >and this is just my opinion, that this test was fixed in terms of 1973
> >medical, scientific, and theological technologies.  But from the questions
> >you ask, it seems as if you haven't read the Roe decision...  Expect a copy
> >in e-mail from me :)
>
> I think the problem is that nowhere in the Constitution does the
> Supreme Court have the right to determine when life begins. Since
> no such right is given, can't we safely assume that, per the
> Tenth Amendment, that the States then have the right to determine
> when life begins, therefore if abortion is murder or not?
>

From my reading of the Roe decision, it is clear that the Court felt
that it was a violation of personal liberty to prevent a woman from
having an abortion.  There IS a woman who is a US Citizen protected by
the Constitution involved.  There is a fetus that is not a US citizen
(born or naturalized) involved. The conflict between state laws and
constitutional right to privacy made it make sense to have the Supreme
Court decide upon the constitutionality of the state laws.

When I read the 14th Amendment, I can find nothing at all that would
grant ANY rights of US citizens to any fetus up to BIRTH.  As well, a
very significant phrase is "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 protection of the law..."  I strongly feel that
the Bill of Rights and all the other amendments granting new Rights
are so very important to us.  They protect the minority from a
tyrannical majority and keep us a free nation.

I've consistently stated that I do not agree with how the Court reached
its conclusions in the Roe decision.  They were correct to find that a
fetus is not protected by the constitution, having not been born.  But
they also settled the question of whether Abortion is murder or not,
which was the wrong thing to do.  The question of whether or not a
fetus is a life is one that doesn't seem answerable, given all the
arguments both ways.  And the court built up a house of cards to support
their conclusion about life and the fetus and put it in a vaccuum to
prevent a gust of wind from blowing it all down.  The court clearly chose
a subset of all evidence presented to support their opinion.

This leads to an important point.  Even though an illegal alien,
for example, is not a citizen, I am not allowed to kill him/her
because it is murder.  Murder of a fetus (assuming it is a life)
would normally be a state and not federal matter.  Allowing abortion
of the fetus to be legal (assuming it is not a life) should also be
a state matter.  I see no evidence that abortion, where legal, would
not be permitted to a woman who desires one.  I see no reason for the
federal government to make abortion accessable at all - it should be
a grass roots matter.

The Roe decision would have been correct to rule that the state of
Texas had the right to determine that a fetus was life or not.  It
should have also granted Roe the right to travel anywhere she wanted
to get a legal abortion.  It should have also guaranteed this right
to enjoy the benefits and priviledges of the state of her choosing,
which is her right as a citizen.

What it boils down to, Monty, is that I agree with you, but do not
follow Jack's reasoning.

> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> {                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
> {          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
> {                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

--
Author of Amiga GRn, MailMinder, Budokan, Beyond Dark Castle, Dark Castle,
and Genesis Dick Tracy and Marble Madness.
Mike Schwartz  (ames!zorch!amiga0!mykes or mykes@amiga0.sf-bay.org)
1124 Fremont Ave.
Los Altos, CA 94024