Personhood bill

[_subgenius]

If it's in the list, Congress has the authority to do it.

that is half of the rather old argument is it not?
i mean, there is no restriction on them NOT being able to do it.

[_subgenius]

Article I, section 8, does not give Congress the authority to declare when human life begins.

Does Congress have this authority otherwise?

BUMP because Darth J has no post to answer it

[_Darth J]

How are these contrary exactly?
you ability to draw conclusion from "evidence not seen" is admirable....
My position on the matter is completely unknown to you, but as usual your posts are presumptuous to a flaw.
Your posts have little integrity and even less intellectual rigor.
But they make for fine trollisms

The reason your two statements are contradictory is that your maxim opposing "salvation" by the government is inconsistent with your desire to look outside the Constitution to find authority for Congress to codify your personal value judgments.

that is half of the rather old argument is it not?
i mean, there is no restriction on them NOT being able to do it.

That completely defeats the purpose of having a list of specific, enumerated powers. The purpose of Article I, section 8 is specifically to restrict what Congress can do. That is also the purpose of the 10th Amendment.

The Federalist, No. 45

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Even McCulloch v. Maryland, which recognized implied powers of Congress, held that any implied powers derived from those enumerated in Article I, section 8. In that case, the Supreme Court held that even though the creation of a national bank was not specifically enumerated, the specifically enumerated powers over interstate commerce implicitly gave Congress the means to carry out its enumerated powers:

Although, among the enumerated powers of Government, we do not find the word "bank" or "incorporation," we find the great powers, to lay and collect taxes; to borrow money; to regulate commerce; to declare and conduct a war; and to raise and support armies and navies. The sword and the purse, all the external relations, and no inconsiderable portion of the industry of the nation are intrusted to its Government. It can never be pretended that these vast powers draw after them others of inferior importance merely because they are inferior. Such an idea can never be advanced. But it may with great reason be contended that a Government intrusted with such ample powers, on the due execution of which the happiness and prosperity of the Nation so vitally depends, must also be intrusted with ample means for their execution. The power being given, it is the interest of the Nation to facilitate its execution. It can never be their interest, and cannot be presumed to have been their intention, to clog and embarrass its execution by withholding the most appropriate means. Throughout this vast republic, from the St. Croix to the Gulf of Mexico, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and expended, armies are to be marched and supported. The exigencies of the Nation may require that the treasure raised in the north should be transported to the south that raised in the east, conveyed to the west, or that this order should be reversed. Is that construction of the Constitution to be preferred which would render these operations difficult, hazardous and expensive? Can we adopt that construction (unless the words imperiously require it) which would impute to the framers of that instrument, when granting these powers for the public good, the intention of impeding their exercise, by withholding a choice of means? If, indeed, such be the mandate of the Constitution, we have only to obey; but that instrument does not profess to enumerate the means by which the powers it confers may be executed; nor does it prohibit the creation of a corporation, if the existence of such a being be essential, to the beneficial exercise of those powers. It is, then, the subject of fair inquiry how far such means may be employed.
........
We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are Constitutional.

Defining when life begins is not within the scope of the Constitution. The bill discussed in the OP is not a means to carry out one of the powers delegated to Congress. The bill purports to grant Congress a substantive power it does not have: the legal authority to define when human life starts.

Article I, section 8, does not give Congress the authority to declare when human life begins.

Does Congress have this authority otherwise?

BUMP because Darth J has no post to answer it

So says the legal scholar who thinks that "all men are created equal" comes from Article I of the Constitution, and that Dixon v. University of Toledo involved a Title VII claim.

[_Brackite]

Paul Ryan, after being trounced in the presidential election, has returned to his roots.

I am very happy to see Paul Ryan still in Congress.

[_Quasimodo]

Paul Ryan, after being trounced in the presidential election, has returned to his roots.

I am very happy to see Paul Ryan still in Congress.

Comic relief?

[_Res Ipsa]

If it's in the list, Congress has the authority to do it.

that is half of the rather old argument is it not?
i mean, there is no restriction on them NOT being able to do it.

Is it your scholarly interpretation of the constitution that Congress has the power to pass any law unless the Constitution says it can't? Really?

Generations of conservatives are rolling in their graves.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hey DarthJ,

Here's a puzzler. Doesn't federal law criminal law apply inside the District of Columbia? Could Congress pass a new homocide bill that applies only to D.C.and that includes intentional termination of a fetus as murder? I think so, but I'm not sure.

I suspect there are indirect ways to accomplish the same goal: pass laws that condition certain funding to states on the states enacting a personhood bill. Like was done with speed limits and drinking age.