"any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?"

Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I

Correct, slavery is embedded in the body of the original text of the Constitution which passed by the convention and sent to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights was added after the fact of the convention and was not part of the original document.

"Article. I.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

Do you contest that at in and around the late 1780s when the Constitution was passed and ratified that black slaves were not considered citizens of the U.S.?

"Article 1

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Are you contesting that the Articles of the U.S. Consitution permitted the continued importation of slaves through 1806?

"Article III.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power {off SCOTUS} shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

What do you think Section 9 means? It seems clear that the judicial power of SCOTUS extends well into the workings of the respective laws of the states.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place specific limits on government power, not just federal government power. Here's the full text of the BoR

"The Bill of Rights – Full Text

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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."

Only Amendments 1, 7, 9 and 10 are solely addressed to the Federal government.

For example, it seems pretty clear in Amendment 5 prohibits a state from waiving habeas corpus or waive protection against double jeopardy. And it seems pretty clear that Amendment 6 prohibits a state from denying the accused of the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.

All of these protections against a state denying these rights to a person were in effect when the BoR was ratified. They didn't have to wait until the 14th Amendment was ratified.

There is no such 'preamble to the bill of rights'...

The actual preamble is titled; --

--- Amendments to the Constitution ---

Correct. It's hard to deal hold a rational dialogue with uneducated, ignorant, mental midgets, isn't it. I will not bother any more with the moron called. Roscoe.

Please see post #104.

The Pauls have some courage and constituents that are willing enough to support them.

Yet the Wizard Paul advocates that there should be 50 independent state laws governing the status of an unborn fetus and abortion. A totally absurd, illogical, immoral position. Either an unborn fetus is a human life, a person subject to the protection of the U.S. Constitution or it isn't. The states can determine what constitutes Due Process for the killing of an unborn fetus but it would have to pass Constitutional muster before depriving the unborn fetus of life.

"Commerce Clause

The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce.

Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) {N.B. - well before Amendment 14.}

Yet the Wizard Paul advocates that there should be 50 independent state laws governing the status of an unborn fetus and abortion.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.     : )

You can't get there from here if no one takes the first step.

It is a way to keep faith with pro-life voters and to keep your ideology brand alive. The marketplace of ideas has a limited shelf life. You have to keep your issues going and in the minds of your voters. You have to keep challenging the reigning orthodoxy you wish to overturn.

It is a way to keep faith with pro-life voters and to keep your ideology brand alive. The marketplace of ideas has a limited shelf life. You have to keep your issues going and in the minds of your voters. You have to keep challenging the reigning orthodoxy you wish to overturn.

Ah, by fooling them. Got it. Thanks.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion?

"The pro life movement is focused on preserving innocent human life and that means shutting down those who provide the service."

So why did you bring up murder?

"You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR."

Nope. Only interstates activities (or those actions that affect interstate activities).

Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? --- rlk

You're confused. --- Corruption and degeneracy have always been a national sport.

Religion? --- Various kinds of religions have always been treated like sports in America.

--- That's why it was necessary to specify: --- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

"You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR."

Nope. Only interstates activities (or those actions that affect interstate activities).

It is obvious that you did not read the link. The words interstate activities are not in the Constitution but the words interstate commerce are, and as with the word person the Constitution does not define what is meant by commerce. But the definition seem to get more and more broad as time went by.

We can not have a rational dialogue if you do not even ready what the Constitution says. So here it is:

"Article 1, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

That is all is says. So from git-go differing interests have advocated all sorts of means of these few Constitutional words.

""The meaning of the word "commerce" is a source of much of the controversy. The Constitution does not explicitly define the word. Some argue that it refers simply to trade or exchange, while others claim that the founders intended to describe more broadly commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states. Thus, the interpretation of "commerce" affects the appropriate dividing line between federal and state power.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited application to state actors. The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. 379 U.S. 241 (1964). It also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, Ollie’s Barbeque, a family- owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama because, although most of Ollie’s customers were local, the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines. Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 274 (1964)."

So tell me, what does interstate commerce mean as used in Art 1, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution?

Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion?

Please tell us.

the words interstate commerce are

Bzzzzt. Wrong. As always.

For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. --- redleghunter

In his own bumbling way, Trump has thrown light on a major flaw in the 'abortion is murder' voting bloc.

No jury in the USA is ever going to convict a mother for early term abortion/murder.

*Sigh*

Yep, Trumped again...

Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion?

Please tell us.

You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation.

Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? --- rlk

You're confused. --- Corruption and degeneracy have always been a national sport.

Religion? --- Various kinds of religions have always been treated like sports in America.

--- That's why it was necessary to specify: --- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

And now, sports fans, we have the celebrated (in some circles?) RLK, answering himself: ---

---- You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation.

"Lands sake!" - My old aunties used to rave; -- "This new generation is going to hell in a handbasket"..

Question: what happens when corruption and degeneracy become a national religion? Please tell us.

You get a celebrated expansion of corruption and degeneracy licensed by the constitution and consequent/subsequent collapse of the nation.

I don't know if the Constitution actually licenses the corruption and degeneracy. It's more that We The People do.

I don't know if the Constitution actually licenses the corruption and degeneracy. It's more that We The People do.

People are born with antisocial or stupid capabilities, that may be enjoyable temporarily, but are counterbalanced by childrearing practices, by aquisition of morality and prudent adulthood, by social stigma, and by legal punition. Some people refer to these capabilities as original sin. Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.

