Abortion

[palerider]

3/5 Clause

As I said, you lack the basic knowledge to be making your argument. Clearly you have either never read the text of the 3/5th compromize or you did read it and failed to understand it.

Article 1 Section 2 Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution:

(Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.) (The previous sentence in parentheses was modified by the 14th Amendment, section 2.) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five and Georgia three.

As I said, no individual was ever counted as 3/5th of a person. Three of every five slaves was counted for the purpose of the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the House of Representatives. Individuals were not considered to be 3/5th of a person or 3/5th human.

 

[Zylstra]

I have already made an argument why abortion should be banned. Sorry the material was over your head.

You never did any such thing

 

[Zylstra]

Read the 14th amendment if you can read. "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"

Arguing current law does nothing to strengthen your argument for what should be

 

[palerider]

Arguing current law does nothing to strengthen your argument for what should be

Current law is precisely why roe needs to be overturned. Current law protects the right to live. Roe was decided based on an assumption that unborns are something other than human beings and the court stated clearly that should their assumption be proven wrong, that their decision must be overturned as unconstitutional.

Their assumption has long since been proven wrong.

 

[palerider]

You never did any such thing

Of course I have. Again, sorry the material was over your head. If you have any specific questions about my argument, feel free to ask.

 

[Zylstra]

Current law is precisely why roe needs to be overturned. Current law protects the right to live......

Roe is current law, genius

 

[palerider]

Roe is current law, genius

Sorry. Roe is a court decision. Law is legislated by the houses of congress and signed by the president. You represented yourself as having a clue. What happened?

 

[dahermit]

Sorry. Roe is a court decision. Law is legislated by the houses of congress and signed by the president. You represented yourself as having a clue. What happened?

Semantic games as per usual. A Supreme Court decision trumps any law passed by congress and signed by the president. It's decisions become the current law which can and are cited in lower courts as the law.

 

[palerider]

Semantic games as per usual. A Supreme Court decision trumps any law passed by congress and signed by the president. It's decisions become the current law which can and are cited in lower courts as the law.

Sorry. It is a court decision subject to being reversed at any time.

 

[dahermit]

Sorry. It is a court decision subject to being reversed at any time.

So what. Any law can be nullified by the Supreme Court at anytime also.

 

[Dr.Who]

So what. Any law can be nullified by the Supreme Court at anytime also.

Actually only unconstitutional laws can be nullified by the court. And if a law is made a part of the constitution then the court can do nothing to impede it.

The court does not have the power to make any laws at all only to say that laws that have been made are unconsitutional.

 

[palerider]

Actually only unconstitutional laws can be nullified by the court. And if a law is made a part of the constitution then the court can do nothing to impede it.

The court does not have the power to make any laws at all only to say that laws that have been made are unconsitutional.

How true. It is a sad statement of our educational system when adults don't recognize the difference between court decisions and actual law.

 

[dahermit]

Actually only unconstitutional laws can be nullified by the court. And if a law is made a part of the constitution then the court can do nothing to impede it.

"Actually", it is the Supreme Court that decides of a law is unconstitutional or not. Also, no "law" has ever been "made part of the constitution", it is amendments that become part of the constitution.

 

[dahermit]

How true. It is a sad statement of our educational system when adults don't recognize the difference between court decisions and actual law.

It is a sad statement of our educational system when adults don't recognize that there is no difference between "actual law" and "law". And that the difference between a law, for instance, there is no law that says that a woman has the right to an abortion. Nevertheless, since Roe vs. Wade, it is a moot point because everyone (person seeking abortions, and doctors who preform them), assumes that it gives that right to women. So, what practical/significant effect does it have on abortions?
The answer is none, your semantic self-gratification notwithstanding.

 

[palerider]

for instance, there is no law that says that a woman has the right to an abortion. [\QUOTE]

And strangely enough, a few posts back you made the claim that it was law. Do you even know what you are arguing or as I suspect, are you just making it up as you go?