[Abortion][REVISED POLL] If you had the power...

[The Parkus Empire]

They're not really supposed to seize without due process.

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "taxes".

Federal income tax required an amendment to sanction.

[Dogmeat]

They're not really supposed to seize without due process.

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "taxes".

Or the draft. Or eminent domain. Or even just the notion that government officials can commandeer property in cases of emergency.

[Dogmeat]

Which is why I'm calling attention to it.

Shagging your cousin is probably not a smart thing to do, but it's hardly a guarantee poor health for the kid. In fact, it's arguably less detrimental then having a child at 40, and no one makes an exception for that. Something being icky is not justification for throwing it alongside rape.

I don't think labeling it as icky does justice to the fact revulsion of incest is the one thing that unites a good chunk of humanity together regardless of religion, race, or ideology.

I think cousin marriage is a lot more common in many cultures then you're crediting, but the point remains that it does not objectively merit an exception.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "taxes".

Or the draft. Or eminent domain. Or even just the notion that government officials can commandeer property in cases of emergency.

The draft is unconstitutional.

Eminent domain has constitutional sanction provided there is compensation.

[Dogmeat]

Or the draft. Or eminent domain. Or even just the notion that government officials can commandeer property in cases of emergency.

The draft is unconstitutional.

Eminent domain has constitutional sanction provided there is compensation.

Oh, so then we just have to figure out what the market value of your kidney is.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The draft is unconstitutional.

Eminent domain has constitutional sanction provided there is compensation.

Oh, so then we just have to figure out what the market value of your kidney is.

At least $5,000.

[Kernen]

Except that isn't how even the conservative judicial theorists interpret the Constitution. The accepted wisdom is that the Founders knew that society would change over time, and that it would be necessary to re-interpret the text in light of a new perspective. You can argue that the 9th Amendment isn't designed to protect new rights, but that is exactly how it is used.

In fact, Roe v. Wade wasn't even a question of abortion rights. It was a question of privacy rights and how they apply to seeking certain procedures. The Founders considered the issue of privacy, albeit indirectly, so it isn't unreasonable to include it under 9th Amendment protections.

I don't know what you mean by "privacy right," there is no such general right. There is a right to not be subject to unreasonable *search* or *seizure *. That doesn't mean it is therefore unconstitutional to outlaw prostitution or abortion.

Privacy is penumbral. It's essential to a myriad of rights, generally in the negative inferences derived from explicitly granted rights. One can hardly consider the individual right of assembly to permit government surveillance of the conduct without limitation, or you permit the government to practically limit free exercise of those rights.

[Galloism]

The draft is unconstitutional.

Strangely, a ruling never made by any court anywhere.

[Galloism]

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of "taxes".

Federal income tax required an amendment to sanction.

And? It still allows the government to demand your property without having done anything wrong.

We could pass an amendment that the government can seize your organs for the greater good.

[Kernen]

Or the draft. Or eminent domain. Or even just the notion that government officials can commandeer property in cases of emergency.

The draft is unconstitutional.

Eminent domain has constitutional sanction provided there is compensation.

Article I, Sec 8 explicitly permits the draft...how is it unconstitutional?

[The Parkus Empire]

The draft is unconstitutional.

Eminent domain has constitutional sanction provided there is compensation.

Oh, so then we just have to figure out what the market value of your kidney is.

That sounds like "living document" logic alright

[Dogmeat]

Oh, so then we just have to figure out what the market value of your kidney is.

That sounds like "living document" logic alright

So you brought up the issue of compensation just to complain about "living document" interpretations when someone followed through on it?

I mean, where else was I supposed to go with objection?

[The Parkus Empire]

The draft is unconstitutional.

Eminent domain has constitutional sanction provided there is compensation.

Article I, Sec 8 explicitly permits the draft...how is it unconstitutional?

Not really.

In America the use of conscription is unknown, and men are induced to enlist by bounties. The notions and habits of the people of the United States are so opposed to compulsory enlistment that I do not imagine it can ever be sanctioned by the laws.

Federal Conscription, at least after the adoption of the Constitution, only began in response to CSA conscription

[Kernen]

Article I, Sec 8 explicitly permits the draft...how is it unconstitutional?

Not really.