"The words interstate activities are not in the Constitution but the words interstate commerce are"

Then why did you use the phrase "state activities"? I was simply following your lead.

If I phrased it I would say, " Only interstate commerce (or those activities that affect interstate commerce).

Better? Doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong.

a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.

Not throwing someone in jail is "a pat on the head"?

Better? Doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong.

I am wrong that the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to allow federal intervention in civil rights issues? Can you find that federal power in the wording of the Interstate Commerce Clause? I can't.

Not throwing someone in jail is "a pat on the head"?

Another nutcase waving phoney exaggerations.

"I am wrong that the Interstate Commerce Clause was used to allow federal intervention in civil rights issues?

It was, but not directly.

Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)

So what exactly were you referring to as "a pat on the head from the law of the land" if not the "legal punition" you mentioned?

Take a reading course and a second course in logic to find an answer to your question.

So your grandiloquent rhetoric was empty of meaningful content ... why am I not surprised?

Federal civil rights laws were applied to the states because state discrimination laws had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? My point is that de facto the activities that the Fed claims fall under the ICC have gone far beyond what the FFs intended it to be. But more to the point, within this expanded grab by the Fed it is entirely within the likely that the Fed will use the ICC to regulate abortion activities in general, the enforcement of consequences for the woman in particular.

I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg.

ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws?

ARe you still are supporting Trump even though he will not change the abortion laws?

Yes. The President doesn't make abortion law. Neither does the Congress.

The Supreme Court does. Trump will appoint three Scalias, and abortion law will change, in time, maybe.

And I support Trump's foreign and military and health care policies.

If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices.

For all of the skulduggery on the Republican side to deny the nomination to Trump,. he's the only one who can win.

"So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? "

Yes. But in later applications of the Commerce Clause, Congress used the power of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 (the Necessary and Proper Clause) to make laws allowing them to enforce other powers.

For example, in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates.

Shreveport Rate Cases

That rotten FDR!!!!!

"If anybody else is the nominee, the Republicans will lose the election, and then Hillary will name her justices."

Seems to me that if someone was really pro-life they'd vote for Trump. Otherwise they'll end up with pro-choice Hillary.

in the Shreveport Rate Cases, it was necessary for the government to regulate intrastate rates because they had an effect on interstate rates.

The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates - and its only broader language is to limit the ends for which that authority is meant to be used, namely preventing state-versus-state battles (which does not include all nonuniformity among states):

"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"

The Shreveport Rate Cases ruling asserts the authority of Congress only with specific reference to shipping rates

Imaginative.

The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extended to matters having "a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic," Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote for the majority.

"So you agree that use of the Interestate Commerce Clause was what the original intended and meant by the clause? "

Yes.

Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?

"Interstate trade was not left to be destroyed or impeded by the rivalries of local government. The purpose was to make impossible the recurrence of the evils which had overwhelmed the Confederation, and to provide the necessary basis of national unity by insuring 'uniformity of regulation against conflicting and discriminating state legislation.'"

AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?

"Then why don't you believe that the Fed could use the ICC to regulate and enforce consequences on a woman having the abortion?"

What's the connection to interstate commerce?

The full passage: "Its authority, extending to these interstate carriers as instruments of interstate commerce, necessarily embraces the right to control their operations in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic that the control is essential or appropriate to the security of that traffic, to the efficiency of the interstate service, and to the maintenance of conditions under which interstate commerce may be conducted upon fair terms and without molestation or hindrance."

"AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?"

"To regulate" does not mean "to promote". If the Founders meant "to promote" they would have written "to promote".

AH, in other words to promote unnecessarily encumbered or regulated free trade among the states?

If you're suggesting that even Shreveport gave excessive leeway to the feds, I'm open to that argument - but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did).

in all matters having such a close and substantial relation to interstate traffic

Nice foot shot!

Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication

Without a substantial effect restriction, there's no restriction at all.

Do you ever stop to think about what you're typing?

"but it remains the case that Shreveport did not support Wickard v Filburn's sweeping "substantial effect" fabrication (though that Court pretended it did)."

So allowing each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have had no effect on the interstate commerce of wheat?

Should you have a legal system which contradicts these counterbalances or attributes social acceptance to free expression of these undesirable capabilities, you increase increase probability of their occurrance as per Pavlovs dogs. That's complex psychological operant conditioning using a pat on the head from the law of the land as a reinforcer.

So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions?

How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition.

As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system.

So the government should make and enforce laws that prohibit actions arising from original sins? So the government be allowed to mandate the attributes and actions of parenthood and enforce consequences for failure of parents to comply with the government model and proscription of parenthood? So the government should define what actions are to be shamed and mandate that every person publically shame those actions? How Orwellian are you? It has always been, as with every law since the recorded history of man, that the Constitution meant nothing other than the enforcer of the law (in our case We The People) insist and defend that it does. The fault is not with the Constitution but with We The People. If We The People choose not to enforce the laws against slavery the practice of slavery, though technically illegal, would persist. If you contest this just look at what happened during Prohibition. As for the Pavlovian response of which you speak, that is more a consequence of brainwashing in the public schools, MSM, advertising, Hollywood and the entertainment industry, social media, and, yes, even our religious institutions. It has nothing to do with the corruption of our legal system.

Watching you try to post an intelligible thought is like watching a dog trying to dance on its hind legs.