From: v026ltr5@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Monty)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Stop the Carnage NOW!
Date: 22 Jul 92 01:02:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <mykes.09ja@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>,
mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes...
>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.

Understood. But nobody said the court didn't have the right to
TRY the case. The question is whether their argument (for want
of a better word) used the Constitution or natural law.

>> 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.

rewrote = amended

So, now that we have the 16th amendment, you admit that the 
Constitution gives tax power to congress??

>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 :)

I gotcha.

>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.

Once again, and I may be sounding a bit too Judge Bork here, but
the Supreme Court is not supposed to uphold liberty whenever it
sees it. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases arising
under the constitution. As the 14th amendment grants no substantive
rights in this area, how can the Court rule on abortion at ALL??

>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.

Hm... guess I agree with you, too. Sorry for the sarcasm. :)

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
{                                            | Matthew P. Mason        }
{          are 'friends' electric?           | SUNY Buffalo Law School }
{                                            | v026ltr5@ubvms.bitnet   }
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.abortion