Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in the District Court for the District of Columbia has caused a bit of a stir after a hearing in a criminal case where she called for briefing on the alternative grounds for the right to an abortion. At the hearing, Judge Kollar-Kotelly suggested that the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on involuntary servitude could be used to guarantee a women’s right to an abortion notwithstanding the Court’s recent opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court stressed that the decision that there is no federal constitutional right to an abortion was based on the 14th Amendment, but was silent on the 13th Amendment or other grounds. The problem is that silence may be the most charitable response to this highly dubious theory, which has been bantered about in academic circles for years. The theory runs against the text, history, and case law of the Thirteenth Amendment.
The court came to this question by a rather circuitous route. Lauren Handy and nine other anti-abortion activists were charged last year with conspiring to obstruct access to a Washington abortion clinic on Oct. 22, 2020. They have asked for the dismissal of the indictment for lack of jurisdiction since the Court ruled in Dobbs that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”
Kollar-Kotelly suggested that, just because the Court said that there was no right of abortion under the Constitution, it does not mean that there is no right to abortion under the Constitution. The reason that abortion may still be a protected constitutional right, according to the court, is that the Dobbs majority did not expressly rule out other possible grounds like servitude under the Thirteenth Amendment.
The Thirteenth Amendment states in part:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Kollar-Kotelly stated in her order that the 13th Amendment “has received substantial attention among scholars and, briefly, in one federal Court of Appeals decision” on the question of whether that section of the constitution could apply to abortion. That academic attention is generally a reference to a 1990 Northwestern University Law Review article, which is cited by the Court in its order. Andrew Koppelman, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Nw. U.L. Rev. 480, 484 (1990). Professor Koppelman quoted a 1911 servitude decision in Bailey v. Alabama, 219 U.S. 219, 241 (1911), to assert that
Abortion prohibitions violate the amendment’s guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates “that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another’s benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude.”
Bailey involved an Alabama law making it a crime to refuse to do labor under a contract.
Others have argued for a more expansive interpretation of the 13th Amendment to be used in cases of child abuse. Akhil Reed Amar & Daniel Widawsky, Child Abuse as Slavery: A Thirteenth Amendment Response to DeShaney, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1359, 1365–66 (1992).
The court’s other citation is to a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1514-15 (10th Cir. 1995). In that case, the court reversed a lower court decision imposing sanctions for making this argument as a frivolous claim. The 1995 opinion found that, “without expressing a view on the merits of the involuntary servitude argument, we hold that it is not frivolous.”
The citation to the 10th Circuit case is illustrative of the court’s overall reasoning. It suggests that the 10th Circuit gave credence to this claim by declaring it not frivolous. However, the standard for sanctions is fairly high. The court was merely saying that this was within the broad scope of arguments that could be made in a court. That was notably before the Dobbs decision but even today I would argue for the same result. Sanctions can deter lawyers from seeking to change existing judicial doctrines and standards. It was not any real endorsement of the underlying theory to say that it was not sanctionable conduct to raise it in a court of law.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly used these two sources to conclude that “the Court will require additional briefing” because Dobbs did not expressly reject this theory or other theories. The court added:
“Rather, the question before the Court in Dobbs was whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provided such a right. That is why neither the majority nor the dissent in Dobbs analyzed anything but the Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote. “In fact, on the Court’s initial review, not a single amicus brief mentioned anything but the Fourteenth Amendment and the unratified Equal Rights Amendment.”
Judge Kollar-Kotelly insists that she is being “mindful that that this Court is bound by holdings.” However, she insists “it is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised.”
It is also true that the Supreme Court also did not rule out a theory based on the Preamble. That “possibility” does not make a Preamble claim viable or credible after Dobbs. It also did not rule out a Ninth Amendment claim, but it still sent the matter back to the states.
The long historical analysis considered whether abortion was viewed as a protected right at the time of the Framers. The Court concluded that it did not. As discussed in prior decisions (and given the reliance in Dobbs on history), it is worth noting that at the time of the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment on December 18, 1865, 27 of the 36 states had enacted statutes prohibiting abortion. That included 21 of the 27 ratifying states.
That does not mean that the Court was right and many disagree with the holding. However, the fact that the Court did not expressly reject the 13th Amendment argument is a hardly compelling basis for suggesting that abortion may still be protected under the Constitution.
The Court itself has rejected expansive readings of the 13th Amendments, including in Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), where it rejected such a claim to challenge military conscription. Moreover, the Court has long rejected “novel” 13th Amendment arguments. In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 282 (1897), the Court stated:
“[T]he amendment was not intended to introduce any novel doctrine with respect to certain descriptions of service which have always been treated as exceptional; such as military and naval enlistments, or to disturb the right of parents and guardians to the custody of their minor children or wards.”
Nevertheless, Judge Kollar-Kotelly ordered briefing on whether “any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter, which may or may not be addressed in Dobbs, such that Dobbs may or may not be the final pronouncement on the issue, leaving an open question.”
For its part, the Supreme Court did not sound like it had lingering doubts about alternative grounds for a federal right to abortion when it declared:
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. ‘The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.’”
