Historically because they lost the war they started with a Republican President and control it because they were begged to come back by a certain strategy (as you know).
Abortion is not something males- like myself- should have any voice in. Just the Female in question, plus of course input from Medical professionals (male or female). By no means should it be decided by Male politicians.
I think the potential father (if there’s one in the picture) should have a voice. A very small voice, and definitely nothing even approaching a veto, but I don’t think it’s right to say the potential father should have absolutely no say.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply @Max_S. My point is that you can define a logical framework of governance that still fails to serve it’s people efficiently.
60-70 years to enshrine a right is far too long in the 21st century. People are better educated today, better able to understand complexity. Do we really need to spend the the next six decades grinding through the process to eek out the right for physician assisted suicide, right to marry, right for birth control for unmarried men?
Arguably the amendment process is broken. I doubt there is a single issue that 75% of the states would agree on. But what about the people they represent? I assert that if you held a national referendum on abortion and asked voters when should it be legal (from 0 to 40 weeks), the result would be different than the current state of the law.
I am basing this assertion on the first graph here:
Letting states decide these very important issues is one thing, but what happens when they attempt fail to recognize or interfere with other states? Is the justice system going to resolve these disputes faithfully?
This poll shows American’s faith in checks-and-balances has dropped 12% since December 2024. The answer can’t be “I’m sorry our system is not working for you all, but that’s how it was written 250 years ago and our hands are tied.”
Happily, I believe current law should address this issue. Not as well as a uniform standard, though.
For me, the starting point is that the government isn’t efficient and perpetuates injustices. It is anti-majoritarian by design, for better or worse, and that does tie our hands. But unquantified inefficiency or injustice alone is not an excuse to cut corners. I should not ignore the law because I personally find it morally inconvenient, because if everybody followed that rule, there would be no law at all; so long as I think the rule of law is worth keeping, your criticism, though acknowledged, does not move me. And I think it misses the thrust of my argument: that abortion should be decided state-by-state because democracy is more important.
~Max
Why is democracy of value at all if it only results in cruelty and tyranny? This is an argument against democracy, not for it.
It doesn’t only result in cruelty and tyranny. If it did, then I wouldn’t think the rule of law is worth keeping.
~Max
We don’t have the rule of law, we have the rule of bigotry, influence and money. Bigotry against women, in this case.
Law can be, and is, bigoted. At least some of the time.
~Max
Then law as it is now is worthless.
The 9th amendment seems to make it determinable by people themselves. The right to bodily autonomy seems like a pretty important right and seems like it shouldn’t be disparaged.
Oh, but what about the little person inside the pregnant person – doesn’t that person have rights? No, that’s a religious position that there’s a person in there, and the 1st A takes care of that – don’t impose your religious beliefs on my bodily autonomy.
Why does the 10th take precedence over the 9th?
I think, if we resorted to anarchy, the bigots would overpower everyone else and we’d end up even worse than we are now.
~Max
Retained by the people as a matter of state law.
~Max
You seriously think the only alternative to “law as it is now” is “anarchy”?
As I wrote above, I view the social compact as an all or nothing proposition.
~Max
The social compact as you outlined it is as much a fiction now as when the likes of Hobbes were first peddling it. Consent of the governed outweighs mere power every time. And your whole argument rests on the assumption that stability is the primary political value - without actually making a case for it. That and the contradiction between kratos being foundational, and contract being so.
Exercise of power without consent is rape of one sort or another, plain and simple.
Tell me, to you, Is there any meaningful difference between legitimate authority and successful domination?
So, do you think the 9th is totally inoperative? The plain language states that there’s nothing in the other 9 that should disparage the rights of the people.
Could a state mandate organ donation of dead people? Living people? Mandate circumcision?
As opposed to just letting the bigots use the government to overpower everyone instead in a more organized fashion? How is that better?
The problem with the Ninth Amendment is twofold:
First, the entire point of government is forcible compulsion; what’s technically termed the police power of the state: the general authority of government to regulate, restrict or prohibit things by due process of law. That’s what governments do. The only limits against despotism are the requirement of government to be enacted by representatives of the People, whose mandate expires if not reelected; and any explicit prior restrictions on the government’s authority set at the constitutional level.
Which brings us to the second problem: if a right is not enumerated by explicitly forbidding the government to trammel upon it, how is anyone to claim that a law duly enacted by a properly constituted legislature is an affront to liberty? In the USA the early Federalists took the hard line position that the People had no right to protest the law, that their only recourse was to vote in different representatives at the next election.
It’s worth recalling that despite the rhetorical device of blaming King George III for the American colonials’ grievances, that almost everything the colonials objected to were properly passed Acts of Parliament, which as the ultimate sovereign power of the Empire had the authority to enact anything, limited only by the consciences of the m.p.'s or by what would spark open revolt (not just limited to the Americas– see the Cider Bill of 1763 - Wikipedia)
It’s all too easy to imagine a system of government perhaps not dissimilar to today’s Chinese Communist Party, which while not gratuitously cruel or despotic was nonetheless absolutist: the government claimed the authority to do anything whatsoever in the name of the greater good.
On a final note, a quote from the Confederate States of America’s debate over a mandatory draft for the duration of the war (which was passed) :
No man has any individual rights, which come into conflict with the welfare of the country — Sen. Louis Wigfall, TX
It’s not a contradiction. The compact is foundational in a moral sense, kratos is foundational as a matter of political realism.
No, unless by legitimate you mean moral, in which case the answer is yes.
~Max