Ending the "Mexico City Policy" - Obama's Hope Begins

[Michael Chris]

Meat Tenderizer said: "Anything that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden." This is the polar opposite of the American way, as stated (among other places) in the Ninth Amendment, which says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything that is not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."

Not it doesn't. It's a further restriction on federal power (as is the whole of the Bill of Rights) by saying that the federal government cannot infringe further on any rights not already listed. These would be natural rights, the view favored by the founders, not things like healthcare or education. It's designed to protect the citizenry from the infringement of their rights that are not already enumerated.

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In plain English, that means, "Anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is permitted."

Are you serious? It increases the power of states and the populace, not the federal government. It says in other words: Those powers not mentioned here and are not prohibited to the states, are the sole province of the states or the people NOT the federal government.

This is one of the things that made the establishment of the United States revolutionary; throughout history, in most, if not all, civilizations, the answer was assumed to be "no," unless someone in power condescended to say "yes." In the United States, the exact opposite is true. And this is not exactly some arcane secret either; it's common knowledge.

Have you read anything regarding the Constitution or history? I mean seriously?

 

[RJDiogenes]

The quote "Anything that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden" means little without context, which you failed to provide.

It's your quote.

Anything (governmental powers at the federal level) that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden.

Okay, you're still wrong:

He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties

(The Legislative Branch has the power) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Nor is the power to legislate foreign aid denied by Section 9, or anywhere else in the Constitution.

 

[Michael Chris]

You forgot to post the "foregoing powers."

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

The quote "Anything that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden" means little without context, which you failed to provide.

It's your quote.

Indeed, that much is obvious, but now I've clarified for you.

Anything (governmental powers at the federal level) that is not expressly permitted by the Constitution is forbidden.

Okay, you're still wrong:

He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties

And what does that section have to do with funding for overseas abortions? Furthermore, treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate! Did you stop reading that section halfway?

(The Legislative Branch has the power) To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Nor is the power to legislate foreign aid denied by Section 9, or anywhere else in the Constitution.

Where is it permitted?

Also, the section you mentioned simply gives the Congress the authority to carry out the powers already delegated to them in the Constitution. So, for good measure, where does the Constitution delegate the power to the government to fund overseas abortions?

 

[RJDiogenes]

Where is it permitted?

Again: Anyplace where it is not prohibited.

Also, the section you mentioned simply gives the Congress the authority to carry out the powers already delegated to them in the Constitution.

And "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

So, for good measure, where does the Constitution delegate the power to the government to fund overseas abortions?

You seem to be under the impression that because the framers of the Constitution did not specifically mention something that you want to forbid that it is not permitted; or at least you pretend to in hopes of using it as a political gambit. But just as citizens have Rights that are not specifically delineated, Congress has authority that is not specifically delineated; these are called "implied powers." The Founding Fathers were not stupid enough to think that every function that the government would be called upon to perform must be specifically listed; otherwise, the Louisiana Territory would still belong to the French.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

Where is it permitted?

Again: Anyplace where it is not prohibited.

Reread the Constitution (particularly the tenth amendment), or better yet the Federalist Papers. If the Constitution does not give a power to the government, then it does not have possess it. The states or people do.

Also, the section you mentioned simply gives the Congress the authority to carry out the powers already delegated to them in the Constitution.

And "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

So which power gives the government the ability to fund overseas abortions?

So, for good measure, where does the Constitution delegate the power to the government to fund overseas abortions?

You seem to be under the impression that because the framers of the Constitution did not specifically mention something that you want to forbid that it is not permitted; or at least you pretend to in hopes of using it as a political gambit. But just as citizens have Rights that are not specifically delineated, Congress has authority that is not specifically delineated; these are called "implied powers." The Founding Fathers were not stupid enough to think that every function that the government would be called upon to perform must be specifically listed; otherwise, the Louisiana Territory would still belong to the French.

The implied powers only enable Congress to pass laws necessary to carry out the listed powers. They are in themselves limited as well.

Why do we need to fund overseas abortions to carry out any of the functions of government?

 

[Augustus]

I agree. Those amendments have to do with the rights of the people. The constitution itself was written to restrict governmental power, to set its boundaries and limits.

