President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country . . . and citizens partied only blissfully into the New Year.
Ironically, in addition to breaking his promise not to sign the law, Obama broke his promise on signing statements and attached a statement that he really does not want to detain citizens indefinitely.
Obama insisted that he signed the bill simply to keep funding for the troops. It was a continuation of the dishonest treatment of the issue by the White House since the law first came to light. As discussed earlier, the White House told citizens that the President would not sign the NDAA because of the provision. That spin ended after sponsor Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.) went to the floor and disclosed that it was the White House that insisted that there be no exception for citizens in the indefinite detention provision.
The latest claim is even more insulting. You do not “support our troops” by denying the principles for which they are fighting. They are not fighting to consolidate authoritarian powers in the President. The “American way of life” is defined by our Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the insistence that you do not intend to use authoritarian powers does not alter the fact that you just signed an authoritarian measure. It is not the use but the right to use such powers that defines authoritarian systems.
The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama Administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush Administration. Even today reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades. On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The Administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the Constitution.
There are also those who continue the long-standing effort to excuse Obama’s horrific record on civil liberties by either blaming others or the times. One successful myth is that there is an exception for citizens. The White House is saying that changes to the law made it unnecessary to veto the legislation. That spin is facially ridiculous. The changes were the inclusion of some meaningless rhetoric after key amendments protecting citizens were defeated. The provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality. THe Administration and Democratic members are in full spin — using language designed to obscure the authority given to the military. The exemption for American citizens from the mandatory detention requirement (section 1032) is the screening language for the next section, 1031, which offers no exemption for American citizens from the authorization to use the military to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial.
Obama could have refused to sign the bill and the Congress would have rushed to fund the troops. Instead, as confirmed by Sen. Levin, the White House conducted a misinformation campaign to secure this power while portraying Obama as some type of reluctant absolute ruler, or as Obama maintains a reluctant president with dictatorial powers.
Most Democratic members joined their Republican colleagues in voting for this unAmerican measure. Some Montana citizens are moving to force the removal of these members who they insist betrayed their oaths of office and their constituents. Most citizens however are continuing to treat the matter as a distraction from the holiday cheer.
For civil libertarians, the NDAA is our Mayan moment. 2012 is when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.
So here is a resolution better than losing weight this year . . . make 2012 the year you regained your rights.
Here is the signing statement attached to the bill:
————-
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 31, 2011
Statement by the President on H.R. 1540
Today I have signed into law H.R. 1540, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.” I have signed the Act chiefly because it authorizes funding for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad, crucial services for service members and their families, and vital national security programs that must be renewed. In hundreds of separate sections totaling over 500 pages, the Act also contains critical Administration initiatives to control the spiraling health care costs of the Department of Defense (DoD), to develop counterterrorism initiatives abroad, to build the security capacity of key partners, to modernize the force, and to boost the efficiency and effectiveness of military operations worldwide.
The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it. In particular, I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists. Over the last several years, my Administration has developed an effective, sustainable framework for the detention, interrogation and trial of suspected terrorists that allows us to maximize both our ability to collect intelligence and to incapacitate dangerous individuals in rapidly developing situations, and the results we have achieved are undeniable. Our success against al-Qa’ida and its affiliates and adherents has derived in significant measure from providing our counterterrorism professionals with the clarity and flexibility they need to adapt to changing circumstances and to utilize whichever authorities best protect the American people, and our accomplishments have respected the values that make our country an example for the world.
Source: ABC
And after we detain them indefinitely we can hang em all.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/01/27/413611/north-carolina-gop-lawmaker-calls-for-bringing-back-public-hangings-starting-with-abortion-providers/?mobile=nc
@Carol: What happens Tony when there is a late term miscarriage? Do you want the woman priosecuted for abortion?
No, of course not. Abortion is a willful act, an accident (even of biology) is not. Like any accident, if there is evidence it was staged or an intentional act to harm another person (the fetus) then it should be investigated.
What if she had doubts about the pregnancy? Does that make a miscarriage suspect?
Possibly, it depends on the evidence. If I have witnesses that hear a wife threatening the life of her husband, and the next day he ends up dead of a heart attack, it will be investigated as a murder with her the primary suspect. So your hypothetical is no different: The fetus was a person, the person is dead, police and prosecutors should be convinced her “doubts” were not translated into action.
it sounds as though you do have a problem with compelling a man to work,
Actually none whatsoever. You misread me. I have no problem compelling any person of typical physical and mental health to work to meet their responsibilities. Heck, if a male volunteers to be a Marine or Infantryman, I have no problem compelling them to risk their life in battle. They have a responsibility, for a choice they made.
This is not bizarre logic, it is uniform: Both men and women can be compelled to work to meet the responsibilities incurred by their own choices, even if that involves the use of their body and time (as all work does, including my own). In some cases, even if it endangers the body.
