Sunday, September 7

Biden: Constitutional rights not to be protected, they are only personal belief

After feeling the heat over answering when life begins as "above his pay grade," Obama/Biden and Co. take a new tack on the constitutionally protected right to life. Obama further muddles:

"Probably.
...What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of
humility about understanding when does the soul enter into ... It's a
pretty tough question.
"

Nice. I'm not electing a pastor. I don't need you as president to tell me when it gets a soul as much as when the Constitution protects life. When? Are the constitutional rights of a nine-month-old a "tough question?"

Biden also responds:

"I'm
prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment
of conception. But that is my judgment," Biden said on NBC's "Meet the
Press.""For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally
and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a
pluralistic society."


So let me translate. Life, a constitutionally protected right begins at conception according to Biden but in a pluralistc society it isn't the government's responsibility to impose that judgemetn on everyone else...or in other words make laws.

Or let's pick another constituitonal right: trial by jury perhaps or unreasonable search and seizure? Should I be able to say that as a matter of faith, I accept that the right to a trial by jury begins at the moment of conception but for me to impose that judgement on everyone else....is inappropriate???

And why only for nine months is it imporper? What about teenagers and the freedom of speech? If I thought that radicals in the 1960s HAVE a right to free speech but many others "maybe even more devout than I am" in a pluralistic society" did not, does that mean they could be put in prison for a constitutional voicing of their opinion?

Mr. Biden, Mr. Obama there is this small document called the Declaration of Independence. It says: "All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with...Life....That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." One if not THE primary reason government exists is to protect the right of life. When someone attempts to shoot me, you guys as the government must protect that right regardless of what others might think or if we live in a pluralistic society.

These guys need to go back to grade school government class.

7 Comments:

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

I think your problem might be that you're talking about "life" as if it were a constitutional right. And it isn't really. Biden is talking about it philisophically, which is probably how it should be talked about since it's basically a policy issue.

Lucas said...

hmmm...last I checked "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property" WAS apart of the Constitution.

This is our trouble. In the midst of inventing rights like the right to privacy (no, that is NOT in the Constitution) we forget the ones actually there.

JIJRWM: I've shown you were life is, could you show me the right to privacy now in the constitution? Thanks.

IS LED BY NONE said...

Go back and check again, Lucas. Amendment XIV says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property...." [emphasis added]

It's a minimal requirement really, but one has to be BORN to be a person with rights. Gametes, zygotes, embryos, and fetuses do not explicitly have these rights.

Lucas said...

ILBN: For what it is worth, the Supreme Court does not hold your position. People or persons, have Constitutional rights even if they were not BORN in the United States (i.e. illegals here). So to say that a baby must be BORN to have that right is incorrect.

We need to debate who a person is, not when they are born. I find it hard to say that a human is alive, has life etc. and yet say they are not a person. Are we saying that moving outside of the mother determines being a person with life? That is terrible science.

Again the dec. of Ind. says that All men are created equal...and endowed with...life. That would mean we have the right to life from the moment we are created.

But thanks for actually, using the words of the Constitution to prove your point. We are actually debating what we should.

Lucas

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

lucas,
You're actually talking about the due process clause. It actually says quite explicitly that the government CAN deprive you of life, liberty or property. It just has to do so with "due process." There are volumes of cases and articles construing exactly what that means, but in it's most basic sense, it means according to the laws on the books. It definately refers to procedural requirements, and I'm not sure what procedural laws would apply in this case. Some have construed it to have a substantive component. If that's the case, and you believe in strong "substantive due process" rights, then you may have an argument. My guess though is that you would find most of the judges that suggest a substantive component to the DPC to be "activist judges."

I hate to inform you, but there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. There is some case law (Roe and Griswald) that suggests that such a right eminates from other rights, but I find that to be bullshit. Also, I have no idea why you would bring such a thing up in a discussion of the 5th and 14th amendments. You clearly have a lot to learn about the constitution.

JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

As to your overall point, ILBN is right. It clearly says it only applies to those "born." Even if you feel is should apply to those unborn, it doesn't say that. If you want to change that, you have to amend the constitution.

You seem to be big on mentioning other incorrect constitutional decisions to support your own uncorrect constitution opinions. Even if some court extended a constitutional right to an illegal immigrant, it doesn't mean that we should throw out the whole document. A court was wrong. So are you.

Lucas said...

JIJAWM: First, I never said that the right to privacy is part of the Constitution. I was asking YOU where it was...since that is the constitutional "right" that the "right" to abortion is based on. I agree, it is NOT in the constitution.

Second: Here is the full relevant parts of the 5th Amendment:


5th Amendment:
No PERSON shall be held to answer for a CAPITAL, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any PERSON be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

OK. So first, no mention here about being born. The reason that was included in the 14th Amend. was to clarify that African Am. even though they had not been citizens before, if they were born here must be considered such. If someone kills a foreigner passing through the country, or even a child before birth in the mothers womb, they can and should be tried for murder since they have taken a Constitutionally protected life.

I also agree that the Constitution does (as it should) provide for depriving "persons" of "life, liberty, or property," so long as it is with "due process of law." Due process as you eluded to, has been muddled by the courts through the years. Understood by the Founders and English common law history, it simply meant according to Hamilton the "process and proceedings of the courts of justice."

So if the government can take away life as a form of punishment the question is: what has an unborn child done? Secondly, has the preborn child been given his day in court with proper proceedings--the due process--that he deserves?