(Ron) We are a people governed by laws was Re: (Ron) wrong amendment long and off topic

Brian Dean bridean@worldnet.att.net
Mon, 18 May 1998 19:11:54 -0400 (00895554714, 19980518230338.AAD16856@briandea) 

HELEN:
If a Constitution is a contract between the people and their government, 
then what are the people supposed to do if the government violates it's side 
of the contract? Why is it proper that the court that decides these issues 
be insulted by being compared to the Nazi German government? I don't 
understand what you are trying to say, who is it you think should decide 
issues where people think the government has overreach it powers? Who 
do you think should interpet the Constitution? I have asked you this 
repeatedly now. I hear your insult, but I don't see any answers. There are 
legal corrections for the Supreme Court overreaching it's power. There is 
impeachment and constitutional amendment. Of course your side can't get 
the support for this. Nor do I think you could get the support for much of 
what you push if you could do it through a simple straight up vote. Most 
people in America if there were a debate over in, would oppose taking tax 
moeny to support religious schools. Most people don't want the 
government getting to involved in the private decisions a family faces about 
abortion and birth control. It seem most peple support euthenasia.  The 
Court rule centuries ago that the stated right to privacy in your papers 
extends to you medical records and lawyers office. The Court has said that 
this represents an implied right of privacy in the Constitution, so that our 
phone calls, computer data, vidio tapes, conversations with out doctors are 
also private. 
Do you disagree with this? On abortion the thing that the Court many 
ruled on was that the fetus had never had a standing as a person under 
any American law, so it could not be considered a person under the 
Constitution.  It was your side that was asking for an extention of the 
Constitution's protection of rights. The Court was not willing to walk into the 
question of when a ball of cells becomes human. Yes, if fetuses are person 
under our laws then all possible miscarrages must be investigated as 
possible murders. It would have been a far worse mess if it was decided 
the your way. Under our law and Constitution since a fetus is not a legal 
person, then the government has not more right telling a woman she 
whether she should have an abortion or not, than whether she should have 
a nose job. 

Please show me where the Constitution list fetuses as persons? Almost 
all the various listings of persons talk about where they are born, so birth is 
a requirement of personhood under the Constitution. We have never 
incuded fetuses in the Constitutionally required census, and Article 1 
doesn't seem to want it. Slaves are person because they count 3/5. 
Indians are person because we are told they don't count at all. 
Amendement XIV extends citizenship to all person _born_ in the US, but 
as Susan B. Anthony found out by testing the law, women were not 
covered and did not have the rights of citizens. So I guess in some ways 
women weren't person until the 19th Amendment. Women actually had 
some very strange standiings in law during this period after the 13th but 
before the 19th amendments. Indians also were not covered. They were 
made citizens by an act of Congress on June 15, 1924. There certainly 
were period were killing an Indian was not murder under our laws. Were 
there bounties on Indian ears under the Constitutional period? I think so. 
These legal titles "persons" and "citizen" have always been interpeted very 
conservatively by the Court. That was one part of what the Dred Scott v. 
Sanford case of 1857 was about.  It has seemed to total gone over most of 
your side's head that what the Court said is the Constitution does 
considered fetuses, persons. Now, if you say they are wrong about this, 
please, show any indication that the Consitution meant for fetus to count 
as persons? If fetuses are not legally persons then they can have no 
standing in our Supreme Court and the woman's right to privacy can be 
the only issue. You see this is actually a conservative interpetation of 
the law.
Sorry, 


RON
  Would you want to accept slaves (blacks) as 3/5 persons because the 
supreme court said so? The american people are incapable or unwilling to 
stand up to the Supreme Court (or the government) because they have been 
well-trained by the media elites to be good consumers and have been 
dumbed-down by the educational establishment (unintentiionally?) to the 
point where they are happy if they get 3 squares and some video games to 
occupy their time. Your interpretation of Roe v. Wade is incorrect. I'm 
sure you can find the ruling on the net somewhere. The states would have 
never given the federal government this much power by choice. I suggest 
you read some constitutional history on the debates between the 
republicans and the federalists. It's too lengthy of an issue to do 
justice to here.