What is bizarre about that?
you resist any and all ideas that do not mirror yours.
I resist ideas that are unfair or make no logical sense. You are right, we will not find compromise, because I do not compromise on those principles. In this case, what I find makes no sense is your absolute refusal to acknowledge the personhood of a normally developed fetus that is about to be born.
That is not logical to me, in any way. It means that personhood has nothing whatsoever to do with the person. I do not think that makes any sense. How can being a person not have anything to do with who you are?
The fetus just before birth IS a person, just as much a person as it will be at the moment of birth. Birth is not magic.
But it is also impossible for me to think of a barely visible spherical blob of cells as a person, it just is not. So when does one become the other? I turn to the end of life to decide. When is it legally permissible to end the life of a patient? When they are brain dead. The brain defines the person at that point, and it should define whether the fetus is a person or not.
That is logic, it is not bizarre. I do not want to subjugate women in the least, I believe in full equality of men and women, in pay, rights, education, office, anything. I just do not have a problem compelling men OR women to use their bodies to meet their accepted responsibilities.
Women are the only people with the biological equipment to become pregnant. If they do not voluntarily abort in the first seven months they have in effect accepted the responsibility of going through with the pregnancy, just as a soldier, by signing his enlistment papers, has accepted the responsibility he may be injured or killed in battle.
I am not subjugating either the mother or the soldier. In fact, the soldier might be compelled to put his life in grave danger, but I would not compel mothers that far; I would not demand that the mother risk anything more than is normal for a pregnancy (which is already defined by boards of OB/GYNs).
Likewise for the father of a child, I have no problem compelling HIM to work to support his kids. They were also the result of his choices.
This is not a sexist thing, males and females can be equally compelled for different reasons. I am not even denying choice, there is plenty of time for a woman to learn she is pregnant and choose to end it before I have any concern whatsoever that the fetus has become a person.
I am not even denying ALL late-term abortions. The infant’s life is not more important than the mothers; and I am not opposed to aborting infants that will be disabled and require care for the rest of their life.
I do not understand why you think my reasoning is bizarre, I find it bizarre that others so vociferously deny the personhood of an infant about to be born.
“excewptional damage to the woman” Hmmm, who decides what is exceptional, Tony? You? She has to have a c section and may end up needing a hysperectomy to proceed with the birth. Is that exceptional? Or is exceptional, she will die? Is coma sufficient risk?
You are so mired in your own little world of belief that you do not want to consider what others have said.
I will repeat this once, since maybe you need at least 2 times to read something beforegetting it. (Sry, I am not usually snarky but you bring out snarkiness in people). If there is to be an abortion, late term, and the fetus is born alive, (And again, women do not willy nilly take the risk of late term abortion unless there is medical reason. (Yes, you may have an example of one or two but anecdotal is not the common, it is anecdotal) and docs do not take that risk wither (see above parenthetical comment). then the fetus should not be killed, what we have heard sometimes happens. That is wrong, I doubt one person would disagree that you do not ,murder an alive child.that can survive outside of the womb, even if the product of an abortion.
What happens Tony when there is a late term miscarriage? Do you want the woman priosecuted for abortion? After all it is late term and a pregnancy that is no more. What if she had doubts about the pregnancy? Does that make a miscarriage suspect?
You also wrote “In a very real sense, the woman has more choice than him: because I do not think he has the right to compel an abortion. That is her choice. Thus any choices he made that resulted in him impregnating her are irreversible for him, but she has seven months of pregnancy to decide if she wants to commit to a birth, which is seven months more choice than he gets.
First it sounds as though you do have a problem with compelling a man to work, you cite using his body, time, and possibly risk injury but for some reason you do not bother with that reasoning when saying a woman who cannot breast feed should be compelled to do the same.So if the man may risk injury, use his body and time, compelling him to work is not such a good idea (?) but compelling the woman, who now has a baby to take care of should find work..
Your reasonig is often bozarre. You and I obviously will not find compromise, I offer, you resist any and all ideas that do not mirror yours.
Debate is fun, informative, and often instructive when both sides come to use their faculties and not merely repeat thier position over and over. Fox news, repubs (esp it seems) strategy: a lie or in your case a position repeated becomes the truth. No. Tony, it does not.
This is my last word on this with you Tony.. It is no longer fun, instructive or informative.
Hey Carol,
I can’t believe this thread is still running.
I fear you are correct and we have said all we can about Abortion. Tony will never accept the idea of freewill or freedom as it was intended to exist under the Constitution.
Tony has an idea that he just popped up out of nowhere with an intact set of morals and principals which derive from??????
The idea that he values life without a supernatural reason is all well and good but I suspect that if he were to trace the roots of those principals he would find that they derive from supernatural belief of one form or another.