Remember, the constitution is a strict document. Jefferson was afraid that when he made the Louisiana Purchase that he was overstepping his powers as President, because nowhere in the constitution did it mention the power to buy land and expand the country.

If it was "permitted because it isn't mentioned" then he would have had no such fear.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Reread the Constitution (particularly the tenth amendment), or better yet the Federalist Papers. If the Constitution does not give a power to the government, then it does not have possess it. The states or people do.

The Federalist Papers? You mean those documents co-written by Alexander Hamilton, that famously strong advocate of Implied Powers, who, in fact, used them to justify, for example, the creation of a National Bank?

The implied powers only enable Congress to pass laws necessary to carry out the listed powers. They are in themselves limited as well.

If the government of the United States were as crippled as you seem to want it to be, not only would all foreign aid be illegal, but so would everything from NASA to the interstate highway system. Of course we probably wouldn't need an interstate highway system, since most of the territory we currently occupy would belong to foreign nations.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

Reread the Constitution (particularly the tenth amendment), or better yet the Federalist Papers. If the Constitution does not give a power to the government, then it does not have possess it. The states or people do.

The Federalist Papers? You mean those documents co-written by Alexander Hamilton, that famously strong advocate of Implied Powers, who, in fact, used them to justify, for example, the creation of a National Bank?

Which could be seen as a justifiable extension of the implied powers, given the purpose of the bank was to effectively carry out specific governmental functions already laid out in the Constitution.

The implied powers aren't a blank check for the Congress to do what it wants; they only exist for the purpose of executing existing powers.

Read some of what Hamilton wrote:

Alexander Hamilton expressed his concerns in Federalist Paper No. 84, "ills of rights . . . are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous." Hamilton asks, "For why declare that things shall not be done [by Congress] which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given [to Congress] by which restrictions may be imposed?"

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/00/billofrights.html

Where is it permitted in the Constitution to fund such foreign programs?

The implied powers only enable Congress to pass laws necessary to carry out the listed powers. They are in themselves limited as well.

If the government of the United States were as crippled as you seem to want it to be, not only would all foreign aid be illegal, but so would everything from NASA to the interstate highway system. Of course we probably wouldn't need an interstate highway system, since most of the territory we currently occupy would belong to foreign nations.

An appeal to consequences, which is a logical fallacy. You are not answering the question, and instead pose irrelevant distractions. How is federal funding for overseas abortions Constitutional? Where in the document is such funding necessary to execute federally delegated powers?

You view the Constitution in such a way that the federal government can do whatever it pleases, as long as it does not violate the the first eight amendments. Such could be further from the truth. The abilities it has are clearly written down for all to see; its powers are limited to those alone and what may be necessary to execute them. All other rights are reserved for the states and people.

 

[LizFL]

The reason abortion was illegal was the scientific realization that the invidual begins at conception; this was later adopted by the various churches. Today, despite 150 years of additional scientific evidence, opposition to abortion is considered by most people to be a supernatural belief.

We're talking about CELLS -- little blobs of DNA. They are not human beings by any stretch of the imagination.


If the GOP would get over its obsession with the fetus and ditch its outdated economic policy (Recession going on? Cut taxes! Cure for teen drug abuse? Cut taxes and parents won't have to work as much, therefore giving them more time with their children), they might just become relevant again.

 

[RJDiogenes]

An appeal to consequences, which is a logical fallacy. You are not answering the question, and instead pose irrelevant distractions. How is federal funding for overseas abortions Constitutional? Where in the document is such funding necessary to execute federally delegated powers?

There are no limitations set on the content of treaties. I'm not posing any irrelevant distractions; I'm trying to determine how consistent your beliefs are. Do you believe NASA and the interstate highway system are illegal?

You view the Constitution in such a way that the federal government can do whatever it pleases, as long as it does not violate the the first eight amendments. Such could be further from the truth. The abilities it has are clearly written down for all to see; its powers are limited to those alone and what may be necessary to execute them. All other rights are reserved for the states and people.

No, the Federal Government cannot violate any of the Amendments, nor the main body of the Constitution; however, it can carry out actions that are not prohibited when properly legislated by Congressman who are duly elected by the people of the States.

