You're saying that because Ron Paul introduced it, that automatically makes it constitutional? Sorry, I don't agree with you there. No, actually it doesn't. If Roe had challenged the statute under the Texas Constitution, the case would not have been reviewable by the Federal Supreme Court. But she challenged the statute under the Federal Constitution, thus giving the Supreme Court federal question jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-question_jurisdiction http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1331.html
Sorry but where in the world is pregnancy NEVER "accidental"? Oooops! That is right - only in the MALE world Most women are at least two weeks pregnant before they know of it and by then the major harm has been done And you still have not answered me in relation to those other cases where death of both is not clear cut. In THOSE cases (rare or not they do exist) do we have to get consent from the foetus for treatment?
I was being tounge in cheek a bit there, but there is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prevents it. I guess we will just wait and see what happens. I for one would love to see Federal court jurisdiction removed from State issues.
I said nothing about it being accidental...my only point was that you know within a reasonable amount of time. I doubt major harm has been done...people smoked and drank for years before they knew they were pregnant. I wasn't aware a fetus could speak. I guess in those cases the woman and her doctor would have to decide.
Abortion is not a state issue. It is not a federal issue. It is not a government issue. It is a private and personal issue and Roe vs. Wade declared it so for every woman in the USA, not just those in some states. Just get over the idea that women need some level of government to legislate over their bodily functions.
I am not asking anyone to legislate over bodily functions. You either feel a fetus is a person or not, if not...the killing of a fetus under ANY circumstance cannot be murder. It isn't creating an ex post facto law...it is simply removing jurisdiction. If the court no longer has jurisdiction its rulings are no longer valid going forward. It would not criminalize past actions...just remove jurisdiction for future events.
(((((((((((((((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))))))))))))))) I love ignorance Guess when the greatest cell division occurs? Guess when the greatest risk of teratogenicity occurs? As for smoking (ever heard of a small by dates baby) and alcohol (foetal alcohol syndrome) they are well known to have effects And if a foetus is a "person" then that person has to give consent - because if the mother is taking the drug then so, often but not always, is the foetus
The cited reasoning looks pretty thin, as the only provision I'm aware of granting Congress any explicit power to impose regulations on the courts is the exceptions clause, and that only applies to appellate SC jurisdiction. Not nearly often enough, obviously, but it's a damm good thing Lincoln ignored Ex parte Merryman. Sure looks to me like A3S2C1 does, unless someone can explain to me how the categories enumerated in Section 3 of the bill can be deemed to fall outside the bounds of that constitutional provision.
I only have history and experience to go off of...and they tell me that people for better or worse have been drinking and smoking prior to knowing they were pregnant and turning out babies that are just fine for decades hell centuries. If the fetus is not a person, then it is impossible to murder a fetus and it could be open season on pregnant ladies with only assault charges to face.
Here is the text of Article 3 Section 2 "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. " I added the bolding as it seems to support the proposed legislation.
But it doesn't, because it proposes to limit the jurisdiction, both original and appellate, of the Judiciary as a whole, not just the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS, which is all A3S2C2 allows for on its face.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/235/14/1458.short Look at the date on that paper - 1976!! That is how long we have known about this http://med.stanford.edu/medicalreview/smrp14-16.pdf
So you are saying that the proposed legislation over steps because it seeks to limit more than is allowed by A2S2C2?
More precisely, that provision does not grant such legislative power, so it must be found elsewhere in the Constitution or not at all.
GEEEZ, 27 pages and no one has it right yet! Any woman should be charged with murder if she should refuse to receive the gift of life when offered as life begins at erection! Just ask your minister!
I'd say life might as well begin at erection, if that could be the case think of the fun we could have.....makes as much since to me as forcing a 14 year old rape victim to give birth.
Be an adult and leave emotion out of the argument. Logically when does life begin....regardless of your moral feelings on the subject.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8"]Every Sperm is Sacred {Monty Python's Meaning of Life} - YouTube[/ame] No more needs be said
The following two clauses establish Congressional authority to change the jurisdiction of federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court.
Obviously, and if H.R.958 did that rather than limit the power of the Judiciary as a whole it would be a different argument.