The idea of the sanctity of human life was not a common one among people until the Bible layed out the basics. Prior to that it was common for people to kill each other and sacrifice each other etc. I might even suggest that the notion of throwing ones living infant or child into a fire or other grizzley form of sacrifice would qualify as more painful and cold hearted than todays abortions.
This was true because man had no standard of behavior other than that which was either promulgated by various local shamans or tribal leaders.
Wherever the Bible came from; it is the first recorded source of morals codes and standards ever written and it’s standards have survived until this day.
So much so that people like Tony; live their whole life believing they are just naturally good when any morals or ethics he has can be traced directly to the Bible.
You can call it supernatural if you wish but the sourse of the Bible is not as important here as the fact of its influence on man in general and it’s staying power.
Having said that I do believe Tony when he says he doesn’t believe in a god; and I believe he tries to llive by the standards he says he does.
I just don’t think he understands the origins of those standards.
The other thing I wanted to say is really for Tony.
Tony,
First of all; this argument about a mother killing a nearly full term baby rather than deliver it. Where did you here of such a thing happening? Can you provide documentation of the incident? I can’t imagine a mother walking in 8 months pregnant and saying, “I want an abortion”; if the baby was healthy.
Or a doctor agreeing to do it (as Carol already mentioned).
Second; What good do you believe you are doing by attempting to control abortion laws to keep an otherwise normal mother from killing an infant. If she is the kind of person who would seek to kill a healthy viable child for no reason; don’t you think she might also smother it after it is born.
What you want to do is place rules and definitions and laws that would endanger women by requiring them to gain the approval for an abortion.
This in order to stop the extremely limited number of women who are cold enough to seek one for no reason.
But you won’t stop those women. That type of person has no conscience. They will kill if that is their inclination.
It is wrong to institute legislation that might result in the prosecution of even one women who miscarried or who believed her only choice was to abort; perhaps not having the excellent health care options that would allow her to know what was going on in her own body. perhaps she lives in Texas where the Governor is closing down all the prenatal clinics the poor women use for their health care; because they also perform abortions.
So no health care for poor women anymore.
Instaed he has opened a series of Counseling Centers where pregnant women can go to be instructed on why they should not chose abortion.
If you think that is wrong; look in the mirrior. It is exactly the same thing you propose.
Take away health clinics / endanger lives to stop abortions.
Rick perry says who can have an abortion
Take away the right to decide / endanger lives to stop a very few to no abortions.
Tony C. says who can have an abortion.
The fact that your definition of who should and should not is different from Rick’s; doesn’t change the identical intent and the irrepairable harm done to the many women who will be caught in your trap to stop something they would never chose and that may not even happen.
I’m still not sure this is an actual problem. Documentation Man. Documentation. Please.
To be honest; I would be more in favor of holding Doctors responsible for performing an abortion where the fetus could be delivered and suvive.
A woman goes seeking an abortion. The Doctor says we can take the baby but not kill it. The Doctors are the responsible; knowledgeable parties here. they should be the ones to decide how to safely end a pregnancy; not the pregnant teenager in trouble.
I don’t believe that these girls and women go for help hoping or wishing to kill anything.
They just want the pregnancy ended. So if you end it by abortion or by delivery of one type or another; the result for the mother is the same. But if a woman says she needs to end a pregnancy at any time; we should be concerned about helping her to do so in the safest way as quickly as possible.
I suspect that as long as the baby is out of her body; she will be just as pleased to have it live as not.
Oh; Tony; the notion that you are willing to allow the Government; the Constitution; or anything else to dictate to you what rights you have is frightening.
What will you do when they tell you to show up for resettlement in the West Tony?
Climb on board the train like a good sheep?
The Constituion is a piece of paper that was written by a bunch of greedy Smugglers and Capitalists to protect their business interests and it has since been influenced primarily by those business interests as we see in our discussion of corporate funding of political campaigns etc.
The Constitution grants no rights; recognizes many specifically; and also recognizes that other rights are inherent to the people that are not mentioned in the Document.
In order for men to form a society; it requires the consent of the members. Each member being a person unto themselves whether we like it or not. Thus each person is recognized to have the authority to say Yeh or Nay to the formation of that society.
The basic unit of mankind is not society.
It is the individual man who excercises his natural right to self determination (thus self-ownership) when he agrees to join with others at all. He has the right to disassociate himself from the society if he wishes at any time.
In ancient days he would have the right to go off and live on his own in the wilderness; apart from others and then do anything he wished without fear of punishment or censure.
Today however; a man would be hard put indeed to find such a place; unclaimed by some society or the other.
Still it is his right if he can manage it. And chances are; he would follow a moral code we would be comfortable with. But if not; not.
This is why the idea that society is here for the benefit of the man not man for the benefit of society; while so strange and backwards to you is exactly the idea that stands the test of time because we see the repeated results of the opposite.