The reason abortion was illegal was the scientific realization that the invidual begins at conception; this was later adopted by the various churches. Today, despite 150 years of additional scientific evidence, opposition to abortion is considered by most people to be a supernatural belief.

We're talking about CELLS -- little blobs of DNA. They are not human beings by any stretch of the imagination.

You don't need to rely on imagination; you have science. Those cells are fertilized Human egg cells and those little blobs of DNA are a matrix of 46 chromosomes that define a Human Being. They are the very essence of biological Humanity.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

An appeal to consequences, which is a logical fallacy. You are not answering the question, and instead pose irrelevant distractions. How is federal funding for overseas abortions Constitutional? Where in the document is such funding necessary to execute federally delegated powers?

There are no limitations set on the content of treaties. I'm not posing any irrelevant distractions; I'm trying to determine how consistent your beliefs are. Do you believe NASA and the interstate highway system are illegal?

That is a non-sequitur. What do treaties have to do with anything we are discussing?

Unlimited construction of roads is allowed under the Constitution, and NASA would be Constitutional as long as it was a branch of one of the armed services.

You view the Constitution in such a way that the federal government can do whatever it pleases, as long as it does not violate the the first eight amendments. Such could be further from the truth. The abilities it has are clearly written down for all to see; its powers are limited to those alone and what may be necessary to execute them. All other rights are reserved for the states and people.

No, the Federal Government cannot violate any of the Amendments, nor the main body of the Constitution; however, it can carry out actions that are not prohibited when properly legislated by Congressman who are duly elected by the people of the States.

Where do you glean this information from? I already pointed out the tenth amendment. Where is the amendment backing up your position?

 

[USS Triumphant]

For heavens' sakes, people! You're just having an extension of the same argument John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were having about the strictness of construction. Overall, I think the idea of looser construction won, oh, about 200 years ago! Our government does all sorts of things that aren't spelled out in the Constitution directly, and as long as they can be sorta kinda understood as within the intent - even, in some cases, the intent of just the Preamble - then things move right along.

Is that always a good thing? Maybe not, but like I said, that is an old argument - we probably won't settle it on TrekBBS.

The direct question at hand would be: is providing funding for overseas abortion in the intent of the Constitution? Since it has been shown that unwanted children turn much more frequently to crime, and in some countries that takes the form of joining terrorist organizations that mean us and our major trade partners harm, I would say that possibly someone would have a valid argument if they said that the funding is a measure to help provide for the common defense and the general welfare. Likewise, freeing up the resources that would be used to care for those children, as well as to care for mothers and children who are hurt through botched abortions, may help to equalize standards of living between them and the "first world", and create less envy - another big terrorist recruitment "tool" - once again providing for defense and welfare.

 

[Augustus]

But since many of those unwanted children can be turned into adopted children in loving families, I think that that would be a valid argument against.

 

[USS Triumphant]

But since many of those unwanted children can be turned into adopted children in loving families, I think that that would be a valid argument against.

Were that true, it would be. However, it isn't. Maybe some work could be done to make it true, or at least closer to true, but right now:

1. Many of the nations where this help is being provided lack the governmental organization necessary to facilitate that. Indeed, corruption in their governments might actually directly counter it, as officials may expect bribes for processing the paperwork.

2. Transportation for the children and care while they are transported from birth mother to the adopters are not available in sufficient quantities.

3. It would be nice if adopters would take any child that needs a home - and if any child that needs a home were cooperative enough to allow that, too. But the sad truths are that most adopters want a baby, and frequently have a preference of race and gender. They want a child that will be theirs, not second hand goods, so to speak. And by the time a lot of children have entered the system, they are too old or the wrong race to be wanted. And many of them have lingering issues - sometimes even dangerously violent issues - from the time they spent in the system before adoption.

I don't want abortions to occur. But in this world, if you absolutely do not want or cannot take care of a baby, and you can't line up reliable adopters in the early stages of the pregnancy, termination may regrettably be best for all involved.

And there is a HUGE difference between a woman who lives comfortably and gets an abortion to "pursue her career" or whatever, and one who gets one because she literally doesn't know where her next few meals may be coming from, and doesn't want a child going through that, too.

 

[Augustus]

I understand your point. I honestly do not know enough about over seas adoption and abortion policies of the various nations of the world.

And maybe it would be difficult. or impossible to do as I suggested, but I personally don't think I could condone the taking of that much life.

 

[Meat Tenderizer]

For heavens' sakes, people! You're just having an extension of the same argument John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were having about the strictness of construction. Overall, I think the idea of looser construction won, oh, about 200 years ago! Our government does all sorts of things that aren't spelled out in the Constitution directly, and as long as they can be sorta kinda understood as within the intent - even, in some cases, the intent of just the Preamble - then things move right along.

Is that always a good thing? Maybe not, but like I said, that is an old argument - we probably won't settle it on TrekBBS.

The direct question at hand would be: is providing funding for overseas abortion in the intent of the Constitution? Since it has been shown that unwanted children turn much more frequently to crime, and in some countries that takes the form of joining terrorist organizations that mean us and our major trade partners harm, I would say that possibly someone would have a valid argument if they said that the funding is a measure to help provide for the common defense and the general welfare. Likewise, freeing up the resources that would be used to care for those children, as well as to care for mothers and children who are hurt through botched abortions, may help to equalize standards of living between them and the "first world", and create less envy - another big terrorist recruitment "tool" - once again providing for defense and welfare.

Except that argument consists of a logical fallacy (the slippery slope).

 

[USS Triumphant]

I personally don't think I could condone the taking of that much life.

Well, think of it this way:

I won't argue that life starts at birth, because I don't believe it. I believe life starts at conception. But I will argue that limited citizenship starts at birth - where we acknowledge basic reponsibility both for and from that person but leave most matters of discipline and training to parents or guardians (it is, for instance, legal most places for parents to give their children a reasonable spanking - an act that would legally be 'assault', were they grown) - and full citizenship is conferred at 18. And our citizenship doesn't apply to foreign citizens.

Much as we abbreviate citizenship to allow parental purview before a person is 18, before a child is born they usually aren't considered a citizen at all.

The logic for this is simple, if not always spoken of directly in these terms: the child cannot reasonably be considered "signed-on" to our social contract before birth, since people are still really interacting with the mother, and after birth but before 18, they still aren't fully signed-on, since they aren't regarded as fully ready to be responsible for themselves.

Since that is true, the only government a pre-birth child has is their mother, arguably their father, and also arguably, their deity(s) - and to a much lesser extent, the people who really know and care about them. You aren't condoning anything if you fail to interfere in those relationships. The child is not in your social contract, and thus, literally not your concern, or mine.

Another reason we should not consider the mother/fetus relationship in our social contract is the implication for the mother's rights. You might want to argue that the baby did not ask to be brought into the situation, and thus deserves fair treatment. I would agree that this is true. But to force a mother to carry the baby (especially if she was raped - which is much more frequent in the countries where we are providing aid, I might add - and also did not ask to be brought into the situation) in her body against her will is also unfair treatment. Since both of these are true, we should probably stay the hell out of it.

And then the final aspect of all of this I'll bring forward is the busybody aspect. Not everything that happens in the world is our business, and most people would be better off fully tending their own honor before mucking about in other people's. If there is a religious component to your comment about condoning abortion, I need to remind you that, ultimately, the choice and the sin, if any, belong to those actually involved, not you. All we are doing by providing all choices is actually stepping further out of the choice. G_d wanted His creations to have free will - the test is ruined without it.

 

[USS Triumphant]

Except that argument consists of a logical fallacy (the slippery slope).

Well, yes, but I didn't say it was my argument, now did I? I would prefer a lot more to be actually spelled out. It would make being flexible in an emergency or in new situations a bit of a pain, though, unless it were done just right.

P.S. I find your signature offensive on a personal level. I don't expect you to change it, I just feel the need to mention it.

 

[RJDiogenes]

That is a non-sequitur. What do treaties have to do with anything we are discussing?

Treaties define relationships with foreign countries.

Unlimited construction of roads is allowed under the Constitution, and NASA would be Constitutional as long as it was a branch of one of the armed services.

It's not and I don't see either listed in any itemized allowances in the Constitution; therefore they are illegal.

Where do you glean this information from? I already pointed out the tenth amendment. Where is the amendment backing up your position?

Er... what? Where do I get my information that the Government can't violate the Constitution and that Congressmen are elected to pass laws? Are you kidding?