matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/22/85)
MIKE HUYBENSZ writes: > The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and > Ammendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion. At last we have someone on the net who knows what legal force the Declaration of Independence has (i.e., none), and who knows what the Constitution says about the right to abort (i.e., nothing). Mr. Huybensz, your statement here agrees with the DISSENT in Roe v. Wade, not the majority opinion. The dissent argued that since the Constitution is silent on the subject of abortion, the decision whether to outlaw or restrict abortions is up to the States (Tenth Amendment, remember?). If Mr. Huybensz is a pro-choicer, he's the first pro-choicer I've read who agrees with the dissent in Roe v. Wade. If we could have two more such "pro-choicers" on the U. S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade could be overturned, and the number of fetuses destroyed in this country could be greatly reduced. The rest of you: READ the cases. READ the statutes that have been upheld, and the statutes that have been thrown out. How can anyone argue what the law should be when he has only a hazy idea of what the law is now? -- Matt Rosenblatt
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/23/85)
In article <887@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > MIKE HUYBENSZ writes: > > > The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and > > Ammendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion. > > At last we have someone on the net who knows what legal force the > Declaration of Independence has (i.e., none), and who knows what the > Constitution says about the right to abort (i.e., nothing). Mr. > Huybensz, your statement here agrees with the DISSENT in Roe v. Wade, > not the majority opinion. You are incorrect and have taken my statement out of context. My statement which you have cited superficially agrees only with one part of the chain of reasoning that would reserve to the states the right to restrict abortion, not the entire argument. However I'm happy to agree with you about the extent of my knowledge. :-) > The dissent argued that since the Constitution > is silent on the subject of abortion, the decision whether to outlaw > or restrict abortions is up to the States (Tenth Amendment, remember?). In context, my statement was aimed at rebutting a particular "constitutional" (or maybe "declarational"?) argument, not Roe vs. Wade. The constitution is too vague and general for much day-to-day legal work. A body of interpretation and application to specifics has been built to fulfill real-life needs. Roe vs. Wade is a part of and supported by this body. > If Mr. Huybensz is a pro-choicer, he's the first pro-choicer I've read > who agrees with the dissent in Roe v. Wade. If we could have two more > such "pro-choicers" on the U. S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade could be > overturned, and the number of fetuses destroyed in this country could > be greatly reduced. Your first sentence is blatantly wrong. I am a pro-choicer, but disagree with the dissent. You second sentence is true to the extent that a change of two votes in the supreme court could change Roe vs. Wade. The supreme court could also reaffirm "separate but equal". That's politics and power; and the constitution and ammendments are nothing more. They're not divine. > The rest of you: READ the cases. READ the statutes that have been > upheld, and the statutes that have been thrown out. How can anyone > argue what the law should be when he has only a hazy idea of what the > law is now? How can someone argue that taxes should be reduced without knowing the US tax code? If people want to argue on a proscriptive basis, they need no understanding of present laws. However, if they want to argue on a constitutional basis, they need to know the cases that determined the interpretation of the constitution that was applied to the laws. Essentially, what we have are arguments suited to two of the branches of our government. Proscriptive arguments are suited to the legislative branch, which could enact federal laws or constitutional ammendments to make a clear statement. Constitutional arguments are suited to the judicial branch. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (08/26/85)
>>> The Declaration of Independence (and Constitution and >>>Amendments) provides no support for or reason to oppose choice of abortion. >>>[MIKE HUYBENSZ] > > At last we have someone on the net who knows what legal force the > > Declaration of Independence has (i.e., none), and who knows what the > > Constitution says about the right to abort (i.e., nothing). Mr. > > Huybensz, your statement here agrees with the DISSENT in Roe v. Wade, > > not the majority opinion. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > > You are incorrect and have taken my statement out of context. > > My statement which you have cited superficially agrees only with one part > of the chain of reasoning that would reserve to the states the right to > restrict abortion, not the entire argument. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] > > The dissent argued that since the Constitution > > is silent on the subject of abortion, the decision whether to outlaw > > or restrict abortions is up to the States (Tenth Amendment, remember?). > > [MATT ROSENBLATT] >In context, my statement was aimed at rebutting a particular "constitutional" >(or maybe "declarational"?) argument, not Roe vs. Wade. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] Which argument? > The constitution is too vague and general for much day-to-day legal work. > A body of interpretation and application to specifics has been built > to fulfill real-life needs. Roe vs. Wade is a part of and supported by > this body. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] Right, except for the last phrase of the last sentence. I agree with the dissent, which found that even the elaborate right-to-privacy structure built up since Louis Brandeis's 1890 article in the Harvard Law Review did not support the step the majority was taking in establishing the right to abort. > > If Mr. Huybensz is a pro-choicer, he's the first pro-choicer I've read > > who agrees with the dissent in Roe v. Wade. If we could have two more > > such "pro-choicers" on the U. S. Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade could be > > overturned, and the number of fetuses destroyed in this country could > > be greatly reduced. [MATT ROSENBLATT] > Your first sentence is blatantly wrong. I am a pro-choicer, but disagree > with the dissent. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] Obviously, as a pro-choicer, you disagree with the conclusion of the dissent. I knew that. But if you agree that the Constitution is silent on abortion, and yet believe that the States have limited power to regulate abortion, there must be a point in the dissent's argument where you and the dissenters part company. Where is that point? And why do you part company with them? > > The rest of you: READ the cases. READ the statutes that have been > > upheld, and the statutes that have been thrown out. How can anyone > > argue what the law should be when he has only a hazy idea of what the > > law is now? [MATT ROSENBLATT] > How can someone argue that taxes should be reduced without knowing the US > tax code? [MIKE HUYBENSZ] It's one thing to argue that "taxes should be reduced," and another to argue that "Loophole X" or "Surtax Y" should be eliminated. Someone who argues the latter ought to know what the Tax Code and its interpreters say about Loophole X or Surtax Y. > If people want to argue on a proscriptive basis, they need no understanding > of present laws. However, if they want to argue on a constitutional > basis, they need to know the cases that determined the interpretation > of the constitution that was applied to the laws. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] I think you mean a "prescriptive" basis, and I have no quarrel with you here. > Essentially, what we have are arguments suited to two of the branches of our > government. Proscriptive arguments are suited to the legislative branch, > which could enact federal laws or constitutional ammendments to make a clear > statement. Constitutional arguments are suited to the judicial branch. > [MIKE HUYBENSZ] Right. The prescriptive arguments say what their proponents believe the law (and Constitution) SHOULD BE, appealing to some moral code, whether that code is "do what you want if you're not hurting others" or the Bible or "Truth-Justice-Freedom-Ivy-&-The American Way." Prescriptive arguments we've been seeing on this net, and prescriptive arguments we'll be seeing. What I'd like to see are some legal and Constitutional arguments by people who know what they're talking about (like you), and the more people on the net who fit that category, the better. That's why I urge people to read the law. Remember, abortion arguments don't belong in net.legal (to which I don't subscribe): net.legal flames every time an abortion article accidentally reaches their net. So legal and Constitutional arguments on that subject will have to take place here, if at all. -- Matt Rosenblatt --------- "'Flickus, Flackus, Fumdeedledum', which is legal language for, 'How can you prove that he ISN'T?'" -- Lawyer Sharkey, in "Donald Duck, Lost in the Andes"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/27/85)
In article <1000@brl-tgr.ARPA> matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) writes: > > The constitution is too vague and general for much day-to-day legal work. > > A body of interpretation and application to specifics has been built > > to fulfill real-life needs. Roe vs. Wade is a part of and supported by > > this body. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] > > Right, except for the last phrase of the last sentence. I agree with the > dissent, which found that even the elaborate right-to-privacy structure > built up since Louis Brandeis's 1890 article in the Harvard Law Review > did not support the step the majority was taking in establishing the > right to abort. Because of its size, elaboration, and need to resolve conflicting demands of the constitution, constitutional law can support quite a few different points of view. Unanimous Supreme Court decisions are rare, which means that dissents are frequent. Dissents have no official legal standing, yet are typically legal arguments which also depend on the constitution for support. > Obviously, as a pro-choicer, you disagree with the conclusion of the dissent. > I knew that. But if you agree that the Constitution is silent on abortion, > and yet believe that the States have limited power to regulate abortion, > there must be a point in the dissent's argument where you and the dissenters > part company. Where is that point? And why do you part company with them? Unfortunately, I don't have copies of the majority opinion and the dissent. I read them several years ago. If you would like to mail me copies (via net or US mail; my address is in the header), I'll be happy to detail why I prefer the majority opinion. > > If people want to argue on a proscriptive basis, they need no understanding > > of present laws. However, if they want to argue on a constitutional > > basis, they need to know the cases that determined the interpretation > > of the constitution that was applied to the laws. [MIKE HUYBENSZ] > > I think you mean a "prescriptive" basis, and I have no quarrel with you > here. You're right, I had intended prescriptive. Though both sides are actually making proscriptive arguments: the states shall not prevent abortions, or women shall not abort. There we quarrel. > > Essentially, what we have are arguments suited to two of the branches of our > > government. Proscriptive arguments are suited to the legislative branch, > > which could enact federal laws or constitutional ammendments to make a clear > > statement. Constitutional arguments are suited to the judicial branch. > > [MIKE HUYBENSZ] > > Right. The prescriptive arguments say what their proponents believe the > law (and Constitution) SHOULD BE, appealing to some moral code, whether > that code is "do what you want if you're not hurting others" or the Bible > or "Truth-Justice-Freedom-Ivy-&-The American Way." Prescriptive arguments > we've been seeing on this net, and prescriptive arguments we'll be seeing. > What I'd like to see are some legal and Constitutional arguments by people > who know what they're talking about (like you), and the more people on the > net who fit that category, the better. There is a need for both prescriptive and constitutional arguments. After all, the constitution is subject to our prescriptions. For example, we wouldn't need to know whether or not the constitution prohibits or allows abortion in order to enact an ammendment to make it clear. > That's why I urge people to read the law. Knowledge of the law can certainly be beneficial, but it should not be a requirement (except for making legal arguments.) Requiring knowledge of the law for prescription provides two disservices: it disenfranchises many, and it may prejudice others. Of course, it may also have benefits, such as explaining the context more fully and improving understanding of the goals of the laws. > Remember, abortion arguments don't belong in net.legal (to which > I don't subscribe): net.legal flames every time an abortion article > accidentally reaches their net. So legal and Constitutional arguments > on that subject will have to take place here, if at all. I'm happy to agree with you here. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh