Statement 8 + Footnotes - Revision history

DaveLeach at 03:04, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T03:04:11Z

DaveLeach at 02:49, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:49:04Z

DaveLeach at 02:47, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:47:21Z

DaveLeach at 02:43, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:43:36Z

DaveLeach at 02:42, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:42:38Z

DaveLeach at 02:40, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:40:14Z

DaveLeach at 02:39, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:39:18Z

Show changes

DaveLeach: /* == */

2023-11-07T02:23:24Z

‎==

DaveLeach at 02:21, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:21:44Z

DaveLeach at 02:10, 7 November 2023

2023-11-07T02:10:43Z

Show changes

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
   DON’T READ past this 11 word Statement
   unless you like to stare at where crazy lawyers
-  ever got the idea that human babies aren’t people!
+  ever got the idea that baby humans aren’t people!
 <span style="color:blue">Neither Roe nor Dobbs distinguished between “humans” and “persons” as if a “human” baby isn’t necessarily a “person”.

@@ Line 296: / Line 296: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here Bork says as much as “once you change hearts you won’t NEED to change laws”. He must go to church. That sounds like the same excuse for doing nothing that you hear in “church”. But he is a judge: doesn’t such sophistry equally implicate all law? What law is needed, if “changing hearts” leaves no need for law?
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The fact is that national debate about law pressures people who want to keep doing evil to interact with the reasons for outlawing their evil. Many hearts, facing those reasons for the first time, repent.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.” </ref></span> 12/532 words
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.” </ref></span> <span style="color:grey">12/532 words</span>
 <small>The footnotes below are enriched by selections from the Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Lee J. Strang <> Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George  <> Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children  <>  Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and by selections from the 1996 debate between Judge Robert Bork and Professor Nathan Schluetter</small>

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 <br>for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen
-by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) 10:29, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
+by [[User:DaveLeach|Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa]] ([[User talk:DaveLeach|talk]]) November 8, 2023
 <span style="color:blue">Statement #8: Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”.

@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here Bork says as much as “once you change hearts you won’t NEED to change laws”. He must go to church. That sounds like the same excuse for doing nothing that you hear in “church”. But he is a judge: doesn’t such sophistry equally implicate all law? What law is needed, if “changing hearts” leaves no need for law?
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The fact is that national debate about law pressures people who want to keep doing evil to interact with the reasons for outlawing their evil. Many hearts, facing those reasons for the first time, repent.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.” </ref> 12/532 words
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.” </ref></span> 12/532 words
 <small>The footnotes below are enriched by selections from the Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Lee J. Strang <> Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George  <> Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children  <>  Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and by selections from the 1996 debate between Judge Robert Bork and Professor Nathan Schluetter</small>

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Statement #6, Footnote #2, quotes more dictionaries to focus on what distinguishes humans from animals. ''Roe'' in 1967, and ''Webster'' in 1828, defined humans as having souls. That fact is written out of most but not all modern dictionaries.</ref>
-Therefore the Amendment’s “nor shall any state deprive any person of life” and “equal protection” of every “person”  means every human, including those unborn. Nothing about the first clause keeps later clauses from protecting unborn humans.
+<span style="color:blue">Therefore the Amendment’s “nor shall any state deprive any person of life” and “equal protection” of every “person”  means every human, including those unborn. Nothing about the first clause keeps later clauses from protecting unborn humans.
 <ref> '''More about “Nothing about the first clause keeps later clauses from protecting unborn humans.”'''
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The “equal protection” clause was created to give equal rights to the people least valued by society, beginning with slaves, but not ending with slaves.
@@ Line 298: / Line 298: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here Bork says as much as “once you change hearts you won’t NEED to change laws”. He must go to church. That sounds like the same excuse for doing nothing that you hear in “church”. But he is a judge: doesn’t such sophistry equally implicate all law? What law is needed, if “changing hearts” leaves no need for law?
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The fact is that national debate about law pressures people who want to keep doing evil to interact with the reasons for outlawing their evil. Many hearts, facing those reasons for the first time, repent.
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.” </ref>
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.” </ref> 12/532 words
-/532 words
 <small>The footnotes below are enriched by selections from the Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Lee J. Strang <> Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George  <> Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children  <>  Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and by selections from the 1996 debate between Judge Robert Bork and Professor Nathan Schluetter</small>
 ----

