All persons born…

See many men among these voters?

Individuals who Voted to Enforce their Rights–and WON! Irish women won individual rights (link)

Does the Constitution allow men with guns to threaten physicians or coerce pregnant women? The Harrison Act enabled pseudoscience-addled politicians to have men with service pistols step between doctors and patients in 1914. See why missing an opportunity to vote Libertarian is tantamount to desertion under fire as mystical and collectivist reality control delegitimize individual claims to freedom of action.

Today’s guest repost is by Austin’s Constitutional Scholar Jon Roland, constitutionalism.blogspot.com.

U.S. Supreme Court: Issues with current contenders

Unenumerated rights

The first issue is presented by the statement by nominee appointee Brett  Cavanaugh in his acceptance speech, that he would not find rights not explicitly recognized in the main Constitution.. This has been an issue since the nomination of Robert Bork, who considered the Ninth Amendment, which calls for the nondisparagement of rights that are not “enumerated” (made explicit) somewhere in the Constitution, as amended, to be an “ink blot”. There is strong opposition to Supreme Court judges doing that, especially from so-called “conservatives”, who don’t understand that constitutional rights are all “immunities”, restrictions on the powers of government. They are not “privileges” to receive a sufficient amount of public resources, such as for education, healthcare, elder support, or any other objects of public subsidies.

Interestingly, in the case of Roe v. Wade, the Fifth Circuit decided that a “right to an abortion” was a Ninth Amendment right of a woman  “to choose whether to have children”, which by the 14th Amendment, was “incorporated” for the states. This presented the Supreme Court with an apparent problem,  because there was opposition to funding unenumerated rights in the Senate. The Fifth Circuit found a Ninth Amendment “right  to choose whether to have children”. So the SC tried to sustain the Fifth Circuit without embracing the Ninth Amendment. The result was an incoherent opinion. There was no way to avoid the Ninth Amendment.

It would perhaps too much to expect a nominee to venture into an extended discussion of what a “right” is, and what it is not. It is awkward to say “I will not find a ‘right’ to a sufficient amount of a public resource.” That is too complicated for most senators. So the candidate denies he will try to find any “unenumerated” rights. That is somewhat disingenuous, but the issue needs to be discussed.

1968, NO LIBERTARIAN PARTY!

Republicans, Dixiecrats, No Libertarian Party!

When “life” begins

One of the potential nominees, Amy Barrett, has been reported to have stated that human “life” begins at conception. That is a misstatement of the issue in Roe v. Wade. which in its essence was not about “life” nut about “personhood” because “Rights (immunities)” attach to “persons”, (roles in court), not to “life”, despite what the Declaration of Independence says. (That is why some activists have sought to move the commencement of “personhood” back to conception. That would be a mistake. We cannot allow each state to redefine “personhood”, because if we did, a state could define some people to be nonpersons, without rights. So there has to be a uniform definition across all states if the protections of the Constitution are not to be meaningless. That is the basis for finding the right to be incorporated under the Ninth Amendment, as the Fifth Circuit did.

So when does “life” begin?

Not at conception. Each individual is the latest in an unbroken chain of life that goes back to at least the point when the first single-celled organism became a multi-celled animal, which occurred about 650 million years ago, during the pre-Cambrian era, when the surface of the Earth was covered with ice (“snowball Earth”) and there was only one continent, Rodinia. We are all descended from that multi-celled organism. That is when “life” began.

So when does “personhood” begin?

This was declared by the jurist Edward Coke in the 15th century, and later restated by legal scholar William Blackstone, in the early 18th century, who provided most of the definitions for terms used in the U.S. Constitution. They held that “personhood” begins at natural birth, or induced natural birth (they had Cesarean sections in those days). Some of the states later found that personhood began with baptism, entry of a name in church records, or even later. Not at “conception”, the date of which could not have been defined with any precision in those days, or even now.

Consider what would happen if we defined “personhood” to begin at conception? It would make every fetus the ward of a court, with the court having power to supervise the pregnancy. It could order the woman to continue a pregnancy, and not terminate it, under penalty of law. That would be forced pregnancy. Do we want that? Every pregnant woman chained to a bed. Anyone see the play “A Handmaid’s Tale”. Good way to stop everyone from having sex.

Forcing women into involuntary servitude and labor

Sinfest.net webcomic 2 awe

Need for uniformity

Incorporation of a Ninth Amendment right is required by the need to have a uniform definition of “personhood” (legal role) across all jurisdiction, since constitutional rights attach to “persons” and not just to “citizens” or “life”.  If states could define personhood, they could deprive anyone of rights by defining him to be a “nonperson”. Thus a state could find that Blacks are not persons as a way to deprive them of their liberty.

Notes:

1. Roe v. Wade, 1221 (N.D. Tex. 1970) (“On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that the Texas Abortion Laws must be declared unconstitutional because they deprive single women and married couple of their rights secured by the Ninth Amendment to choose whether to have children. We agree.”).

2. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

3, A Handmaid’s Tale, Margaret Atwood.

