Why do Conservatives love people who break the law?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ben was obviously wrong, but it's equally silly to regard the Constitution an as exhaustive list of rights. That was never the intention. The Constitution was an exhaustive list of the national governments powers, one that has been gaped to the point where it is almost meaningless.

Well my point was if you disagree with substantive due process it is silly to talk about a right to life, or rather if you think the Constitution is an exhaustive list of rights, a right to life doesn't apply. Basically, to be internally consistent, pick one of the other.

[DinoDoc]

Well, personally I think the seven supreme court justices who were the majority opinion in roe v. wade have more credibility on US constitutional issues than a data entry clerk from Prince George, BC who proclaims their decision to be "complete legal fiction".

You'd think so but given the attitude among some Justices of saying the Constitution means what they say it does and reading in things not in the document, the issue of credibility isn't as clear cut as it might be otherwise.

[duke o' york]

What if the criminals are let loose in groups of twenty in an enclosed but spacious semi-wooded park, armed with spears, while officers ride around on horseback in groups of five or six with guns and dogs hunting them? Is that adequately sporting? It can't be totally fair or you'd never get any officers to volunteer.

Spearmen can kill tanks.

It's entirely legal to have and give abortions, but some conservatives seem opposed to this...

[Proteus_MST]

It makes sense if you remember that one of them is completely innocent and the other has been found guilty in a court of law.

Personally I'm anti-death penalty because I think it's unsporting. You can't kill someone who has surrendered and been disarmed. It's a shameful act. Abortion isn't a fair fight either. Unless that fetus has gotten a hold of a pistol, you need to keep your wire coat hanger away from it.

So, they selectively apply the right to life,
dividing humans into 2 groups:

1. Worthy life to which the right to life is/should be granted
and
2. Unworthy life (terrorists, enemy soldiers, those sentenced to death in an american court, for some conservatives also other people, abortion doctors forexample) to which the right to life is denied.

With maybe the addition of a 3rd group:
3. Collateral damage, those which usually would have been classified as group 1, but were falsely treated as group 2 and killed (like civilians who were killed by US troops in war areas or people who were innocently sentenced to death and executed) and who just have to be taken into account

[Berzerker]

I assume you aren't talking about the US Constitution, because there is no place where it recognizes a right to life. Any right to life would have to be covered by substantive due process, stemming from the 14th Amendment (where Roe v. Wade came from, btw).

the 5th amendment mentions life liberty and property...besides, it would be kinda ridiculous to deny thats a given, they even enumerated a handful of rights much less significant than the right to exist...

[Imran Siddiqui]

The 5th Amendment says you can be deprived of life, liberty, and property with due process. That's hardly a right to life... or if you consider it one, it's a weak ass one. You have a right to life, but we can take it away if we do proper due process.

And the whole idea of rights that are a "given" is the entire basis of the substantive due process clause jurisprudence.

[Caligastia]

Why do Conservatives love people who break the law?

[OzzyKP]

So, they selectively apply the right to life,

Most people do. Liberals & conservatives alike.

Then there are people like me, who are much awesomer than everyone else, and who are against abortion, against the death penalty, and against war.

Imran: Abortion seems to occur without due process of law. No one decides particular fetuses should die. But, as usual, the only relevant issue in the abortion 'debate' is whether or not a fetus is considered a 'person' nothing else really matters. Non-people, of course, don't require due process.

Ben: Conservatives rightly complain that the 9th & 10th Amendments are ignored by the court and that unless the Constitution explicitly gives a power to the government it is reserved for the people or states. Yet, Conservatives also always complain that Roe v. Wade is based on "penumbras and emanations" and that the "right to privacy" doesn't exist in the Constitution. In fact George Will, who I usually enjoy, had a piece not too long ago complaining about the non-existent right to privacy and also complaining that the Court doesn't respect the 9th & 10th Amendments. It boggles my mind.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran: Abortion seems to occur without due process of law. No one decides particular fetuses should die. But, as usual, the only relevant issue in the abortion 'debate' is whether or not a fetus is considered a 'person' nothing else really matters. Non-people, of course, don't require due process.

Roe v. Wade was decided based on the 14th Amendment (substantive due process flows from due process protections there), therefore supercedes the 5th Amendment.

[Kidlicious]

Of course I have. I've rarely, if ever, really heard people saying corporate crime is okay, though.

It could be that you are young, or that you don't notice them saying it. Trust me, they say it, and they say it without shame. Recently, one told me in church, that his company broke the law on purpose because it could make more money that way.

[OzzyKP]

Roe v. Wade was decided based on the 14th Amendment (substantive due process flows from due process protections there), therefore supercedes the 5th Amendment.

Whether it is 14th or 5th, the due process clause pretty much the same. Just a matter of if it applies to states or the federal government. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Substative due process jusridiction has mainly focused on the 14th Amendment. The main reason being, of course, that the federal government usually can't do much on privacy issues (it's not in its area). So usually 5th Amendment due process is more of the procedural kind. Substantive due process (ie, implied rights) being vastly different than procedural due process.

[Ben Kenobi]

You'd think so but given the attitude among some Justices of saying the Constitution means what they say it does and reading in things not in the document, the issue of credibility isn't as clear cut as it might be otherwise.

Thank you. Roe is bad law, doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on. There's nothing in the constitution that has any sort of provisions for abortion, unless you stretch really hard and make things up.

Not to mention the trimester framework as well. It's frankly a mess. I don't understand how you can argue that it's wrong to kill third trimester unborn children, but it's ok to kill them earlier. Wouldn't privacy protect the woman through all the stages of pregnancy?

[rah]

It's easy to argue. I consider a baby in the third trimester a person but not one in the first trimester. IT"S ALL A MATTER OF OPINION which means it's suitable to argue.

[Ben Kenobi]

Well, personally I think the seven supreme court justices who were the majority opinion in roe v. wade have more credibility on US constitutional issues than a data entry clerk from Prince George, BC who proclaims their decision to be "complete legal fiction". Especially after the boy scout thread. So, to the best of my knowledge making abortion illegal is unconstitutional.

Even one who clerked for a year?

I've read Justice Thomas, as well as a few others on their opinion. I think it's terrible law. If it's all about the credentials, go argue with him.