Here is the order: United States v. Handy
Not so fast! 14th Amendment Citizenship: Citizen = SLAVE
Prior to the alleged ratification of the 14th Amendment, there was no legal definition of a “citizen of the United States”, as everyone had primary citizenship in one of the several states. The Constitution referred to the sovereign state citizen, and no one else. Those who went to Washington, D.C. or outside the several states were commonly called “citizens of the United States.” In the Constitution for the United States, the term was used to identify state citizens who were eligible under the suffrage laws to hold office, and they were required under the Constitution to have primary allegiance to one of the several states.
Prior to Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction [of a social world] Amendments”, there was the Naturalization Act of 1802, in full force and effect and requiring citizens to be “…free white person(s)…,” which required compassionate repatriation on January 1, 1863, as the status of slaves changed from “property” to “illegal alien.”
“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. [Should freed slaves be made] politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854
Absolute rubbish until and unless the Constitution is disambiguated on the “miracle moment” when a fertilized egg becomes, Constitutionally speaking, “a person.”
Personally, I favor unlimited abortion. Why? The vast majority of seekers are leftists, and if they wish to volunteer to end their genetic line I don’t want government standing in their way. If you are devoutly religious, trust that God will deal with them, please.
After 24 hours of fertilization, a zygote exists; it will live and develop for ~76 years if it is not murdered, aka aborted – human beings require protection and nurturing for up to 10 years – whether inside or outside the womb.
Leftists deserve compassionate repatriation.
Abortion is homicide – if a pregnant woman is murdered and her embryo/fetus dies, the perp is charged with two homicides.
IFIFY!
Most often, a zygote dies a natural death before it even implants.
Sho you right, fool.
That’s why there will soon be 8 billion human beings on earth, right, cuz all dem zygotes die?
__________________________________________________________________________
Four Steps of Fertilization
The stages of fertilization can be divided into four processes: 1) sperm preparation, 2) sperm-egg recognition and binding, 3) sperm-egg fusion and 4) fusion of sperm and egg pronuclei and activation of the zygote.
______________________________
A zygote will live and develop for ~76 years if it is not aborted.
“Most often” does not mean “all.” You are the fool you decry.
80% of fertilized eggs spontaneously miscarriage before anyone even knows they exist. Read a science book before you say dumb things.
Since more often than not humans die before 90, I wonder if ATS advocates murdering all people of that age?
For those who don’t know, ATS is S. Meyer.
ATS wrote: “Most often, a zygote dies a natural death before it even implants.”
I wrote: “Since more often than not humans die before 90, I wonder if ATS advocates murdering all people of that age?”
Anonymous the Stupid can’t deal with his own logic, so now he has to change the subject to avoid explaining his advocacy would permit the killing of 90-year-olds as well.
Allan the Stupid (ATS) is so stupid that he can’t tell the difference between “natural death” and “murder.”
ATS, you missed what was written. Try harder. You have no compunction against killing babies since not all live you will have no compunction about killing the elderly since so many die before 90.
Someone else called you a psychopath. That is something to think about.
Most often, a zygote dies a natural death before it even implants.
Perfect example of a meaningless comment, meant to clutter up the discussion
It’s not meaningless. It’s a direct refutation of George’s false claim about what happens with zygotes if they’re not electively aborted.
Perhaps you know that George is a nut, so you never read his comments, and you failed to understand the context?
The court could also consider a claim for the unborn child; execution without due process, and inhumane treatment (dismembered alive)
Which is why the left should not want to go down this ludicrously stupid road.
Once again, they’re just making crap up….
It takes one human being to keep another human being in involuntary servitude ie slavery. Therefore the fetus is a human being and has rights to protect their existence.
It’s the state that forces involuntary servitude, not the embryo.
Except in cases of self-defense, it should certainly be illegal for one human being to intentionally kill another human being.
Yadkin – Guess what? It is illegal. A fertilized egg or fetus is not yet a human being. How in this advanced era can something so simple not be understood by so many? Actually, I think I know the answer – they don’t *want* to understand. The extremists want to force their will on others like the Marxist Lefties do. The two groups are birds-of-a-feather.
Only a few decades ago, it was legal in some states for husbands to rape their wives (resulting in pregnancy). In those same states physical abuse of a man’s wife was essentially legal (not enforced by the local or state officials).
Apparently husbands raped their wives so they wouldn’t leave, then some states ban abortions for rape and even try to criminalize women fleeing to other states for abortions due to rape.
In Florida, a women simply shot a gun into the floor as a warning to keep her husband away (husband with a police record of domestic wife abuse). Florida prosecutors sent the wife to prison for about 3 years.
Even today, some states don’t do a great job protecting women. Seems to me in those states, she may well have a point in her logic.
Alexander Hamilton was the primary architect of the American Justice System and was quite clear on the concept of constitutional law.
Hamilton essentially said that “precedent” (past court rulings for any district court, appeals court or U.S. Supreme Court) should win most court cases UNLESS the past court ruling is deemed “unconstitutional” by a particular court. In those rare instances “constitutionality” should overturn that unconstitutional precedent.
Hamilton also supported “citizen juries” as a check and balance on over zealous judges and prosecutors. Hamilton wanted to create an “obstacle to the success” to the prosecutor. Hamilton believed the only way to have an “innocent until proven guilty” justice system was if the burden was in the “accuser or prosecutor” not the “accused”. Today about 90% of criminal cases never receive a jury trial but are plea bargained.