You must at least understand that Society is an invention of man.
Man never makes anything that does not serve a purpose for him.
The purpose of Society was to provide safety in numbers.
Not to provide good fellowship while we sacrifice our kids together;
or a good place to find those who like the same sex positions;
or a good place to find those who smoke the same natural herbs;
or eat the same foods;
or even speak the same language neccesarily.
The expectation that all who live in a Society would think; believe; and act the same didn’t come unitl one man sought control over another so that he could profit by it.
The most successful men who wished this were those who had “God” behind them.
Whether it was Marduk the fiery god who required the burning of live children; the Hebrew god of Abraham; or the Jesuits who conquered the New World far more effectively than the Conquistadors ever did; they all had men who sought to control people in their name.
There is no reason that men cannot live together and yet be different people with different codes of behavior and morals.
All that is required is for us to allow it. For us to resist the temptation to insist that others live as we do.
Still; you will say; does that mean we must accept a murderer?
No; but it might mean we must accept the word of a man who has just killed another man and stays to accept the guilt.
A man who says it was self defence (but the evidence is questionable);
a man who says he didn’t intend to drop a heavy object on someone etc. unless the evidence is ironclad.
And it does mean that we stop approaching crime and criminals as though it was a big game of Chess.
Stop the adversarial nature of our “Justice” system and institute a co-operative system designed to seek the truth.
The right to self-ownwership does not need Locke to write about it.
It doesn’t require the Constitution to recognize it.
The right to self ownership and self governing are inherent in the individual nature of man as he was first found here and the individual nature of his brain.
They are obvious in mans refusal to accept the rules of the very Society he chose to be a part of when those rules were no longer in defense of his rights but an attempt to deny those rights for whatever spurious reason.
We should live; not with a mind to compelling conformity of others; but with a mind to setting a good example and influencing our neighbors by our obvious success and happiness.
In this way we can do more to stop such (still questionable) acts as the aborting of a viable late term fetus,
And by our good example and our providing another choice for all women; a choice that would truly extricate them from their situation that is causeing them to make such a (still undocumented) choice; we will be far more effective without denying women their rights.
After all; we don’t imprison all drunks because drunks kill people sometimes. Sometimes they kill perfectly healthy; viable; individuals.
No more should we imprison women; who find themselves in untennable situations due to their pregnancy; even life threatening situations regardless of the viability of the fetus.
If you were a ninety-five pound girl and your 200 pound boyfriend; who got you pregnant; says you’ll go get an abortion or he will cut your throat; who will she go to for help?
The Police? Nope. They can’t help you until a crime is committed. Ask them.
“To Protect and to Serve” It should say, “To Inflict and Get Serviced”
To her Mom and Dad? Because they will be a real help against a 200 pound man with the will to kill in cold blood.
No Tony; that poor girl is going strait to the Clinic and beg for an abortion.
Even if she is due next week. he wants it gone today or she dies tonight; and she believes him.
No; it’s bullshit that you are willing to allow such things to befall our young women; most of whom are pregnant to begin with because of the kind of society we have allowed to grow here; in order to stop a (possibly non-existent group of murderers) who; if they exist; are very few in number.
But the number of young women beaten or killed or left without help or otherwise damned will not be few. It will be many if you have your way Tony.
And watch out; your fleece might get caught in the…………………..Oooooh!
BAAAAAH!
Dmitro Woychuk
I wonder if Obama and cohorts also had Bradley Manning in mind when they they signed this Bill H.R. 1540.
Hum ???
@Bob: Of course they were overruled, clearly, and by your own quotes, they did NOT want the enumeration of rights in there, and the enumeration is, in fact, in there. Call it what you will, but they did not succeed in their original goal. Case closed.
And I am not moving the goalposts, you are: I did not start arguing this tangential point, my argument is that Locke’s writings about self-ownership are not IN the constitution, so those quotes from Locke mean nothing; they are your philosophy, not mine, and have no more impact on my view than some of the equally specious reasoning that can be found in Marxist or Buddhist or Christian or Scientologist philosophy.
What the evidence shows is that a majority of founders believed “other rights” exist, they signed off on it. So do I. But I am also certain the founders knew they were writing a standalone legal document that would have to speak for itself, and that makes the absence of any Lockean self-ownership generating principle for those “other rights” glaring. They certainly knew of it.
As for “rights confer power,” I already conceded my error above, I misspoke, I should NOT have said “granted,” I should have said “asserted.” That’s twice, how many times do I have to say it?
Moving the goal posts…
Bob: “Hamilton wrote Federalist 84 with people like you in mind. Tell me Tony, did freedom of the press exist between before 1787 or between 1787 and 1789?”
Hamilton: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
Tony C.: “As for Hamilton, he was overruled, was he not?”
