Page 1 of 2
Personhood bill
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:43 pm
by _beastie
Paul Ryan, after being trounced in the presidential election, has returned to his roots. He's proposing a new personhood bill, which declares that:
the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood.
http://www.prolifewisconsin.org/proLife ... d=399&id=7Yes, folks, this should have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood:
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 10:26 pm
by _Darth J
This bill purports to find its authority in part in the "Necessary and Proper" clause of Article I of the Constitution:
http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.212:
In the exercise of the powers of the Congress, including Congress' power under article I, section 8 of the Constitution, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States--Article I of the Constitution grants Congress certain enumerated powers. That means that there is a list of things Congress has the legal authority to do, and if something is not on that list, Congress can't do it. The Necessary and Proper clause is this language at the end of the list of Congress' powers enumerated in
Article I, section 8:To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.But the Necessary and Proper clause does not give any substantive powers to Congress. If that were what it meant, Congress could pass absolutely any law it wanted that it decided was "necessary and proper," which obviates the idea of Congress only having specific, limited powers. However, all the Necessary and Proper clause means is that Congress can take action to carry into effect the specific powers that the Constitution gives it. The Supreme Court explained this in
National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, when it held that Congress could not rely on the Necessary and Proper clause as legal authority to enact the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare").
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11 ... 93c3a2.pdf (page 28)
The power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the powers enumerated in the Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 18, vests Congress with authority to enact provisions “incidental to the [enumerated] power, and conducive to its beneficial exercise,” McCulloch, 4 Wheat., at 418. Although the Clause gives Congress authority to “legislate on that vast mass of incidental powers which must be involved in the constitution,” it does not license the exercise of any “great substantive and independent power[s]” beyond those specifically enumerated. Id., at 411, 421. Instead, the Clause is “‘merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution those [powers] otherwise granted are included in the grant.’” Kinsella v. United States ex rel. Singleton, 361 U. S. 234, 247 (1960) (quoting VI Writings of James Madison 383 (G. Hunt ed. 1906)). Article I, section 8, does not give Congress the authority to declare when human life begins.
It's funny how "conservatives" who allegedly favor a smaller, limited federal government are opposed to Obamacare as unconstitutional, when they are attempting to use the same artifice (which the Supreme Court has held is not valid) of using the Necessary and Proper clause as a grant of de facto unlimited authority. In reality, both sides want unfettered authority to do whatever they want---they just focus on different aspects of our lives they want the federal government to micromanage.
I'll come back to the purported 14th Amendment basis later.
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:04 pm
by _Doctor Steuss
So, how would this work out if a woman were to have a miscarriage? Would there have to be a police investigation to verify it wasn't negligent homicide? What if a woman doesn't take her pre-natal vitamins? Could that possibly be a form of child abuse, or neglect? What about women who have a drink or two during pregnancy? Would that be giving alcohol to a minor, child abuse, or something else?
:HeadSpinning:
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2013 11:06 pm
by _Darth J
Doctor Steuss wrote:So, how would this work out if a woman were to have a miscarriage? Would there have to be a police investigation to verify it wasn't negligent homicide? What if a woman doesn't take her pre-natal vitamins? Could that possibly be a form of child abuse, or neglect? What about women who have a drink or two during pregnancy? Would that be giving alcohol to a minor, child abuse, or something else?
:HeadSpinning:
The answer is yes to all of the above. You could also start having state Child Protective Services agents going to court to have guardians ad litem appointed to represent the interests of a fetus. That's part of the claimed 14th Amendment basis for this bill (I might not get to that today).
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 1:44 am
by _krose
So if that fertilized egg is a person, it must necessarily be an American citizen. Right?
Doesn't this mean that a foreigner who happens to get pregnant while visiting one of our fine national parks on vacation will have conceived a new US citizen, or would that create a conflict with the word "born" in the 14th Amendment?
Maybe it wouldn't conflict with the 14th (birth as a means to citizenship), but would instead add a new class of citizens who were merely conceived here.
Anchor embryos.
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:37 am
by _just me
Darth J wrote:Doctor Steuss wrote:So, how would this work out if a woman were to have a miscarriage? Would there have to be a police investigation to verify it wasn't negligent homicide? What if a woman doesn't take her pre-natal vitamins? Could that possibly be a form of child abuse, or neglect? What about women who have a drink or two during pregnancy? Would that be giving alcohol to a minor, child abuse, or something else?
:HeadSpinning:
The answer is yes to all of the above. You could also start having state Child Protective Services agents going to court to have guardians ad litem appointed to represent the interests of a fetus. That's part of the claimed 14th Amendment basis for this bill (I might not get to that today).
From my readings there have been actual cases of women being prosecuted after losing their pregnancy.
Everytime these god damn personhood bills come up I just roll my eyes (and get a little frightened).
The only way to really make this work would be to force women to take pregnancy tests each month and fill out a "Conception Certificate."
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 2:21 pm
by _subgenius
Darth J wrote:Article I, section 8, does not give Congress the authority to declare when human life begins.
Does Congress have this authority otherwise?
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:29 pm
by _Res Ipsa
subgenius wrote:Darth J wrote:Article I, section 8, does not give Congress the authority to declare when human life begins.
Does Congress have this authority otherwise?
Here are the powers of Congress, as enumerated in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
If it's in the list, Congress has the authority to do it.
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:36 pm
by _Darth J
subgenius wrote:Darth J wrote:Article I, section 8, does not give Congress the authority to declare when human life begins.
Does Congress have this authority otherwise?
VS.
Re: Personhood bill
Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2013 8:57 pm
by _subgenius
Darth J wrote:subgenius wrote:Does Congress have this authority otherwise?
VS.
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