Hamilton said this in the latter papers of the Federalist Papers – series of newspaper articles explaining the proposed American system of government to citizens. Anyone citing “Original Intent”, Hamilton wanted “constitutionality” to overturn unconstitutional past court rulings. This system gave us women’s rights, LGBT rights, property rights and everything Americans value.
The American court system is top-down hierarchical, the “superior” court (higher courts) rules over lower courts. A federal district court ruling on constitutionality is the law of the land for that district. A federal appeals court ruling is the “constitutionality for an entire region (law of the land for several states). If the U.S Supreme Court rules it’s the supreme law of the land for the entire United States.
Even if we disagree with this judge, it is her duty to consider the “constitutionality” of any past court precedent. We wouldn’t have women’s rights today without this system.
Professor Turley,
While I generally agree that this Judge’s approach should be prohibited by prior case law, our current Supreme Court has expressed its general disregard for abiding by precedent.
Before anyone argues, “but a lower court has a greater obligation than SCOTUS to abide by precedent,” the Dobbs court entertained a question that was never directly addressed by a lower court. If it had, then a lower court would have had to make the same type of opinion this Judge has made.
Unless, moving forward, SCOTUS will continue to accept novel arguments first introduced to them, judges will need to continue to make far-fetched opinions like this in order to take advantage of SCOTUS’s new lackadaisical approach to precedential value.
Disregard for abiding by precedent? Precedents are not black letter law. They are not written in stone. You want something to be constitutional not ruled to be so? Amend the Constitution. (And, do remember, the legal goddess of the Left thought Roe was a bad ruling.)
You think it is realistic to amend the constitution each time SCOTUS issues an opinion to make the ruling binding. In what world is that even remotely possible?
Women (about 50% of the entire population) would have few rights today if America didn’t practice “Constitutional Construction”. Regardless of this judge’s ultimate success winning the argument, this may be what she is attempting to do.
The U.S. Constitution clearly grants “Women’s Voting Rights” but what about women as police officers, women as fire fighters, women in military special forces, women as members of Congress, etc. What about girls being able to participate in sports at their public school? Title IX (mandating girls sports opportunities) didn’t happen until the 1970’s.
Most women’s rights today were mostly achieved in the past 50 years using “Constitutional Construction”. A court would rule on a constitutional issue for a local district. That ruling could then be approved for a region (several states) and if accepted by the U.S. Supreme Court that ruling would become the “constitutional out of bounds” for the entire United States. Congress, presidents, governors, state legislatures, local governments were required to operate within those “constitutional out of bounds”.
Although the 19th Amendment specifically applied to Women’s Voting Rights, other rights derived from the Post-Civil War 14th Amendment (originally designed for African-Americans).
Every constitutional court ruling is “multi-faceted” – it can have multiple rulings on multiple topics. Some amendments like the 4th Amendment are very clear in it’s meaning and wording. Other amendments, like the 14th Amendment, are intentionally ambiguous and open to more interpretation.
With “Constitutional Construction” (system derived from centuries of Old English law) the 14th Amendment can help advance most women’s rights. Those 14th Amendment precedents can be built upon to legalize interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia). That precedent can be used to legalize equal marriage rights for LGBT couples.
This benefits Conservatives also. In 2008, the “Heller” ruling strengthened the rights of gun owners to overturn local gun restrictions by local governments. Local governments can no longer outlaw weapons in anyone’s home, for self-defense using “Constitutional Construction”.
Before we totally trash this judge, remember in 1920 it was viewed as “Radical and Communist” for women to have equal rights and to even vote. Many women’s rights activists were viewed as domestic terrorists by the U.S. Department of Justice and the federal government in the early 1900’s.
“Federal Judge Suggests Abortion May Be Protected Under 13th Amendment’s Ban on Involuntary Servitude”
– Professor Turley
______________
Now that is down right ridiculous.
How ’bout a large dose of truth.
_________________________
“…amendments…as will not injure the constitution,…”
”And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
____________________________________________________________
The 13th Amendment itself was “injurious” and is unconstitutional, as are the 14th and 15th. An illegal result of an illegal act is, itself, illegal. Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” began with a whopping electoral mandate of 39.8%, the illegal and unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession and an unconstitutional war of aggression, not common defense, against a sovereign foreign nation, then proceeded to the unconstitutional despotic seizure of power through martial law, the suspension of habeas corpus without the required justification of invasion or rebellion (the South did not rebel, it seceded) the gross and egregious failure to obey and enforce extant immigration law in 1863, and concluding with the forcible, corrupt and improper ratification of Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation by Lincolns’ communist successors. Lincoln illegally and forcibly diverted America’s course through violence based on the teachings of Karl Marx and with a gun to America’s head. Further, the 13th Amendment is “injurious” and so deeply flawed that is requires additional unconstitutional acts such as affirmative action, quotas, financial assistance, public housing, etc., to accomplish its own preposterous perpetuation.
America was infested with Marx’s communists fleeing prosecution in Germany.
Lincoln espoused Marx’s pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people” as early as 1837.
