"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.

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

What are you babbling about? Even the Wickard ruling acknowledged previous narrower restrictions:

"questions of the power of Congress are not to be decided by reference to any formula which would give controlling force to nomenclature such as 'production' and 'indirect' and foreclose consideration of the actual effects of the activity in question upon interstate commerce. [...] But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'"

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

Straw man. Each farmer producing wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce.

it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce

You're running out of feet to shoot.

Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce.

You've never read the case, have you?

Beat me by 22 seconds.

Yay me!

They hate the Constitution and want to insert sub silentio restrictions in it.

"Each farmer to produce wheat in excess of their quota would have not been in and of itself interstate commerce."

Didn't say that. The ruling was that it would have an effect on interstate commerce. Producing their own means they don't purchase wheat interstate.