Bob: “No Tony; as much as you’d like to reinvent history to fit your ‘arguments’ Hamilton wasn’t ‘overruled.’ Where do we find the ‘rules of construction’ for the U.S. Constitution? Did you say the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? No, no you didn’t. Why, because your unique take on American jurisprudence illustrates your lack of comprehension per the theory of natural rights (as espoused by Locke and Montesquieu) used by the founders in constructing the Declaration and the Constitution.
(See Wikipedia 9th Amendment cite above)
Tony C.: “Hamilton and Madison WERE overruled, because they objected to the enumeration of rights, and the enumeration of rights proceeded against their wishes, so they got the Madison backup plan, which put an asterisk on that enumeration. ”
Sorry Tony, but if Hamilton or Madison were overruled, there would have been no ninth amendment and we would be living in a world where your arguments regarding this matter would be correct.
Thankfully, we don’t live in your world.
“I conceive that in a certain degree … the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted”
Rights confer power; not vice versa.
Twas always thus and thus will always be.
@Bob: Calling me an irrational fool does not make you any less ignorant.
Calling me ignorant does not make you any less irrational. Hamilton and Madison WERE overruled, because they objected to the enumeration of rights, and the enumeration of rights proceeded against their wishes, so they got the Madison backup plan, which put an asterisk on that enumeration. They lost their primary objective, which was no enumeration at all, and it is probably a good thing because they were dead wrong, and countless freedoms have been protected because of the specificity of the enumeration. Not just before the courts, but in the refusal of common police and public prosecutors to even consider spurious charges they know are protected by “freedom of speech” or “freedom of religion.”
All of that, and Locke and self-ownership are still not mentioned in the Constitution. The “other” rights retained by the people does not include whatever you want it to include, and it certainly does not include the right to harm another person without compelling reason.
Tony C.: “If you believe that influence by Locke implies complete dogmatic acceptance of Locke, then you are an irrational fool.”
Well I guess it’s a good thing I didn’t; isn’t it Tony? Then again, if you were the least bit familiar with the origins of property law, the law of sovereignty (i.e. running with the land) and the basic rule of construction per the social compact, you wouldn’t be inserting such inane premises into my argument and reducing them to absurdity.
You’re not even familiar with the basic rule of construction per the constitution. And how do we know that?
Tony C.: “As for Hamilton, he was overruled, was he not?”
No Tony; as much as you’d like to reinvent history to fit your ‘arguments’ Hamilton wasn’t ‘overruled.’
Where do we find the ‘rules of construction’ for the U.S. Constitution?
Did you say the Ninth and Tenth Amendments?
No, no you didn’t. Why, because your unique take on American jurisprudence illustrates your lack of comprehension per the theory of natural rights (as espoused by Locke and Montesquieu) used by the founders in constructing the Declaration and the Constitution.
From Wikipedia (for brevity’s sake):
When the U.S. Constitution was sent to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, the Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One of the arguments the Federalists gave against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, “Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”[1] Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, “I conceive that in a certain degree … the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted”[2] by Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution.(a.k.a Rights confer power; not vice versa. Get it yet?)
The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying:[3]
That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.
This proposal ultimately led to the Ninth Amendment.
In 1789, while introducing to the House of Representatives nineteen[4] draft Amendments, James Madison addressed what would become the Ninth Amendment as follows:[5]
It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.
Like Alexander Hamilton, Madison was concerned that enumerating various rights could “enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution.”[5] To attempt to solve this problem, Madison submitted this draft to Congress:
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.[5]
This was an intermediate form of the Ninth Amendment that borrowed language from the Virginia proposal, while foreshadowing the final version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Calling me an irrational fool does not make you any less ignorant.
@Carol: Do you really want to force your daughter, cousin, niece, or any other woman to carry as pregnancy to term caused by a rapist or through incest?
Of course not. I would recommend she abort as soon as she knew she was pregnant. If she CHOSE to carry a child for 7 or 8 months, knowing it was the result of rape or incest, then she knowingly accepted the responsibility of bringing it to term.
You are hysterically misstating my position. I do not claim that woman should be subjugated in any way to men, and not more than men. I am claiming that both men and women have responsibility for their choices; I have no problem compelling the father as well, by demanding he support his child or go to prison.
How is he going to accomplish that support? He may be rich and have money he doesn’t have to work for, I suppose, but in most cases the demand for support will translate into us compelling him to work, to use his body and time, and perhaps risk injury, in order to meet the responsibility he assumed by making his choices.
In a very real sense, the woman has more choice than him: because I do not think he has the right to compel an abortion. That is her choice. Thus any choices he made that resulted in him impregnating her are irreversible for him, but she has seven months of pregnancy to decide if she wants to commit to a birth, which is seven months more choice than he gets.