Lincoln was Karl Marx’s “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
_________________
“The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”
– Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864
Letter of congratulation and commendation from Karl Marx to Abraham Lincoln: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Republican meant liberal and communism began flowing from Europe onto America’s shores, and into Illinois, in the early 19th century:
“Seven years before he and Lincoln served together in the Congress (during each man’s sole term in the U.S. House) Horace Greeley—or ‘Friend Greeley,’ as Lincoln referred to the editor in their correspondence—began the Tribune with a stated purpose: ‘to serve the republic with an honest and fearless criticism.’ He succeeded, more wholly than any American editor before or after his transit of the mid-nineteenth century, in creating a newspaper that was not merely a newspaper. Greeley’s nationally circulated Tribune was, as Clarence Darrow aptly remembered it, ‘the political and social Bible’ of every reforming, radical and Republican household. The Tribune was surely that for Lincoln, whose engagement with the paper would last the better part of a quarter century and eventually extend to wrangling with Greeley about the proper moment at which to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln’s involvement was not just with Greeley but with his sub-editors and writers, so much so that the first Republican president appointed one of Greeley’s most radical lieutenants—the Fourier- and Proudhon-inspired socialist and longtime editor of Marx’s European correspondence, Charles Dana—as his assistant secretary of war.”
“Greeley’s newspaper was the tribune of the agitation that spawned the Republican Party and its successful presidential campaign of 1860. Lincoln would say of the editor: ‘every one of his words seems to weigh about a ton.’
This was as Greeley, an epic figure of American journalism, a political and social reformer who reveled in his ability not merely to report upon but to bend the arc of history, intended it.
– International Socialist Review, Issue 79
________________________________
“If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution [of slavery]. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. [Should freed slaves be made] politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this, and [even] if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not … We can not, then, make them equals.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Peoria, Illinois, October 16, 1854
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
George, I read your stuff and agree with a good deal but sometimes I come across an errant quote. I know you want to be as accurate as possible, so you must have missed my last reply where I provided the full quote which demonstrates Lincoln saying the opposite of what you quote might make you or others believe. I will quote the entire paragraph so you can see it for yourself. Thanks for reading.
“I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that the examination proposed by this resolution, must cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing.
These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people,
and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the
people’s money to settle the quarrel.”
I am not arguing “the management of the affairs of the State Bank” in Illinois, on January 11, 1837, I am demonstrating the “fundamentally transforming” of Lincoln toward Marxism.
My point, as stated, was that Lincoln had been exposed to, had studied, and had espoused Marx and his pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people.” That is still my point.
Republican meant liberal in Lincoln’s time; Lincoln was liberal, collectivist, socialist (the goal of socialism is communism), pre-progressive, Marxist, anti-conservative, anti-constitutional and anti-American.
Abraham Lincoln was, at that time, a latent communist and student of Karl Marx, through education by legions of communist fleeing prosecution in Germany, landing in Illinois.
Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.
Lincoln eschewed the American thesis, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to further his Marxist ideology.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
“Now, sir, it is clear that no question can arise on this portion of the resolution, except a question between capitalists in regard to the ownership of stock. Some gentlemen have the stock in their hands, while others, who have more money than they know what to do with, want it; and this, and this alone, is the question, to settle which we are called on to squander thousands of the people’s money.”
…
“Now, sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to the people’s money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that the examination proposed by this resolution, must cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in which the people have no interest, and about which they care nothing.”
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously, and in concert, to fleece the people,…”
“…and now, that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.”
– Univ. of Michigan, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln https://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/lincoln1/1:92?rgn=div1;view=fulltext
George, I have no problem with your underlying arguments that involve freedom and individualism, but that quote of Lincoln’s was out of context. Lincoln was trying to stop the people’s money from being spent inappropriately.
I see no evidence that Lincoln espoused Marxism or had any familiarity with Marx personally. In that quote, Lincoln talked about specific “capitalists” who he believed were trying to “fleece the people”.
You haven’t provided data to prove that Lincoln was a Marxist, and the quote you provide, as I show above, proves the opposite.
“Republican meant liberal in Lincoln’s time”
Please don’t get all worked up over the word liberal, for it too, is taken out of context. Are you talking about a classical liberal, a progressive liberal, or another type of liberal? You use a lot of terms, but I can’t see from where you are coming. Lincoln was pro-American though you disagree with him keeping America together.
Your most significant point regards the idea of secession. That would lead to the destruction of America and therefore be anti-American. Secession is like putting thirteen broken and mixed eggs back in their original form. That is impossible. You may be thinking of revolution, which is something Jefferson explained.
Please read. Go back and read.
Rather than ignore, read, learn.
America was infested with Marx’s communists fleeing prosecution in Germany.
Lincoln espoused Marx’s pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people” as early as 1837.
Lincoln espoused Marx’s principles.