. . .To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Raising an army had a pretty specific meaning back in 1791, if we use the Originalist time-dated approach to Constitutional interpretation. Specifically conscription, as that was the method for raising an army before standing professional armies were common. Yes, it was.

[Vassenor]

Not really.

. . .To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Raising an army had a pretty specific meaning back in 1791, if we use the Originalist time-dated approach to Constitutional interpretation. Specifically conscription, as that was the method for raising an army before standing professional armies were common. Yes, it was.

With or without clubbing people over the head and dragging them off to sea?

[The Parkus Empire]

Not really.

. . .To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Raising an army had a pretty specific meaning back in 1791, if we use the Originalist time-dated approach to Constitutional interpretation. Specifically conscription, as that was the method for raising an army before standing professional armies were common. Yes, it was.

That actually wasn't the method used for raising Federal armies prior to the Civil War.

[Vassenor]

Raising an army had a pretty specific meaning back in 1791, if we use the Originalist time-dated approach to Constitutional interpretation. Specifically conscription, as that was the method for raising an army before standing professional armies were common. Yes, it was.

That actually wasn't the method used for raising Federal armies prior to the Civil War.

In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia laws—and after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.

For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript except for purposes of naval impressment. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[6] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of New Hampshire.[7]

[The Parkus Empire]

That actually wasn't the method used for raising Federal armies prior to the Civil War.

In colonial times, the Thirteen Colonies used a militia system for defense. Colonial militia laws—and after independence those of the United States and the various states—required able-bodied males to enroll in the militia, to undergo a minimum of military training, and to serve for limited periods of time in war or emergency. This earliest form of conscription involved selective drafts of militiamen for service in particular campaigns. Following this system in its essentials, the Continental Congress in 1778 recommended that the states draft men from their militias for one year's service in the Continental army; this first national conscription was irregularly applied and failed to fill the Continental ranks.

For long-term operations, conscription was occasionally used when volunteers or paid substitutes were insufficient to raise the needed manpower. During the American Revolutionary War, the states sometimes drafted men for militia duty or to fill state Continental Army units, but the central government did not have the authority to conscript except for purposes of naval impressment. President James Madison and his Secretary of War James Monroe unsuccessfully attempted to create a national draft of 40,000 men during the War of 1812.[6] This proposal was fiercely criticized on the House floor by antiwar Congressman Daniel Webster of New Hampshire.[7]

I rest my case. The Federal government did not once employ conscription prior to the Civil War. And when it, I would argue that it was unconstitutional. However I think it was justified just the same, as with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. Both were expressions of a state of exception.

[Vassenor]

I rest my case. The Federal government did not once employ conscription prior to the Civil War. And when it, I would argue that it was unconstitutional. However I think it was justified just the same, as with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. Both were expressions of a state of exception.

You still haven't explained what makes it unconstitutional.

[Galloism]

Article I, Sec 8 explicitly permits the draft...how is it unconstitutional?

Not really.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Keeping in mind that the unorganized militia constituted all able-bodied men in the nation.

[The Parkus Empire]

I rest my case. The Federal government did not once employ conscription prior to the Civil War. And when it, I would argue that it was unconstitutional. However I think it was justified just the same, as with the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts. Both were expressions of a state of exception.

You still haven't explained what makes it unconstitutional.

Well if it isn't then forcing anyone into labor for the Federal government wouldn't be either. I say it is because there is no provision for conscription.

[The Parkus Empire]

Although we are veering off topic. Even if conscription were constitutionally sanctioned, all you have done is prove there is no right to "bodily sovereignty"

[Galloism]

Although we are veering off topic. Even if conscription were constitutionally sanctioned, all you have done is prove there is no right to "bodily sovereignty"

Correct. Which means legally we can take your organs. All we need to do is passing a law saying so. Consider it a tax on living.

[Vassenor]

Although we are veering off topic. Even if conscription were constitutionally sanctioned, all you have done is prove there is no right to "bodily sovereignty"

So what is the constitutional case for banning abortion?

[The Parkus Empire]

Although we are veering off topic. Even if conscription were constitutionally sanctioned, all you have done is prove there is no right to "bodily sovereignty"

Correct. Which means legally we can take your organs. All we need to do is passing a law saying so. Consider it a tax on living.

This is of course " living document " interpretation of the Constitution, which as a conservative I oppose