From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Fri Jan 15 1999 - 10:22:31 MST
Brian D Williams wrote:
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <retroman@together.net>
>
> >So here, the various states can pass laws or state constitutional
> >amendments which regulate abortion and remain entirely
> >constitutional on all levels. It is their right to do so, and the
> >right of people in the states to put such amendments up to state
> >referendums.
>
> NO!! The state has no more right to pass laws on non-citizens than
> does the federal government. This does not stop them however.
>
> >If a state wishes to pass an amendment putting the rights of the
> >unborn ahead of the rights of the mother, then so be it.
>
> I disagree completely.
You can disagree with the 9th and 10th amendments all you want, but they
are there, and that is what they imply, and the feds and states can do
what they want to people who are not citizens of any country, while the
feds have authority over immigration of citizens of other countries, as
well as the travel and actions of non-citizens from other countries, but
only as a consequence of us recognizing those countries. Individuals are
protected under our constitution as honorary citizens merely as a matter
of diplomacy to ensure that our citizens in other countries will be
similarly protected under their domestic systems. Now what would be
interesting would be for the feds to treat abortion as an immigration
issue.... he he. In the abstract sense, since birth is a form of
immigration from legal nothingness to citizenship, the feds should have
control in this sense. They can, if they want, change the qualification
for citizenship to whatever point during pregnancy they want (which is
going to make it obviously more difficult to enforce versus a clear cut
point in time like birth). I would think that this would require a
constitutional amendment to change though....
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:50 MST