Langston Hughes once wrote: that justice is a blind goddess is a fact to which we Blacks are wise, her blindfold hides two festering sores that once, perhaps...were eyes." I find it almost amusing that, suddenly, many "Americans" have their hair on fire about a "two-tiered" justice system and that "the system is rigged." Some of us, in the United States, have lived with that reality for centuries. If one is neutral in situations of injustice, they have chosen the side of the oppressor for injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
No grapes, no glory and, for some of us the United States has proven, over and over again, that it is grapeless.
On the other hand, one cannot expect grapes from a turd tree.
Interesting points Ken. On abortion I still maintain it is a medical procedure applicable only to physician and patient and therefor outside of requiring legal procedure. Like a tonsilectomy, appendectomy or colonectomy. The Constitution does not give any of the three branches of government to run, rough-shod over any other branch of government. The Constitution also give the right to legislate ONLY to the two Houses of Congress; the House of the Senate, and the House or Representatives. Not even the Executive Branch has the right to legislate.
Abortions were done during the middle ages, it was not necessarily a "moral Wrong" but a dangerous procedure and generally not done except with plants that could induce the procedure. It was still probably safer than a tonsilectomy and of course the other things they probably didn't even comprehend. Quickening was the key in an abortion because after that few women survived. Despite Alito's lack of undertstanding essentially the permissable state in Roe. The second trimester is trickier, and while the state doesn't have to get involved,Roe suggests doctors consult (2) before doing the procedure. Most people who spout about Roe have no idea what it states. Essentially relative restriction free abortion only in the first trimester. But then your point is quite right, today is not the past and we do many procedures safely they couldn't do then.
It's similar to the second amendment. The right to bear arms meant a person had one shot before he can reload. If judges want to argue against laws restricting the use of firearms because the founders thought the right was unrestricted, then it was unrestricted by the same token, only the firearms the founders knew existed.
If justice tries to determine the present by the past, they are presented with also needing to delineate the technology otherwise their arguments are the height of folly. As you point out that abortion now is a safe medical procedure and attempting to justify banning it because it was banned when it was not safe creates an unjust quagmire.
Abortion was, correctly, not mentioned in the Constitution, It is a medical procedure, also not mentioned in the Constitution and not subject to law [except malpractice] today. On this basis neither Federal, State, or local law regarding abortion is valid.
I like your take on the Second. I still view it literally as written, Madison,. who wrote the first 10 Amendments as they appear in the Constitution was concerned that the militia - non-military volunteers who protected the citizenry from attacks by outlaws and Indigenous people [no matter how justified] must have the right to bear arms. There were, until the 1820's no weapons manufacturers in the US, guns were imported from Europe or hand made probably by blacksmiths.. As the oligarchy has taken more and more of the rule of the USA into their own hands they change the meaning of the Constitution to provide for their greed.
Langston Hughes once wrote: that justice is a blind goddess is a fact to which we Blacks are wise, her blindfold hides two festering sores that once, perhaps...were eyes." I find it almost amusing that, suddenly, many "Americans" have their hair on fire about a "two-tiered" justice system and that "the system is rigged." Some of us, in the United States, have lived with that reality for centuries. If one is neutral in situations of injustice, they have chosen the side of the oppressor for injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice.
No grapes, no glory and, for some of us the United States has proven, over and over again, that it is grapeless.
On the other hand, one cannot expect grapes from a turd tree.
Well said, Robin
Interesting points Ken. On abortion I still maintain it is a medical procedure applicable only to physician and patient and therefor outside of requiring legal procedure. Like a tonsilectomy, appendectomy or colonectomy. The Constitution does not give any of the three branches of government to run, rough-shod over any other branch of government. The Constitution also give the right to legislate ONLY to the two Houses of Congress; the House of the Senate, and the House or Representatives. Not even the Executive Branch has the right to legislate.
Abortions were done during the middle ages, it was not necessarily a "moral Wrong" but a dangerous procedure and generally not done except with plants that could induce the procedure. It was still probably safer than a tonsilectomy and of course the other things they probably didn't even comprehend. Quickening was the key in an abortion because after that few women survived. Despite Alito's lack of undertstanding essentially the permissable state in Roe. The second trimester is trickier, and while the state doesn't have to get involved,Roe suggests doctors consult (2) before doing the procedure. Most people who spout about Roe have no idea what it states. Essentially relative restriction free abortion only in the first trimester. But then your point is quite right, today is not the past and we do many procedures safely they couldn't do then.
It's similar to the second amendment. The right to bear arms meant a person had one shot before he can reload. If judges want to argue against laws restricting the use of firearms because the founders thought the right was unrestricted, then it was unrestricted by the same token, only the firearms the founders knew existed.
If justice tries to determine the present by the past, they are presented with also needing to delineate the technology otherwise their arguments are the height of folly. As you point out that abortion now is a safe medical procedure and attempting to justify banning it because it was banned when it was not safe creates an unjust quagmire.
Abortion was, correctly, not mentioned in the Constitution, It is a medical procedure, also not mentioned in the Constitution and not subject to law [except malpractice] today. On this basis neither Federal, State, or local law regarding abortion is valid.
I like your take on the Second. I still view it literally as written, Madison,. who wrote the first 10 Amendments as they appear in the Constitution was concerned that the militia - non-military volunteers who protected the citizenry from attacks by outlaws and Indigenous people [no matter how justified] must have the right to bear arms. There were, until the 1820's no weapons manufacturers in the US, guns were imported from Europe or hand made probably by blacksmiths.. As the oligarchy has taken more and more of the rule of the USA into their own hands they change the meaning of the Constitution to provide for their greed.
exactly