Lincoln was Karl Marx’s “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
__________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
__________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
__________________
Republican meant liberal and communism began flowing from Europe onto America’s shores, and into Illinois, in the early 19th century:
“Seven years before he and Lincoln served together in the Congress (during each man’s sole term in the U.S. House) Horace Greeley—or ‘Friend Greeley,’ as Lincoln referred to the editor in their correspondence—began the Tribune with a stated purpose: ‘to serve the republic with an honest and fearless criticism.’ He succeeded, more wholly than any American editor before or after his transit of the mid-nineteenth century, in creating a newspaper that was not merely a newspaper. Greeley’s nationally circulated Tribune was, as Clarence Darrow aptly remembered it, ‘the political and social Bible’ of every reforming, radical and Republican household. The Tribune was surely that for Lincoln, whose engagement with the paper would last the better part of a quarter century and eventually extend to wrangling with Greeley about the proper moment at which to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln’s involvement was not just with Greeley but with his sub-editors and writers, so much so that the first Republican president appointed one of Greeley’s most radical lieutenants—the Fourier- and Proudhon-inspired socialist and longtime editor of Marx’s European correspondence, Charles Dana—as his assistant secretary of war.”
“Greeley’s newspaper was the tribune of the agitation that spawned the Republican Party and its successful presidential campaign of 1860. Lincoln would say of the editor: ‘every one of his words seems to weigh about a ton.’
This was as Greeley, an epic figure of American journalism, a political and social reformer who reveled in his ability not merely to report upon but to bend the arc of history, intended it.
– International Socialist Review, Issue 79
George, not only do I read, but I read complete paragraphs in context something you need to learn to do. You have yet to prove Lincoln’s ties to Marx and you already misread one of his statements that I corrected. I showed where you were wrong, but you failed to do the same with me.
Go up and read about the communist propagandist and indoctrinationist Horace Greeley.
Remember that republicans were liberals, progressives and socialists who were communists-in-waiting.
__________________________________________________________________________________
“They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]”
– Karl Marx
__________
The International Workingmen’s Association 1864
Address of the International Working Men’s Association to Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America
Presented to U.S. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams
January 28, 1865 [A]
Written: by Marx between November 22 & 29, 1864, and included in the Minutes of the General Council on 29th November 1864;
First Published: The Bee-Hive Newspaper, No. 169, January 7, 1865, and in German translation in Der Social Demokrat on 30 Dezember 1864;
Source: The General Council of the First International 1864-1866, Progress Publishers;
Transcription/Markup: Zodiac/Brian Baggins;
Online Version: Marx & Engels Internet Archive (marxists.org) 2000.
Sir:
We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.
From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?
When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, “slavery” on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding “the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution”, and maintained slavery to be “a beneficent institution”, indeed, the old solution of the great problem of “the relation of capital to labor”, and cynically proclaimed property in man “the cornerstone of the new edifice” — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders’ rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.
While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.
The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world. [B]
Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen’s Association, the Central Council:
Longmaid, Worley, Whitlock, Fox, Blackmore, Hartwell, Pidgeon, Lucraft, Weston, Dell, Nieass, Shaw, Lake, Buckley, Osbourne, Howell, Carter, Wheeler, Stainsby, Morgan, Grossmith, Dick, Denoual, Jourdain, Morrissot, Leroux, Bordage, Bocquet, Talandier, Dupont, L.Wolff, Aldovrandi, Lama, Solustri, Nusperli, Eccarius, Wolff, Lessner, Pfander, Lochner, Kaub, Bolleter, Rybczinski, Hansen, Schantzenbach, Smales, Cornelius, Petersen, Otto, Bagnagatti, Setacci;
George Odger, President of the Council; P.V. Lubez, Corresponding Secretary for France; Karl Marx, Corresponding Secretary for Germany; G.P. Fontana, Corresponding Secretary for Italy; J.E. Holtorp, Corresponding Secretary for Poland; H.F. Jung, Corresponding Secretary for Switzerland; William R. Cremer, Honorary General Secretary.
“Lincoln espoused Marx’s pejoratives “capitalist” and “fleece the people” as early as 1837.”
I don’t think so George. In 1837 Karl Marx was nineteen years old. He was an unknown!
Correct. Which proves Marx and Lincoln were on the same socialist, collectivist, communist page from the outset and they “blended” as Marx fleshed out his philosophy from the age of 20 to 40+. Go on now to research Greeley et al. who influenced Lincoln in America.
George, you don’t want to look foolish do you? In 1837 Lincoln gave a speech that you attribute to a 19 year-old’s theories that crossed the Atlantic in record time. Marx didn’t write those theories until much later.
I know George, you are going to say Lincoln used a time machine. OK. That sounds more reasonable.
“ George, I read your stuff …”
What else do you have to do with your sad, pathetic life? Of course you’ll read stuff from a mentally ill commenter
What have you become old man ?
Said the brave, courageous it/thing/nonsentient/oblivious being with no name or discernible gender.
Try factual rebuttal, not vacuous ad hominem.
Unlike George, I strongly support and accept the validity and reality of the the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. I note that all of the justices in the Dobbs decision implicitly accepted the validity and reality of the 14th amendment.
Please cite the Constitution wherein secession is prohibited or precluded.
Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” was unconstitutional from the outset and must have never happened, from beginning to end.
Lincoln was the consummate anti-Constitution, anti-American, direct and mortal enemy of America.
Lincoln ideated the destruction of American freedom at the behest of his mentor, Karl Marx.
“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher,” Lincoln.
_______________________________________________________________
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
– Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, 1838
Where is secession authorized by the Constitution? See also the Supreme Court decision in Texas v White (1869) that held there is no constitutional right for a State to secede.
You have not presented a constitutional prohibition of secession.