4. Robert Bork and the Inkblot, Kurt Lash.

5. Constitutional views on abortion

See also: Ayn Rand (link)

Get the complete story on other prohibitions in Prohibition and The Crash on Amazon Kindle in either if two languages for the price of a craft pint. After this you’ll be able to explain to economists exactly how fanaticism and loss of freedom wrecked the U.S. economy in 1929 and 2008.

ProhicrashAmazon

Prohibition and The Crash, on Amazon Kindle

I also produce books and articles in Portuguese, using Brazilian historical sources at http://www.expatriotas.blogspot.com or amigra.us

 

Dem Jeffersonian Electors could still WIN

Rights, not coathangers!

Libertarian electoral vote before Roe v. Wade

Democratic Party activists chosen to cast electoral votes can still WIN Dec 19–if by winning we mean preserving women’s individual rights to make their own reproductive choices, and ending the GO-Pee’s economically suicidal Prohibitionism and War on Everything and Everyone Everywhere.

Backing Red China’s coercive tithes to Gaian religious belief in Misanthropomorphic Global Warming was the non-starter that has already cost Dems the election, those federal paychecks, and the hand in the till. George McGovern’s pandering for unilateral disarmament and surrender to Soviet communism had the same effect when he lost to Dick Nixon in 1972.  But still on the table are the coat-hanger abortions faith-based fanatics struggle to bring back. Then there’s the ramping up of Prohibitionism to restore gunfights to the streets of El Paso and Chicago–plus another asset-forfeiture crash with unemployment and economic depression.

Roger MacBride’s Libertarian electoral vote made pro-choice non-looters impossible for Republicans to ignore. War was raging as Nixon’s National Socialists struggled to allow States to legally lynch Planned Parenthood doctors. Within about a month of that single Libertarian electoral vote hitting the Federal Register, the Supreme Court ruled that women, like blacks, should have individual rights after all. Roe v. Wade was the LP’s first major victory for enforcement of individual rights through spoiler votes.

Democratic electors can vote for Gary Johnson, and set the example for their Republican adversaries. One such vote sufficed to persuade the Republican-dominated Supreme Court to strike down state abortion laws. Their fear was that women might find out about the pro-defense, pro-choice party with Tonie Nathan on the ticket defending individual rights for women. Roger MacBride’s electoral spoiler vote for Libertarian candidate John Hospers caused–I’ll wager–the Nixon appointee to write that majority decision. The 1973 news article shown mentions Ayn Rand, Objectivism, victimless crimes and abortion rights–the true and original Libertarian party agenda. We just earned 4 million votes–as many as are cast in the State of Virginia for its 13 electoral votes.

The Libertarian Party handed the Dems New Mexico’s five (05) electoral votes plus .  They still lost, thanks to a platform preaching ecological fascism and men with guns busting our kids for marijuana. So why not return those votes to the LP.org rather than waste them in a Quixotic protest that only adds insult to injury? Democratic partisans lacked the courage to stop police from murdering youth over marijuana. This is their chance to make a move for freedom and rights. Democrats could set an example to governments all over the world that now violate the individual rights of women-including use of deadly violence to enforce prohibitionism to benefit organized crime. The LP was the first party to earn an electoral vote for a pro-choice woman candidate.

How Democrats can win

Death for Marijuana--Taiwan

Progressive Democratic Party female candidate elected President in 2016–of Taiwan!

Advice for Democrats: Hillary could have run in Taiwan without Legalization of Marijuana, but still lost for kowtowing to communism.

The DEMS LOST because they were against freedom and for communism, not because of the Grrrrrrl candidate. People who understand heat, power and energy preferred to side with christianofascists eager to coerce women and doctors–and hippies–even if it means another crash and multi-year depression… Why? Because the media ordered them to believe the only alternative was to allow evangelical econazis drunk on pseudoscience to destroy American generating capacity to please Communist China.

Even the Russians aren’t stupid enough to fall for a deal like that!

If Dems want to win next time, study some physics, and read The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear by Petr Beckmann. Beckmann is to energy data fraud as John Scarne is to gambling cheats. Then tell Dem boys in Congress to try something new. Instead of sending goons with guns to meddle in electricity, try abolishing some fascist prohibition laws. The GO-Pee will still promise to coerce women to reproduce for Positive Christianity and the Jesusjugend–but only until they LOSE five elections in a row. Compare the libertarian vote count to the difference in the races you lost. Freedom is your only way to get that hand in the till. Republican National Socialists already have dibs on the coercive alternative.

I voted Democratic once. Jimmy lacked the guts to oppose prohibition, and failed when armed fanatical Mohammedans occupied Mecca and stirred up an anthill that got two U.S. embassies invaded. I voted Republican in one race, and Reagan did deliver on a nuclear defense initiative that collapsed a large Communist dictatorship. But Reagan also pandered to fanatical teetotalitarians of the sort that Herbert Hoover represented. Let go of Stalinism, and you will force the GO-Pee to let go of Hitlerism. If fellow Democratic partisans insist on looter prohibitionism, show them you mean business by joining the Libertarian Party.

Fact: the Prohibition party made light beer a felony for nearly 14 years by averaging 1.4% of the vote over the course of 11 election campaigns. The LP.org has managed similar performance, and repeal of prohibition is sweeping These States.