Bad News Thread

[Grace T.]

Not much meat in that response.

Here's a starting point -- at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, none of the then-13 states had a law that prohibited abortion.

You sure about that? I'll pull and espola and say "source"? The Romans, for example, had laws regulating abortion. I'm pretty sure the Hebrews did too but I admit to not having a source.

You made the liberal case. The Constitution needed to evolve to address this issue, even though there isn't written into the Constitution an express right to privacy. The conservatives would rightly point out there is no right to privacy written into the Constitution and if the people wanted such a right the Constitution should be amended to address the issue. The liberals would reply that's too difficult given the stated methods. The conservatives would respond, fine, but you can't just give this right to rewrite the Constitution to a bunch of unelected judges. The liberals respond well how else do you get some modern principles into the Constitution. And the end result is you have a war for seats on the Supreme Court because they alone get to interpret/rewrite (depending on your point of view) the Constitution. Hence, Bork, Thomas, Estrada, Souter, Garland, Kavanaugh, Barrett.

p.s. I'd be very disappointed if I had the great misfortune to have you as my Con Law teacher. This is pretty basic law school 102 stuff on the dynamics of conservative/liberal arguements re Roe. You might need to go back for a remedial course.

p.p.s. @dad4 I totally understand now how you feel when I try and argue math with you.

 

[espola]

You sure about that? I'll pull and espola and say "source"? The Romans, for example, had laws regulating abortion. I'm pretty sure the Hebrews did too but I admit to not having a source.

I have had this discussion before. There are many sources for the history part -- here is one --

Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.

Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right

Despite anti-abortion activists’ rhetoric, abortion and contraception have been legally practiced in America since the Pilgrims’ arrival.

www.americanprogress.org

 

[Desert Hound]

I would pick the 17

I'm not, hence the glad you weren't my teach. I'm observing, not criticizing.

If I did have the great misfortune of having you as a teach, and you did assign me an amendment to criticize, after sighing about the great decline in the intellectual fortitude of my various instructors from their lofty heights over the years, I would no doubt pick prohibition.

I would pick the 17th.

Prior to that senators had to advocate for what was in the best interest of their state.

Released of that, the Senate has become much more concerned about federal issues. They were much more constrained when the state legislatures had control over them.

My belief is that once released from state oversight is where we have seen the power of the federal government overwhelm the wishes of the state governments

 

[crush]

Not much meat in that response.

Here's a starting point -- at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, none of the then-13 states had a law that prohibited abortion.

Why no law Professor?

 

[espola]

You made the liberal case.
/QUOTE]

All I did was state a true fact -- one of the basic tenets of classic conservatism.

 

[Grace T.]

I have had this discussion before. There are many sources for the history part -- here is one --

Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.

Scarlet Letters: Getting the History of Abortion and Contraception Right

Despite anti-abortion activists’ rhetoric, abortion and contraception have been legally practiced in America since the Pilgrims’ arrival.

www.americanprogress.org

'
Don't know enough about the period to dispute the facts but I'll pull an espola and question the source: American Progress is the best you can do on that.

But in any case the existence of it either is irrelevant to the conservative/liberal dialectic on the issue of the right to privacy. Again, the issue (as usual) is going over your head. Just because something exists or is legal at the time of the Constitution doesn't make it Constitutional. The question at stake in Roe was whether the states COULD prohibit the right. As you point out, apparently they did in the 1860s implying that for 100 years the states held such a right. The states also held the right to make it perfectly legal, which from your source apparently at least some did. But there was nothing in the Constitution that expressly said because of the right to privacy the states could not limit abortion. The liberals said, citing earlier precedent on the right to privacy, notably Griswold, that implied within the Constitution is a right to privacy, that the right to privacy protected abortions, but that such right was not an absolute right. The cons said the libs were just reading a right into the Constitution which wasn't there and that the matter should be left to the states to decide (not that the Constitution said all abortions were prohibited). As a result we got the battle for Supreme Court justices, because they would interpret/rewrite the Constitution (depending on your point of view) to suit their greater ideological trends (big modern progressive Constitution v. small literal strictly read Constitution). Again, all really basic con law 102 stuff.

 

[Grace T.]

o.k. which leads to the next question; so?

Trust me if I had done that in my law school classes (and I'm pretty sure I did at some point) the professor would have berated me. Hence, why I'd have to sigh in the hypothetical posed where you were the teacher.

 

[espola]

p.s. I'd be very disappointed if I had the great misfortune to have you as my Con Law teacher. This is pretty basic law school 102 stuff on the dynamics of conservative/liberal arguements re Roe. You might need to go back for a remedial course.

Speaking of Con Law, you made no response to Section V.

 

[Grace T.]

Speaking of Con Law, you made no response to Section V.

What about it? You just quoted the section. You want a gold star? I figured you were Magooing and the nature of the conversation went over your head.

 

[espola]

I would pick the 17

I would pick the 17th.

Prior to that senators had to advocate for what was in the best interest of their state.

Released of that, the Senate has become much more concerned about federal issues. They were much more constrained when the state legislatures had control over them.

My belief is that once released from state oversight is where we have seen the power of the federal government overwhelm the wishes of the state governments

That's an odd argument.

 

[Grace T.]

That's an odd argument.

Not really. He's not the only one that made it. It's pretty de rigueur argument in Federalist circles. IIRC my elder brother wrote a law review note on this very point, which I believe our former President 2 back excoriated him for.

 

[espola]

What about it? You just quoted the section. You want a gold star? I figured you were Magooing and the nature of the conversation went over your head.