The very American Founders availed themselves of secession.
__________________________________________________
James Madison rejected a proposal which was made at the 1787 Constitutional Convention to grant the new federal government the specific power to suppress a seceding state.
“A Union of states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.”
– James Madison
George, you simplify things too much by reading only snippets of what is said. In this case you need to read more and read what Madison said about the Articles of Confederation and what he believed was necessary. It is quite different than what you believe from the snippet.
Secession is natural, God-given, universally ubiquitous and constitutional by omission – America was created by secession.
Is divorce legal or must people stay in an undesired relationship – you know, one like Lincoln’s “marriage” to America when he beat his spouse into submission and killed 1 million Americans to keep his marriage intact and falsely “united”?
Why don’t I “see” the totally unconstitutional and corrupt “decision” of comrade Roberts on Obamacare, and the totally unconstitutional and corrupt Supreme Court of 1973 which imposed abortion in Roe v. Wade, which was recently found to be totally wrong, illicit, illegal and unconstitutional and entirely overturned – because abortion is not a constitutional right but a matter of State legislation.
You don’t read and obey law, you rewrite it to fit your unnatural and devil-given proclivities, neuroses and psychoses.
CCP just hates the Constitution, huh?
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Do you find secession delegated to the United States?
Do you find secession prohibited by the Constitution to the States?
The power of secession is reserved to the people, or to the States.
Secession is reserved to the people themselves or to the States.
Read it.
Yes, it says, “Or!”
Either or, or or either.
Secession is fully constitutional.
Solid Gold stuff you posted George,
Let’s see if anyone can add to it.
I CAN’T HEAR YOU, COMRADE.
I CAN’T HEAR YOUR PREVAILING REBUTTAL.
OH, COULD IT BE THERE ISN’T ONE?
YEP, SECESSION WAS, HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE FULLY CONSTITUTIONAL.
WEST VIRGINIA SECEDED FROM VIRGINIA, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD.
LINCOLN’S DENIAL OF SECESSION WAS ILLEGAL.
NO RESULT OF AN ILLEGAL ACT IS LEGAL.
THE “RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS” ARE ILLEGAL.
I support and accept the decision and reasoning set forth in the Supreme Court opinion in Texas v White (1869) that held there is no constitutional right for a State to secede from the US. You may want to read and consider the opinion.
What neurosis, nay, psychosis is that, wherein the patient desires incoherent, erroneous and false beliefs which mask the truth, relegating him to an ethereal realm of phantasm?
Is that something as distant and incomprehensible as a conjured father complex with “daddy issues” pouring over into the psyche, a complete dearth of maturity, lucidity, logic and high-functioning cognition?
Try this Rorschach test: Look deeply at the O.J. Simpson trial and tell me if he’s innocent, and right about when O.J. is going to reveal the real killer’s identity, as he stated.
Secession is natural and God-given, just as divorce is natural and God-given.
Secession is not prohibited by the Constitution and is, therefore, constitutional by omission.
Perhaps a skilled tutor might suss that out for you.
Concerned Citizen:
George is a zealot. He believes that Black Americans should have been expatriated to Africa after the Civil War. He believes that women shouldn’t have the right to vote. He believes all sorts of other prejudiced garbage. He doesn’t care what SCOTUS ruled about there not being a right to secede. He likes the views of the Confederacy. Of course, you’re free to try to convince him, but I hope you understand how pointless it is. Nothing is going to change his mind.
The result of an illegal act cannot be legal.
The “RECONSTRUCTION” inherent in the “Reconstruction Amendments” was the reconstruction of the destroyed America into a collectivist, communist “social world.”
Thank you, comrade, thank you, “Crazy Abe” et al.
Lincoln’s unconstitutional denial of fully constitutional secession was the illegal catalyst for the ultimate, resulting, illegal corollary “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments,” which facilitated Lincoln’s tireless efforts as Marx’s “earnest of the epoch” leading America toward the “RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
The “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” are technically moot as extant immigration law required the compassionate repatriation of freed slaves, their status changing from “property” to “illegal alien” under the Naturalization Act of 1802, which was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863.
In a society of laws, laws must be obeyed – but not by Lincoln.
Do you know or have a concern for law?
The Supreme Court recently corrected unconstitutional Roe vs. Wade retroactively by 50 years.
The Supreme Court must now correct the unconstitutional “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” by 150 years.
The result of an illegal act is illegal.
Denial of secession was an illegal act.
The result of an illegal act, ratification of the “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments,” is illegal.
Marx’s forces for communism in America used Lincoln to commence the incremental implementation of the principles of communism in America.
Secession was constitutional; the entire, communist, American welfare state is unconstitutional.
Why don’t you try once to argue the law and not your inane, vacuous, ad hominem attempt?
You’re concerned with your antithetical, illicit and unconstitutional ability to covet, steal and redistribute Other People’s Money, comrade.
See if you can present, manipulate and redistribute an accurate and compelling legal argument.
The cynic in me has long thought many of the judges/justices select the outcome they want and then spin the constitution to get that result. Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly reinforces that idea.
How can you have a “forced” pregnancy unless it’s rape? and
How can you have “forced” servitude if you have the right to give it up for adoption?