It is irrational to outlaw the abortion of a non-person, a clump of cells without a brain. But I think that a late term normal fetus is a person, and it is ALSO irrational to deny the rights of personhood to a fetus one minute, and then grant that exact same fetus the full rights of personhood in the next minute, to allow it to be killed on a whim one minute, and sixty seconds later declare killing the exact same biological entity a murder.
It is also idiotic to claim the mother has zero responsibility for the fetus in one minute, and can be sent to jail for endangerment in the next.
Choices carry responsibilities. There is plenty of time in which a fetus cannot survive on its own, and does not deserve the presumption of personhood. What I advocate is not enslaving women, but giving them a deadline: If you cross this point in the pregnancy, say six weeks before a normal delivery, the only acceptable reasons for abortion are exceptional danger to the mother or abnormal development of the fetus.
If the mother wants to abort, she must get it done before that date, otherwise she has committed to the responsibility of giving birth and caring for her infant. The father is likewise committed to his responsibility as well.
You are so obsessed with the selfish rights of the mother, you have chosen to ignore that there is another person in the equation.
@Bob: No, you are the illiterate fool. I know full well Locke was paraphrased and parts of Locke logic were lifted. The fact that Locke provided some ingredients does not mean Locke logic was blessed by the founders in its entirety as gospel.
As for Hamilton, he was overruled, was he not?
I agree I mispoke in saying “inalienable rights granted,” I should have said inalienable rights asserted by the founding fathers. I still stay there is a reason they chose to enumerate them and did not include Locke’s generating principle of self-ownership: Probably because they chose to enumerate examples of what they could agree upon and leave out what they could not agree upon. Hamilton and Jefferson were not the only people that had to sign it, and if something they wanted was not in it, or something they did not want in it is in it, it is highly probable they were overruled by vote.
If you believe that influence by Locke implies complete dogmatic acceptance of Locke, then you are an irrational fool.
Tony C.: “If all of the founders agreed with Locke, there would be no need to compromise, they could just quote Locke in long paragraphs as their justification for their implementation of government. They did not.”
Ignorant fool.
http://www.anesi.com/q0033.htm
“IF they believed that Locke’s claim of the body being property was the central justification for law, they could have incorporated it, verbatim, into the Constitution. The entire Constitution is a prescription for computing what is fair law, the restrictions on the government. Why wouldn’t they include the central justification as one of their inviolate principles?”
Hamilton wrote Federalist 84 with people like you in mind.
Tell me Tony, did freed of the press exist between before 1787 or between 1787 and 1789?
Hamilton: “I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.”
And with language like this: “You may argue that the resulting inalienable rights granted are similar to Locke’s conclusion, but Locke’s self-ownership justification for that is just not in there, probably because the founders did not want to include all the implications of it.”
You obviously have no grasp of the document or the principles involved whatsoever.
Inalienable rights granted?
lol
@Bob: The constitution just came into being
I do not believe the Constitution just came into being, I am sure the founders were influenced by others, precisely as I am. I also feel pretty sure that like me, and unlike you, the founders did not just parrot others, they distilled the thinking of their time and produced a compromise they could agree upon.
If all of the founders agreed with Locke, there would be no need to compromise, they could just quote Locke in long paragraphs as their justification for their implementation of government. They did not.
IF they believed that Locke’s claim of the body being property was the central justification for law, they could have incorporated it, verbatim, into the Constitution. The entire Constitution is a prescription for computing what is fair law, the restrictions on the government. Why wouldn’t they include the central justification as one of their inviolate principles?
The answer is the obvious one, they knew of it, and chose to exclude it. I imagine for reasons similar to those I provided; it makes no sense when examined in detail, in makes no sense when one examines the pragmatic effects of such a claim. Any responsibility any person has to do anything demands the use of their body, if you cannot compel a person to perform an act, then the notion of “responsibility” is empty, it means nothing.
I did not claim the founders were not influenced by Locke, my claim is that it really doesn’t matter: Whatever they liked from Locke they used in drafting the Constitution, whatever they did not like they did not use, and if the Constitution does not reflect or endorse the thinking of Locke in some respect, that omission or disagreement in the Constitution is by design. If it quotes Locke or paraphrases Locke to some extent, that is also by design.
It is a mistake to think that because Locke wrote something, the founders agreed with it. Locke presented arguments for his philosophy, and like good intellectuals the founders selected from those the ones they felt were compelling, and from other writers, other arguments they felt were compelling, and they resolved the conflicts to arrive at a consensus philosophy of government they could all sign.
Locke’s principle of self-ownership did not make the cut, in any form, not as a quote, and not even in paraphrase. You may argue that the resulting inalienable rights granted are similar to Locke’s conclusion, but Locke’s self-ownership justification for that is just not in there, probably because the founders did not want to include all the implications of it.
Which is what you are trying to do with it in defending late-term abortion of healthy persons in healthy mothers; you are denying she bears any responsibility for her choice to let her pregnancy progress to that point; or you believe that no responsibility can ever trump her self-ownership, which means “responsibility” doesn’t have any real meaning.
Tony You do not debate, you proclaim, proclaim that you are right: ” “Locke’s raw assertion …. It is his axiom, and it is flawed, and any conclusion he reaches with arguments resting upon it are flawed as well.
Okay, hard to argue withthat proof you offer, of your opinion.
Atheism is a choice as is being of Faith, and by the way not all those who are religious believe there is a ‘life’ past this one.. (Your argument is flawed because your facts are wrong. period)
No one can force a mother to breast feed. By your argument, because she has breasts and the ability to use them to feed, she should be forced to do so – after being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy (and there are many reasons to choose abortion, including being able to continue to work, etc. You apparently would like women to go back to at least say the 50’s where she wore pearls and stayed at home to have a nice snack ready for little Beaver and his brother. Do you really want to force your daughter, cousin, niece, or any other woman to carry as pregnancy to term caused by a rapist or through incest? Or are those 2 reasons also specious in your lexicon?
You also write “Does she have the right to just leave the baby in the crib to starve to death, because her body is HER body and she cannot be compelled to go buy formula, work for money to buy formula, or even call somebody to come get the baby?
No, she cannot do that, it is incumbent on her, if she is emotionally capable of realizing the situation, to call someone You say though she should be forced to go to work to be able to buy formula for her baby? Well Tony, if she is working to afford formula, she sure as heck will not be able to afford child care.. What about the father, Tony? Unless is was a parthogenic birth there is a father somewhere., Where in your argument(s) do you even suggest he step up to the plate, either before or after birth – to buy the formula, or call for help?
Your arguments continue to support the argument that you faith is misogyny.
Your arguments are not well thought out, often outright illogical merely throwing anything at the wall thinking it ‘proves’ your points..
Tony,
Your approach to the constitution reminds me of the monolith in 2001 A Space Odyssey; it just appears out of no where with no foundation whatsoever.
The words of Locke, Montesquieu, Aristotle, etc.? Mere assertions garnering no assent from the founders?
The constitution just came into being and therefore you’re licensed to interpret it any way you like?
Not for nothing, but ignorance by design is not a particularly persuasive mode of juristic analysis.
@Angry: I submit that without a god; there is no sanctity of human life.
I need no supernatural reason to value life, I value my own life, the life of my wife, my child, my family, and virtually everybody on the planet.
I will accept that I do not “sanctify” life, it is not supernatural, and the right to life is not inviolate. But, speaking as an atheist, people are given ONE life, and it is finite. I have far more reason to revere life than a person that imagines they can look forward to an eternity of life, either in an afterlife or through reincarnations or ascendance to Nirvana, because I believe that death is the end of a person and there is nothing after it.
So of course I value life; and more than you. I think when a person is killed they have been deprived of something. Religionists, on the other hand, think that no matter how many years were lost, they were an infinitely small fraction of an infinitely long existence. Religionists do not even think the dead were deprived forever of their company, because they will all meet again someday, in a perfect place.
Atheists have far more reason to revere and respect life than others do, we do not need magic to put life in a class by itself in terms of value. And I cannot speak for all atheists, but the judgments I make about life are relative to other lives: I do not demand that a mother sacrifice her life for her child’s, that risk is her choice. Likewise, if the infant has deformities or disabilities that will require far more of the mother’s life than a normal child, I think that is grounds for her deciding to abort. And several other such caveats, but what I refuse to consider is that she can choose to abort a normal, healthy, late term infant for reasons that have nothing to do with life risk. She cannot abort because she has decided childcare would interfere with her new job.
As for Locke, I do not have to do anything. But I will put this to you: Suppose the mother nurses a born baby, and she is alone and cannot afford formula. Do you think she has the right to just stop nursing, because her breasts are HER body and she cannot be compelled to use them to feed the baby? Does she have the right to just leave the baby in the crib to starve to death, because her body is HER body and she cannot be compelled to go buy formula, work for money to buy formula, or even call somebody to come get the baby?
I do not, the Locke argument is ridiculous on its face. Once the baby is born, the mother has a responsibility to care for it, and that responsibility ALSO demands the use of her body, whether she likes it or not. So why can we demand she use her body to care for another person, but we cannot demand she use her body to give birth to the person that is already inside her?
It is illogical to claim it both ways, society has the right to set law that compels people to take certain acts, and they cannot refuse on the grounds that they own their body and nobody can tell them what to do with it. Some of their choices create responsibilities, failing to terminate a pregnancy before a fetus becomes a person should be one such choice.
angrymanspeaks:
Very, very nicely done. Bravo.
Reminds me of Tolstoy’s short story, Master and Man. Salvation by living for the benefit of others. No deity, needed.