You stated that since getting a 2/3 agreement in the Senate was too difficult, we could instead "compromise" on changing the Constitution, which in every Amendment approved to date has required approval of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the state Legislatures.

 

[espola]

'
Don't know enough about the period to dispute the facts but I'll pull an espola and question the source: American Progress is the best you can do on that.

What did they get wrong?

Abortion in American History

The year after abortion was legalized in New York State, the maternal-mortality rate there dropped by 45 percent—one reason why legalization can be seen as “a public-health triumph.”

www.theatlantic.com

The surprising history of abortion in the United States

Abortion was once simply part of life in the United States. Then, for about 100 years, it was illegal. How we got there and got to where we are now may surprise you.

www.cnn.com

A brief history of US abortion law, before and after Roe v Wade

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court has overturned the nationwide legal right to abortion – a right enshrined almost half a century ago, in 1973, through the cast of Roe v Wade. Here, Professor Mary Ziegler charts the history of abortion law in the USA before and after Roe v Wade, and...

www.historyextra.com

A Brief History of Abortion Law in America

For America's first century, abortion wasn’t banned in a single US state. It's only become a hot-button issue in recent decades.

billmoyers.com

 

[Grace T.]

You stated that since getting a 2/3 agreement in the Senate was too difficult, we could instead "compromise" on changing the Constitution, which in every Amendment approved to date has required approval of 2/3 of both Houses of Congress plus 3/4 of the state Legislatures.

Oh my expression was purely theoretical as to how about to fix the mechanism. No doubt the "compromise" would be greater than just treaty ratification (I'm talking on the level of a major Constitutional convention to fix things). Theoretically it would be easier to get the parties to agree to an abstraction of a treaty (knowing control would swing back and forth between the Rs and Ds) than just one side caving in on a particular treaty, like the Paris Accords.

But yes, I agree, in the current environment I don't see that happening, outside of some high school students' theoretical model US Constitutional Convention. I also don't see the Senate wresting back control

 

[Grace T.]

What did they get wrong?

Abortion in American History

The year after abortion was legalized in New York State, the maternal-mortality rate there dropped by 45 percent—one reason why legalization can be seen as “a public-health triumph.”

www.theatlantic.com

The surprising history of abortion in the United States

Abortion was once simply part of life in the United States. Then, for about 100 years, it was illegal. How we got there and got to where we are now may surprise you.

www.cnn.com

A brief history of US abortion law, before and after Roe v Wade

In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court has overturned the nationwide legal right to abortion – a right enshrined almost half a century ago, in 1973, through the cast of Roe v Wade. Here, Professor Mary Ziegler charts the history of abortion law in the USA before and after Roe v Wade, and...

www.historyextra.com

A Brief History of Abortion Law in America

For America's first century, abortion wasn’t banned in a single US state. It's only become a hot-button issue in recent decades.

billmoyers.com

Not going to read all that just for you. For dad I might....for you don't really care particularly since you have a tendency to Magoo things. If you want to make an individual point, I'm happy to discuss and talk you through it.

 

[Grace T.]

Looks like my friend nailed the LA County curve. Owe him a drink. I was off by 2 weeks. I thought Christmas.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1352458839489036290

 

[espola]

Not going to read all that just for you. For dad I might....for you don't really care particularly since you have a tendency to Magoo things. If you want to make an individual point, I'm happy to discuss and talk you through it.

I made an individual point when I stated that there were no abortion laws when the Constitution was written. You expressed skepticism, so rather than just respond that it was something that I knew already and that you should have learned in law school, I cited a source (in which you have found no error).

 

[Grace T.]

I made an individual point when I stated that there were no abortion laws when the Constitution was written. You expressed skepticism, so rather than just respond that it was something that I knew already and that you should have learned in law school, I cited a source (in which you have found no error).

We don't do history in law school. I don't have a background (or much of an interest) in daily life pre Revolutionary war. My historical interest has always been more biographical (at least as far as that period is concerned) Arguendo, Ill take your word for it. Which leads to the question: so what? The fact you are citing is irrelevant to the nature of the discussion we are having.

 

[espola]

We don't do history in law school. I don't have a background (or much of an interest) in daily life pre Revolutionary war. My historical interest has always been more biographical (at least as far as that period is concerned) Arguendo, Ill take your word for it. Which leads to the question: so what? The fact you are citing is irrelevant to the nature of the discussion we are having.

You don't consider your post-Wison paragraph to be history?

 

[Grace T.]

We don't do history in law school. I don't have a background (or much of an interest) in daily life pre Revolutionary war. My historical interest has always been more biographical (at least as far as that period is concerned) Arguendo, Ill take your word for it. Which leads to the question: so what? The fact you are citing is irrelevant to the nature of the discussion we are having.

p.s. a quick google search of the issue revealed that your "fact" is actually in contention. The issue seems to be that there were no specific abortion laws because courts at the time just assumed that it was the murder of a person. Admittedly the sources are mostly from pro life source. But again, it's a historical point that I don't really care about so I don't really care about who is correct on the point. I won't even post them here because I don't know whether they are right or wrong....it's not my area. Again, arguendo, I'll take your word for it, but it's irrelevant to the discussion outside of the fevered back and forth between the pro-life pro-right to choose fanatics.

You don't consider your post-Wison paragraph to be history?

No. Legal theory. You are Magooing it again. While a knowledge of the basics of history are useful in certain areas of law school (English history for example is particularly useful in understanding contracts and torts), it's not taught there. I'm not making a historical point, but a legal/political one.