And how is “forced” servitude of a fetus consistent with the right of a woman to make the choice for her own body- which assumes that the fetus is part of her body and not independent?
And S. Meyer is at it again…
” Some have turned it into their childish playground, littered with insults and incessant need to call others “stupid”, as Allan / S Myers does habitually.” –Estovir
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/06/congress-is-set-to-expose-what-may-be-the-largest-censorship-system-in-u-s-history/comment-page-2/#comment-2260784
Estovir was too charitable. Myers lives on here because his wife doesn’t want him anywhere near her. Sad life for a man in his 80s
Do you have an argument ?
Anon,
Just slander, that’s all you have?
Like Johns wrote: Do you have an argument ?
Anon,
BTW, if your going to resort to slander @ least attempt to add some humor with it.
IE: Anon, when you’re making out with your wife does she still have to slap you to get you to stop focusing on the weekend’s TV NASCAR race & pay attention to her? lol;)
The mental gymnasts required to reach this conclusion for no other reason than government-sponsored, government-approved, government-encouraged, government-paid, elective, killing of the unborn for the convenience of the ‘already born’, is in a word, astonishing.
See Above.
This is such a non-issue that I am really getting tired of it. A VAST MAJORITY of states-even after Dobbs,- allow certain abortions: up to a certain stage of gestation, threat to mother’s life/health, rape and incest (a MEDIA topic for pro-abortionists, but in reality representing a very very small fraction), etc. Only a handful of states (mostly in the South) are severe in restriction or ban.
So that leaves consensual, unprotected sex
– and commensurate “elective abortion.”
In that case, there is the “morning after” pill (which will cover immediate fears–and a little bit/a few days beyond the morning after, if you have a bad hangover or forgot what happened). And if that fails, MOST states give you weeks beyond a confirmed pregnancy to make up your mind. Even before Dobbs, -even for “elective abortion,” the real issue was-and is- about the length of “window of opportunity” -NOT legality/illegality.
Rank, politicized garbage, and I am not afraid to say it.
Lin,
But even the “morning after” pill is still killing a human life with potential. We need to stop providing easy outs for responsibility.
Hello Jim22: I think the “morning after” pill kills the potential for human life, not kill a human life. Your regard for human life and its potential is admirable, but in reality with strong feelings on both sides, we have to draw the line somewhere….
Lin, Thank you for a gigantic helping of common sense!!
In the case of pregnancy is it not a voluntary act (Forcible Rape excepted)? Was not the military draft involuntary servitude?
This Judge is wrong. The Supreme Court was clear that Abortion was not approved by the Constitution as a Federal matter and it was to be turned over to the States. The States are left to control abortions individually. If people want a Federal Abortion decision then a Constitutional Amendment will need to be passed.
I agree, she went to a bad law school…
There is no mystery in sex and conception. Respect women and men’s dignity and agency, mitigate the progress of human life as commodities. Civilized society has compelling cause to discourage capital punishment and human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress. Keep women affordable, available, and taxable, and the “burden” of evidence sequestered in darkness of sanctuary states, at the border, is not a viable policy. The Pro-Choice ethical religion is a model of DIEversity [dogma] that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs, color quotas, and affirmative discrimination. The wicked solution is Antisci and transhumane.
That said, a woman, and man, have four choices, and an equal right to self-defense through reconciliation. #HateLovesAbortion
Men, women, and “our Posterity” are from Earth. Feminists are from Venus. Masculinists are from Mars. Social progressives are from Uranus.
90% of women who get abortions are democrats wacko’s, 100% of the men that get abortions are wacko democrats. we don’t need more democrats… keep abortion legal and available…….
Speaking of the 14th Amendment – we have some unfinished business!
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment should disqualify Trump (and friends) from ever holding government office again. When will the Grand Jury hear this case or will a private Plaintiff (ie: possibly a Capitol Police Officer) file a constitutional suit? Are there any cops to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment?
It’s very curious how these cases seem to just disappear down an Orwellian “Memory Hole”!
Why do you want to interfere with DEMOCRACY?
Give the people what they want
“Her fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had to fly out of Florida for an abortion”
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/health-care/article272168923.html
This was a wanted pregnancy. Anti-abortionists pretend that women only need abortions with unwanted pregnancies.
So you link to an outlier case but ignore the fact that 50% of women who kill the unborn, do it again.
It’s not an outlier that women have abortions with wanted pregnancies.
Please give a percentage of this non outlier.
You’ll get different percentages depending on the study (the year, the population studied, the focus of the study), but I’ve seen studies showing that fetal or maternal health problems were a factor in > 20% of abortions . ~2% are for ectopic pregnancies alone.
>20% is a false number.
ATS provides a lot of early news stories that later prove to be false, deceptive, or politically motivated. That is usual for the left and ATS.
There are two possibilities.
1) There is a glitch in the system
2) People are playing politics.
How does one resolve the question? If number 1, fix it. But to fix it, one has to have specifics. We don’t have that in this case. The news reports say things were “complicated”. What does that mean? We don’t know, so one has to wait to pass judgment, something ATS accepts despite being ignorant of the facts.
Why are the “complications” not reported? Lopes obviously knows what they are. Why did no one ask?
