I’d rather have a doddering old man than an evil narcissistic sociopath bent on destroying our republic at the whim of his Russian pimp.
What you are talking about is not when life begins or what is a human life, because as I said those questions have fairly easy scientific (biological) answers. You are talking about when personhood begins and when you are entitled to certain rights. Those are legal questions, and the answer is whenever the law says so. You don't want to say this though, so you pretend that there is some great mystery to when a new human comes into existence and that there is no way to define that through science and reason, so it must be a religious concept. Spending Power | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress That certainly isn't what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the general welfare clause. The power is taxation, the purpose of the power is to pay debts and promote the general welfare. It is not a general grant of authority to do whatever Congress wants as long as they say it is for the greater good. Even the more expansive Hamiltonian view that says the General Welfare clause is not limited to the other enumerated powers still limits what can be done under the clause to taxation and spending. A tax on cigarettes or gasoline for example, could arguably be an exercise of the power. Disallowing private entities from selling food or drugs without government approval is neither taxation nor spending. Certainly the expansive view of the Interstate Commerce Clause that the court has followed since the 1930s agrees with your interpretation. The view used for the prior 140 years did not. In the beginning, commerce meant trade and interstate meant that it required the trade to occur from one state to another. It was about shipping and tariffs between states and where taxes had to be paid and which states navigation laws had to be followed. There was absolutely no thought that renting a room in a hotel (which by its nature cannot cross state lines, it is fixed to the land) was an act of interstate commerce. Nor would be growing mar1juana in your own yard. Or selling hamburgers at a restaurant. FDR wanted to have federal control of the wheat market though, so magically in the 1930s the power to regulate interstate commerce became the power to regulate any action or inaction that in combination with any number of other people participating in the same action or inaction could in the aggregate have some effect on interstate commerce or the channels of interstate commerce.
Science doesn't address when a human life begins, you are using semantics to base your position off of, not science. I am just pointing that out. You claim your position is a scientific one. It is not. Science doesn't answer those kinds of questions the way you think it does. That's not the purpose of science which is literally a methodology of experimentation. It is your belief that a human life begins at conception. You have't shown anything outside of semantic gymnastics to show otherwise. You are the one pretending here my friend.
When does a foetus have moral status? https://theconversation.com/when-does-a-foetus-have-moral-status-94885
The "sanctity" or respect of the Court as being made of wise men on a hill never really existed, but most people did not really question the rulings and the Court was a mystery. That is no longer the case. The Court is less venerated or respected right now, than ever before. People have resources to read the rulings and decisions...... we have the college lives of people like Kavanaugh known and discussed, including allegations of sexual assault. We have Clarence Thomas being accused of putting pubic hair on Coke cans. Some Americans are stunned when they learn some of the Justice's have no experience being a judge. The public sees both parties appointing younger Justice's and the political opinions of these Justice's are clearly the motivation. Couple that with the Trump effect, where we have someone that is former (and future) President telling people that these things they grew up believing were of principle (free and valid elections, FBI, etc) are not really principled and that truth or fact is a relative concept. This current court hasn't helped itself, and honestly it isn't the most dignified or brilliant court. Alito includes bizarre references to false conspiracy theories, and some of the Liberal justices are too entrenched in politics. Some of their rulings against the will of the people have hurt as well.... but a lot of it is that with time the cape as been lifted, and is exposed now - but the court always had scandal and questionable people, and has always been political and has always had bigots and weirdos on it.
you know what Ann Scales once wrote: "Law is second-rate philosophy backed by the force of the state."
Essentially this is true...... but if we want to really piss people off, we can say the same thing about religion.
They were partially right the first time, that the court had no business dealing with state definitions of marriage (not because states SHOULD be involved in marriage, but because they CAN be involved in marriage). They are absolutely right in the second instance that Congress has no authority to declare gay marriage a right. They can say that gay couples that lawfully marry in one jurisdiction must be legally recognized in another (full faith and credit). The courts can probably overturn gay marriage bans on equal protection grounds (though as Justice Thomas would say, not Due Process grounds). They have no power to say that gay marriage is a right, because regulation of marriage is not a power that was granted to Congress.
Great rationalization. Practically, today Republican Party does not see Contraception as a right, and Marriage equality as a right. Extremist.
First off Thomas Jefferson wasn’t there for the writing and most of the debate in the ratification of the US Constitution so while he is a Founding Father his opinion on the matter never made it to the document. Next the original Pure Food and Drug Act in addition to being based on the general welfare clause was also based on the interstate commerce clause and also of the Federal Government’s power to enforce trade regarding he importation of adulterer food and medicine. Given that few foods and medicine are completely produced and sold without crossing state boundaries or even national boundaries the federal government is within its Constitutional purview to regulate. There are though cases regarding things like unpasteurized milk that many states have different laws regarding them provided they aren’t sold across state lines and as we see with mar1juana there is a range of laws across states. While the federal government has tried to enforce federal laws on ganja it doesn’t appear successful in regulating or squelching recreational mar1juana in states that have legalized it. Anyway if arguing that government shouldn’t be able to regulate the quality and safety of food and medicine is what you really want to push then go to it.
I don't see them as rights either, beyond the general right to be left alone that the Constitution does not recognize. I don't see contraception going away in any state (is there a state trying to ban condoms, birth control pills, vasectomies, or tubal ligation?) or on a national level. This is a virtue signal by Dems in Congress that they disagree with Justice Thomas. He doesn't think substantive due process is a thing (and it never should have been) and so they need to pass laws codifying the precedents he called out. Congress was never granted the power to create a right to contraception, but they don't care. Congress hasn't cared about the Constitutional foundation of the laws they pass for 90 years. We will see if the court continues to allow them to get away with ignoring their limitations.
Republican Nancy Mace voted to protect contraception: "My state is banning exceptions, Protect contraception" Everyone sees it as a basic right except for only Judge Thomas (right to privacy doesn't exist), we were told. Except it's a super majority of today's Republican Party. Extremists. Some States Already Are Targeting Birth Control https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...me-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control