@@ Line 288: / Line 288: @@
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;COMMENT: More tangled logic. The 5th Amendment, as I said, is about the federal government taking liberty “without due process of law. “No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” Slaves weren’t even held by states, but by individuals. Not until 1868 did our Constitution take jurisdiction over state laws which help individuals violate Constitutional rights.
 <blockquote>[Bork’s last sentence, repeated:] Apparently no one, including Lincoln, imagined that that clause gave the federal courts the power to prohibit slavery. Yet a slave was surely as much a person as an unborn child.</blockquote>
-<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;COMMENT; Bork notes the equivalance between the “personhood” of a slave and a baby, but then assumes that because our Founders took 71 years from ratification of our Constitution in 1789 to our Civil War in 1860, that they must have thought slavery didn’t violate any founding principles. Is the buildup over those years, the ripping of American culture apart, the “civil disobedience” of projects like the Underground Railroad, the bitter debates in Congress, the buildup climaxing into actual military war, nothing? Liberals are threatening civil war now, 21 years short of what it took then. Yes, there is equivalence. SCOTUS stoked the flames then and now. No, the violation of our founding documents then and now is not nothing. It is not disproved by how long it takes before America breaks in two.
+<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;COMMENT: Bork notes the equivalance between the “personhood” of a slave and a baby, but then assumes that because our Founders took 71 years from ratification of our Constitution in 1789 to our Civil War in 1860, that they must have thought slavery didn’t violate any founding principles. Is the buildup over those years, the ripping of American culture apart, the “civil disobedience” of projects like the Underground Railroad, the bitter debates in Congress, the buildup climaxing into actual military war, nothing? Liberals are threatening civil war now, 21 years short of what it took then. Yes, there is equivalence. SCOTUS stoked the flames then and now. No, the violation of our founding documents then and now is not nothing. It is not disproved by how long it takes before America breaks in two.
 <blockquote>If there were no other objections to Schlueter’s reading of the due process clauses, it should be enough that for two hundred years, in one case, and almost a century and a half, in the other, nobody suspected that those clauses meant what Schlueter would have them mean, not the men who proposed them or those who ratified them. The presumption is overwhelmingly against any revolutionary interpretation of the Constitution that occurs this late in the day.</blockquote>
 <br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;COMMENT: Bork assumes prematurely that he has proved his is the original understanding, an assumption challenged in footnote #5.

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 7 November 2023
Line 350:		Line 350:
	<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment requires this state, as every state, to thoroughly outlaw abortion. Restrictions of abortions for the purpose of saving mothers cannot be reviewed by strict scrutiny,1 even though the safety of mothers is a fundamental right, because the safety of their babies is an equally fundamental right. Legislatures can best delineate the most life-saving balance of harms.		<br>[[Statement_11_+_Footnotes]] The 14th Amendment requires this state, as every state, to thoroughly outlaw abortion. Restrictions of abortions for the purpose of saving mothers cannot be reviewed by strict scrutiny,1 even though the safety of mothers is a fundamental right, because the safety of their babies is an equally fundamental right. Legislatures can best delineate the most life-saving balance of harms.
	<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>		<br>[[Statement_12_+_Footnotes]] Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.</small>
−
−
−	~~====~~
−
−

@@ Line 236: / Line 236: @@
 CONCLUSION: the original meaning of “person” in the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses was the '''natural kind [definition] of human being.''' This natural kind interpretation of “person” was able to account for the status quo of American abortion law in 1868 as well as the fact that abortion law was progressively becoming more protective of all human life.</blockquote> </ref>
-<span style="color:blue">See also Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic...This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.” Steinberg v. Brown 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”.6
+<span style="color:blue">See also Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.228, 242 (1896), “The term ‘person’ is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic...This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument.” Steinberg v. Brown 321 F. Supp. 741 (N.D. Ohio, 1970) “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”.
-<ref></ref>
+<ref> '''More about “[o]nce human life has commenced, the constitutional protections found in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments impose upon the state a duty of safeguarding it”'''
 <span style="color:blue">The word “persons” in the 14th  Amendment means all who are IN FACT humans. Had it been only for those who are legally recognized as human, every deprivation of fundamental rights would be “constitutional” so long as a law or ruling questions whether its victims are “persons in the whole sense”.
 <span style="color:blue">Although Dobbs showed by disproving the opposite that reverence for all human life from fertilization was “deeply rooted in America’s law and traditions”, that is not why rights merit 14th Amendment protection. By the “deeply rooted” test, slavery would be legal today, since  freedom for slaves had zero historical support.
 <span style="color:blue">Nor does it matter if the Amendment authors even ''wanted'' to protect all humans. In fact, it doesn’t matter if there is a 14th Amendment. If law is not equal upon its operation on all humans, which is the very definition of the word “law” as developed by Samuel Rutherford’s “Lex Rex” and Blackstone and adopted by America’s founders, to that extent there is, by definition, no “rule of law”, no restraint upon the “strong” to not tyrannize the “weak”.
-<span style="color:blue">There is a direct test of whether babies merit 14th Amendment protection that does not require a romp through history:7 see if their parents are humans.
+<span style="color:blue">“To say that the test of equal protection should be the ‘legal’ rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue. For the Equal Protection Clause necessarily limits the authority of a State [or its judges] to draw such ‘legal’ lines as it chooses.” Glona, 391 U.S. 73, 75 (1968)
-<ref></ref>
+<ref>8 '''More about “To say that the test of equal protection should be the ‘legal’ rather than the biological relationship is to avoid the issue.”'''
 Judge Robert Bork disagreed: “The constitutional question is not what biological science tells us today about when human life begins.”
@@ Line 357: / Line 332: @@
 Technical detail: I don’t find where Schlueter thought “the Supreme Court [should] declare all abortions violations of the due process clauses”. He said that is what several prolife leaders wanted, in their joint statement. His own vision is “a Supreme Court ruling that would extend due process and equal protection to unborn persons.”
+<small>The footnotes below are enriched by selections from the Amicus Briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by: Lee J. Strang <> Scholars of Jurisprudence John M. Finnis and Robert P. George  <> Mary Kay Bacallao Advocating for Unborn Children  <>  Center for Medical Progress and David Daleide <> and by selections from the 1996 debate between Judge Robert Bork and Professor Nathan Schluetter</small>
 ----
 INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts