Deep State Unraveling

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

That sounds perfect with my idea of a woman's sovereignty over her body--a sovereignty that preempts the state's sovereignty over her as a citizen. (If this is difficult to imagine, think of the Indian reservation structure of a separate sovereignty under the same governing organization as the rest of the country for a legal precedent.)

On the rights level, the morality of abortion is a far more dicey proposition as all these discussions prove.

Michael

And btw, I was interested to learn that 'the privacy factor' (of a pregnant woman) was instrumental in Roe v. Wade.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

30 minutes ago, anthony said:

But by comparison, how much can a clearly, physically abusive mother hold sovereignty over her children?

Tony,

Why would an abusive mother abuse her own belly?

 

Are you following my proposal?

It goes like this. Until the baby comes out of the mother, said mother has sovereignty over it, including anything dealing with its right to life. After the baby comes out, the state kicks in as protector of its right to life.

The legal reason is not rights, but sovereignty.

If she is an abusive mother to born children, she will have to deal with the state's protection of their rights. (That falls within state sovereignty.) If she is abusive to her own body and what's in it, even if it's a well-formed fetus or whatever, well, that's her sovereign domain and she can do whatever she wishes.

That's my proposal.

This does not make all her actions good when she is exercising her sovereignty. But doing something vile as a sovereign causes no legal jeopardy from the other sovereign (meaning the state).

I believe the legal structure to cement something like this already exists for legislation to be passed without amending the constitution. (Think an Indian reservation being a separate sovereign.)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

42 minutes ago, anthony said:

And btw, I was interested to learn that 'the privacy factor' (of a pregnant woman) was instrumental in Roe v. Wade.

Tony,

Roe vs. Wade is a legal abomination where the Supreme Court legislated from the bench.

A right to privacy is not enumerated in the Constitution.

That's why the pro-abortion folks are constantly afraid it will be overturned by the Supreme Court itself if too many conservative Justices get appointed..

Oddly enough, with my sovereignty idea, privacy would exist de facto for the mother, as in, what the mother does with her body and whatever is in it is none of the government's damn business. Just like what Indians do on their reservation is none of the federal government's damn business.

Apropos, just to be clear, I dislike abortion to the point of loathing it. But if something is not my call, it's not my call. I can try to persuade, though, as my own freedom of speech is my call. Legally, I like my formulation since it untangles so many knots and sets clear boundaries on solid legal foundations.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

A right does not need to be enumerated. The right to privacy meant a right to get an abortion, but the Court didn't want to say that.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

A right does not need to be enumerated.

Brant,

Of course it has to if it is going to be the grounds for expanding federal power over state power.

The Supreme Court needed to rule that it had no jurisdiction in abortion.

Instead, Roe v. Wade went the route of declaring prenatal human life into trimesters, then in later decisions into "viability."

In other words, prenatal life was not deserving of the protection of individual rights, except it was partially if we slice and dice up what a human being was according to a timeline. And, of course, a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of the unborn.

This is reminiscent of the three-fifths compromise in the constitution where a slave was three-fifths of a man, then the Dread Scott decision that declared descendants of Africa were not citizens of the US.

I am not all that familiar with the details of Supreme Court decisions (and intend to remedy this), but I do know how to define human life without imposing artificial constructs. (I use biology as my standard since I cannot imagine the existence of biology-free human beings.  )

Our ancestors settled the legal gobbledygook about slaves and descendants of Africa with a war, then an amendment to the constitution. We don't need a war to legally situate the rights of the unborn (although we may get one), but legislation voted on by Congress will eventually have to happen. Otherwise, I bet the right to privacy that the Supreme Court dreamed up to expand federal power will later get redefined by other Justices. Why? Because they can. What the Supreme Court giveth the Supreme Court may also taketh away.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Saying "biology is fundamental" is saying "man qua man" isn't?

Brant,

Rand defined man as a "rational animal," then went about developing her philosophy by chopping off the animal part to make something fit when it didn't fit (tabula rasa, reason in man's only tool of survival, etc.).

So, to answer your question, saying "biology is fundamental" is saying "man qua man" is true in all cases in Objectivism except when it isn't.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Actually, I wasn't trying to invoke Objectivism. I never do except when I say I am. My only point was a human being includes biology.

--Brant

we may be over-referencing Rand

my Objectivism expertise comes from not being an expert on Objectivism as classically and/or officially rendered (see Peikoff)

so man qua man is just as fundamental as biology

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Of course it has to if it is going to be the grounds for expanding federal power over state power.

The Supreme Court needed to rule that it had no jurisdiction in abortion.

Instead, Roe v. Wade went the route of declaring prenatal human life into trimesters, then in later decisions into "viability."

In other words, prenatal life was not deserving of the protection of individual rights, except it was partially if we slice and dice up what a human being was according to a timeline. And, of course, a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of the unborn.

This is reminiscent of the three-fifths compromise in the constitution where a slave was three-fifths of a man, then the Dread Scott decision that declared descendants of Africa were not citizens of the US.

I am not all that familiar with the details of Supreme Court decisions (and intend to remedy this), but I do know how to define human life without imposing artificial constructs. (I use biology as my standard since I cannot imagine the existence of biology-free human beings.  )

Our ancestors settled the legal gobbledygook about slaves and descendants of Africa with a war, then an amendment to the constitution. We don't need a war to legally situate the rights of the unborn (although we may get one), but legislation voted on by Congress will eventually have to happen. Otherwise, I bet the right to privacy that the Supreme Court dreamed up to expand federal power will later get redefined by other Justices. Why? Because they can. What the Supreme Court giveth the Supreme Court may also taketh away.

Michael

Still, a right need not be enumerated. That was settled by the Civil War. 

The expansion of Federal over State power in this context is the SCOTUS telling the States and sundry they cannot violate a human right.

Thus, is there a right for a woman to have an abortion? You answered yes only you called it sovereignty. You could have called it privacy except it's mealy mouthed.

--Brant

[Peter]

As I mentioned years before a Philadelphia doctor was censored, lost his license and may have done jail time for aborting and or delivering babies until their heads were visible and then he killed them with a needle before the baby was fully revealed. I think several nurses turned the bastard in.    

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Thus, is there a right for a woman to have an abortion? You answered yes only you called it sovereignty. You could have called it privacy except it's mealy mouthed.

Brant,

Not at all. It's a legal construction.

It's a limitation on the boundaries of the state. It has nothing to do with the right to kill, unless you consider the state's practice of executing prisoners to death a right to kill by the state.

Does the state have a right to kill? How does that square with Objectivism and the concept of rights under Objectivism?

I do not confuse the law with morality.

The state rules, which ultimately means it can execute those under its rule. But, to me, this is by force, not by right. Ditto for the mother. She kills her unborn by force, not by right. I prefer only one killer ruler if I ever have anything to say about how the law is fashioned. One ruler wielding force to kill those under its rule at a time is plenty for me.

Also, when sovereigns conflict, diplomacy is called for. And when diplomacy breaks down, there is war.

To me, that is an excellent check and balance. I would love to see the US government try to wage war against a woman and how that would work out with the rest of the citizens.

I am tempted to say I think couching killing in the language of individual rights mealy-mouthed, but that would be smart-assed, not substantive. I prefer not to get personal on this. The topic is too important.

It's funny how people get personal about this, ain't it?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Still, a right need not be enumerated. That was settled by the Civil War. 

Brant,

From my read, that was settled way earlier by the Ninth Amendment.

Quote

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

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My issue about enumerating a right in the constitution as grounds for expanding the federal government's power over the states is in the Tenth Amendment.

Quote

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.

I saw nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to impose a right to privacy of individuals structure over state governments, nor assume right to privacy of individuals as the exclusive domain of the federal government. Where did the Constitution prohibit state governments from being the ruling power over protecting a right to privacy?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do read and speak English.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

My issue about enumerating a right in the constitution as grounds for expanding the federal government's power over the states is in the Tenth Amendment.

I saw nothing in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power to impose a right to privacy of individuals structure over state governments, nor assume right to privacy of individuals as the exclusive domain of the federal government. Where did the Constitution prohibit state governments from being the ruling power over protecting a right to privacy?

I'm not a lawyer, but I do read and speak English.

Michael

The Bill of Rights was a limitation on federal not state power. After the Civil War the "Civil War Amendments" changed that.

Irving Brant, "The Bill of Rights, It's Origin and Meaning", 1965, pp 3,4

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

My grandfather was a personal friend of DL Chambers who published most of his books likely making little money for Bobbs Merrill, including his one and really not so good but interesting novel, "Friendly Cove." This is the guy who told A. Ogden No for "The Fountainhead."

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Every time you mention your grandfather, I get an itch to read his bio of Madison.

What is the best of his volumes to get started?

btw - Lookee what I found:

Irving Newton Brant

You probably know this, but I bet most OL readers don't.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

Every time you mention your grandfather, I get an itch to read his bio of Madison.

What is the best of his volumes to get started?

btw - Lookee what I found:

Irving Newton Brant

You probably know this, but I bet most OL readers don't.

 

Michael

Read the condensed volume. In hardback. The six are hard to get and expensive.

"The Fourth President: A Life of James Madison"

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We did some thread drift here, but back to the Deep State unraveling:

The IG FISA report dropped just now.

This is all the news will talk about for a week or so, maybe in competition with impeachment.

So for those who want to read it, have at it--it's only 476 pages.  

 

From the Office of the Inspector General (see under December 9, 2019):

Review of Four FISA Applications and Other Aspects of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane Investigation

 

This is a PDF, so you might want to download it and read it on your computer.

For me, this report is still not the real deal. It's just a harbinger. Besides, Horowitz has a swamp pedigree.

Barr and Durham are waiting patiently in line. Then, when it's their turn, it will be jail time for the bad guys (or some of them).

Michael

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The big issue in the IG report:

Was the FBI investigation resulting in the FISA warrants properly predicated?

 

The IG Report (given above):

Hell yes!

mumble... mumble... mumble... 

 

FBI Director Christopher Wray's Response to Inspector General Report

Whew! Thanks, IG, for saying, "Hell yes!" That was a close one. We are humbled and promise not to do it again.

mumble... mumble... mumble... 

 

Statement of U.S. Attorney John H. Durham

Hell no!

 

Guess which one will count in the end?

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

On 11/24/2019 at 12:59 PM, Jon Letendre said:

Right to life begins when a biologically independent human example begins, which is many weeks before birth. Such beings may still be inside the mother’s body, but they don’t need to be. Life is a process and it begins when the body is fully capable of independent sustenance of those processes.

Hypothetical: In my lab next year I plan to make a human being. I have an egg and sperm that were donated anonymously. I fabricated a placental substitute that circulates my blood and nourishes the growing, fertilized egg. So, I am always hooked up by IV and the egg grows beside the synthetic placenta in a backpack I wear.

Five years later there is a kid in my backpack saying “I want a different life.” But I say I don’t like it anymore and I kill it. It has always been IV hooked to me and was still being nourished by me every day, every moment. My body, my choice.

May the state intervene in protection of individual rights?

Should it have earlier?

When should the state have intervened?

Successful artificial wombs at 11:45 ... 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

sigh...

I'm going to separate this thread into two threads: Deep State Unraveling and Abortion.

I just have to think of a jazzy title for the Abortion thread.

I'll probably do this tomorrow. Busy work.

Friggin' pain in the butt...

Michael

[Jules Troy]

We are Borg!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

FBI Director Christopher Wray's Response to Inspector General Report

Whew! Thanks, IG, for saying, "Hell yes!" That was a close one. We are humbled and promise not to do it again.

mumble... mumble... mumble... 

This ain't much, but at least it's there.

Let's see if it leads to anything.

Michael

[Peter]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Judiciary Committee pressed toward a historic vote Thursday to approve articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Split sharply along party lines, the panel was expected to send the charges to the full House for pre-Christmas action next week. end quote

Greg Gutfeld on Fox has made some decent points about the democrats’ impeachment wish. Something can be good for the President and good for the nation. The President was pursuing the truth. Has everyone seen the video of VP Biden actually saying he held up aid to Ukraine? It IS incriminating. Why was Hunter paid so much without reason? Was it a bribe? Of course it was a bribe. Are the democrats seeking to overturn a lawful election? Are they not committing crimes under the guise of investigating crimes?     

Notes . . . Gutfeld was reacting to Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, saying there was "no limit" to the number of times a president can be impeached. "A president can be impeached more than once. We can still investigate other issues. And when the president has committed additional offenses, and my suspicion is that he will -- We can take those before the Senate," Green said in a C-SPAN interview Thursday. "The Greg Gutfeld Show" host called for consequences for those in Congress who abuse power, including removal. "So there have to be consequences, meaning that we have to look and see when this is all over and done with. And it will be we have to look at what are the consequences? What are the abuses of power that they're participating in right now?" Gutfeld asked. "We've got to figure out how to remove senators and congressmen." Gutfeld called their actions a "threat to civilization" and noted the reaction by Democrats and the media to Friday's economic numbers, saying it's their "kryptonite. "Good news for the Dems and good news for the media is kryptonite to them. You look at CNN, how dreadful it is for them to report that good news," Gutfeld said. "It's eating them alive so they cling to impeachment like a long lost lover because it's the only thing that they have that keeps them afloat." end quote

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One more unravel--all prim and proper through the courts.

NY State Judge Dismisses Manafort Case, Paving Way For Pardon

A team of heavy equipment and steam rollers are on the way to the swamp and those delusional Deep State fools don't even see it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Look at this crap.

This is a veto waiting to happen if it gets past the Senate.

And even if President Trump took a crazy pill and signed it, there is still the Supreme Court.

The idea of passing something like this is sheer madness.

Michael