ATS, you are making a case over this early incident where we do not have the essential facts. I don’t disagree with looking into what you will call a failure. You can follow up and tell us what the “complications” were. Debbie Wasserman Shultz is not against playing games, no matter what the case, as long as she can blow things up. However, if there are problems with the law, corrections need to be made.If it is politics as usual, you and the left should be ashamed.
” Some have turned it into their childish playground, littered with insults and incessant need to call others “stupid”, as Allan / S Myers does habitually.” –Estovir
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/06/congress-is-set-to-expose-what-may-be-the-largest-censorship-system-in-u-s-history/comment-page-2/#comment-2260784
That is not an answer. What were the complications that Lopes faced? That is the most important question, but you don’t have an answer. You seldom do.
Your answer might make one think that Estovir demeaned himself sinking to your level. I am the butt of Estovir’s remark, but I would not place him in such low regard. Estovir sometimes fails trying to get his point across, and now has to face the indignity of being linked with ATS.
ATS, you are making a case over this early incident where we do not have the essential facts. I don’t disagree with looking into what you will call a failure. You can follow up and tell us what the “complications” were. Debbie Wasserman Shultz is not against playing games, no matter what the case, as long as she can blow things up. However, if there are problems with the law, corrections need to be made.If it is politics as usual, you and the left should be ashamed.
” Some have turned it into their childish playground, littered with insults and incessant need to call others “stupid”, as Allan / S Myers does habitually.” –Estovir
https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/06/congress-is-set-to-expose-what-may-be-the-largest-censorship-system-in-u-s-history/comment-page-2/#comment-2260784
That is not an answer. What were the complications that Lopes faced? That is the most important question, but you don’t have an answer. You seldom do.
Your answer might make one think that Estovir demeaned himself sinking to your level. I am the butt of Estovir’s remark, but I would not place him in such low regard. Estovir sometimes fails trying to get his point across, and now has to face the indignity of being linked with ATS.
No, Estovir is linked to you, S. Meyer. (S. Meyer is the author of the anonymous comment at 2:14 — and most of the comments that mention his alter ego “ATS.”)
ATS responds but it seems to be deleted: “No, Estovir is linked to you, S. Meyer. (S. Meyer is the author of the anonymous comment at 2:14 — and most of the comments that mention his alter ego “ATS.”)”
ATS are you so embarrassed by your response that you made sure it wouldn’t be posted? You are a coward, among other things.
Estovir is linked to you and that is proven by your use of Estovir’s comment. I feel sorry for Estovir because being linked to you in any fashion makes one need to constantly shower.
You are addressing at least two different people as “ATS” here, as you often do.
You can say what you wish but you are Anonymous the Stupid, ATS, and are known by that name by many. You are also known to lie, so one judges the truth not by what you say, but by what is logical.
ATS = Allan the Stupid.
Allan is so uncomfortable with being Allan the Stupid that he changed his name from Allan to S Meyer.
You can’t handle the fact that you are known as Anonymous the Stupid, but you are, and you always will be. Do you really think you are going to make people believe something different? Only the Stupid might because they fit right in following their leader Anonymous the Stupid.
Anonymous at 12:08:
You cite the Miami Herald’s case about the “fatal birth defect.”
I believe Florida’s restrictive abortion law includes an exception for post-15-week abortions for “fatal fetal abnormality.”
Ch. 390.0111, et seq.; “Termination of Pregnancies”
The problem here was not the law, but the mother’s inability to get the requisite two doctors’ signatures to affirm/confirm the “fatal birth defect.”
You should read the articles that you cite.
I did read it. You should not jump to unwarranted conclusions. “Two doctors are required to certify in writing that the abortion is medically needed. But her doctors, Lopes said, were afraid to write the necessary letters. They submitted exam results and articles about Trisomy 18, she said, but did not write the letters confirming that she needed the abortion.” The law does not address doctors’ fear of being prosecuted for post-15-week terminations for fetal anomalies that are often but not 100% fatal. My opinion is that that’s a problem with the law. You apparently have a different opinion.
A doctors fear can not preclude them from writing a letter.
JohnBSay: I’m glad Anonymous went back and read the full article, ex post facto (despite his defensive posture to the contrary). What abortion-performing physician would not want to help this unfortunate woman and alleviate her stress by affirming/confirming the need, in such an imminent situation? (I’m assuming that she really only needed ONE more doctor, as obviously ONE doctor had already examined and advised her of diagnosis/prognosis in the first place.) Methinks there is more to this story than meets the reader’s eye…I lived and went to school in FL. The Miami Herald is Florida’s version of the Washington Post….Selective facts at its worst, -in order to conform with where the journalist wants to go with the story…..(NOT to undermine or discredit a woman’s angst when confronted with an unhealthy fetus….)
It is common that these stories are deliberately concocted to create false dilema’s.
Whether you agree with the FL law or not, you can not easily manufacture a circumstance where there is a problem.
There is no criminal liability to a doctor for expressing a medical opinion – there is far more likelyhood that doctors will claim there is a fatal medical issue when there is not, than the opposite.
Medical opinions can be had quickly, and if the doctor performing the “necessary” abortion is reluctant to do so out of fear of prosecution – they can go to court for protection.
“Fear” is unfounded.
But it is typical of the left to act or not act out of emotion rather than deal with fact and law.