“You claim not to believe in a god and yet you wish to defend the sanctity of human life and wish to insist that a mother not end an unborn one.”
AMS,
The entire argument in that comment: Priceless!
@Bob: You quote Locke, a philosopher, and his statement is mere assertion. You might as well be quoting the Bible, whatever Locke writes is not some inherent part of our Constitution, no matter how much he may have influenced the founders, they chose the logic they would employ, and this quote was not part of it.
Locke’s raw assertion does not trump that of anybody else. Philosophers are required to justify their arguments and Locke doesn’t bother to even try, he just assumes we will agree. It is his axiom, and it is flawed, and any conclusion he reaches with arguments resting upon it are flawed as well.
It is a pretty ridiculous way to argue, to just keep shouting that I am wrong. Just because you are misled by Locke does not mean I must follow. I have my own brain, I do not need to rely on reverence or revelation.
It is an interesting position you take.
You claim not to believe in a god and yet you wish to defend the sanctity of human life and wish to insist that a mother not end an unborn one.
I submit that without a god; there is no sanctity of human life. Without God; man becomes just another biological organism in a long line of biological organisms that have arrived and disappeared and any notion that we are superior due to our ability to envision the future is strictly a Biblical one and not part of any biological definition or evidence.
You also reject Lockes statement of human autonomy.
If there is no God; Then the highest form of life known to us is us.
That being the case; we are our own ultimate authority. (having no greater being to seek guidance from)
If you disagree with that; what or who is the ultimate authority over human action?
Man; born into this world; without a higher authority is bound to follow no law other than his own. If not; then who is he subordinate to?
John Locke:“To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the
state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of
acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit
within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask
permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their
behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that
ll human beings – as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and orn
indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties – are equal mongst themselves.
You can say that Locke is simply asserting without proof.
But Locke’s asertion is so obviously true’ no further proof is required.
If Lockes statement of the natural state of man is not correct; we must be subservient to something or someone else.
If you can not tell me who else holds authority over him; then we must
revert to Locke’s statement that he is his own master.
Tony C: “Perhaps I do not believe in self-ownership, I find it repellent to think of a human being as property, and whatever metaphor is intended by “self-ownership” is weak anyway: We do not afford all the rights of property to people over their bodies. We do not allow them to sell themselves into slavery…”
Tony,
Did you ever ask yourself whether you comprehend a topic before commenting on it?
First, (our) society does not afford or confer rights; rights confer power not vice versa. To even suggest otherwise is repulsive.
Second, the definition of tyranny is the exercise of power over an inalienable right; as opposed to usurpation which is the exercise of power over an alienable right.
To wit: ““AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
Within the confines of the social compact, slavery is not an option; to be declared legal or illegal. Why? Because, as I said before, it is tyrannical per se to exercise power over an individual’s right of self ownership.”
And why is that? Because the right of self-ownership is inalienable.
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”
Thus, when society exercises power over an individual’s [INALIENABLE] right of self-ownership, we call that TYRANNY.
Please make a note of it.
@Bob: Perhaps I do not believe in self-ownership, I find it repellent to think of a human being as property, and whatever metaphor is intended by “self-ownership” is weak anyway: We do not afford all the rights of property to people over their bodies. We do not allow them to sell themselves into slavery, we do not allow them to sell their spare organs, we do not allow a man to sell himself up to be murdered for the pleasure of a sadist. On a similar note, we do not allow one man to be paid to serve another man’s prison sentence. We also do not have any legal problem sending soldiers, firemen and police into lethal danger, we presume they knew what they were getting into when they volunteered, and it is too late to back out now (particularly for soldiers, who can be legally executed for refusing to follow such orders).
On top of that, by basic principles of logic, if one person exercising their rights infringes on another person’s rights, then the law must determine whose rights shall be restricted or rescinded. They can do that by covering the obvious exceptions in written law, or deciding unanticipated cases in court before a judge.
So we return to the original question: When is the fetus a person? And I return to my original answer: Sometime before birth.
I really do not comprehend how others can have any definition of person-hood that pays zero attention to the human to which the definition will apply, it makes no logical sense to me. The infant in the womb one minute before birth, and the infant held aloft one minute after birth, is physically identical in every respect, internally down to the molecule. If one is a person, and one is not, then person-hood depends not on any definition of mental capacity, species, or anything else, person-hood is a state divorced from the person completely, and granted arbitrarily.
Once again Tony you’re ignoring the basic tenets of the social compact; i.e. the very boundaries that prevent the compact from becoming illusory.
That would be the distinction between tyranny and usurpation.
“AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to.”
It is tyrannical per se to exercise power over an individual’s right of self ownership; e.g. promulgating a duty of virtue (duty to self) as if it were a duty of right (duty others).
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself.”