Oh, we are totally aligned. I agree. I can not believe that there are open documents describing Judicial Interpretation and the absurd version of "living document", meaning as interpreted, not amended.

It is an unbelievable position. They would not support this same approach if the interpretation went the other way, but we are on the brink of a totalitarian mess.

I agree with most of what you said however, there is a misconception as to what the term "living document" really meant. It meant that the founders in their infinite wisdom provided the tools for changing the Constitution such as the Article V Convention of States that was designed to take back some control from an out of control federal legislature. For instance, no one in Congress wants to put in Term Limits for obvious reasons (they are now a part of an aristocracy) specifically giving up their perks and control over "We the people".

As for Justice (seems to be it is becoming something of a joke), the Democrats philosophy is that if you can change the laws of the land by Constitutional means, then you must do it from the bench (totally outside of the Constitutional limits). Interpreting the law as opposed to making law without the mandate of the people, is a theft of our democracy and a death knell of the Republic. Dems (sorry for being so partisan) have embraced that approach to seizing power via any means necessary. That is the reason that FDR tried to stack the Supreme Court (and failed for the most part) and that is why the modern day dems (who have seen their power severely crippled of late) are trying to do the things they are including their aversion to the Constitution and the protections our people are entitled to.

This is also the reason that this upcoming (and possibly the last democratically held) election is so important on many philosophical and legal levels. There are people who were never taught the intricacies and wisdom that went into the drafting our that great document, only the propaganda that is designed to take away whatever freedoms we now enjoy! Vote wisely and be well!

It comes down to religion because religion is the only basis of arguing that 32 cells is a human being or have rights.

... and religion has no place in legislation, or in this case the "interpretation" of legislation. Even Scalia understood this.

I kill more than 32 cells every time I play soccer. We kill smarter, more self-aware things every time we swat a mosquito. We kill immeasurably smarter and more self-aware things every time we euthanize a dog, which we do for convenience much of the time, with an justification that the animal was suffering...

Great question.

Obviously not the mother. Hopefully not me. We have more than enough total people in the world, perhaps too many already.

Maybe this is a place Religious Republicans press for more taxes, both to pay for carrying the child to term, child birth, and raising them. They could set up a disciplined structure to bring the child up in that increases their number, and they can counter the immense growth in the welfare-left population.Make sure the bill include the words: private institutions, disciplined and responsible so future administrations don't use it like LBJ.

I wonder who would pay the costs of such a "contract"?

This "then we have to use gov't force on the mother to protect the fetus' rights " from an Objectivist?

Look at what they take and why, SS and Medicare eats 10-15%, fed taxes another 10-15%, then state taxes 10% or more, heavan help thoses in sales tax states withincome tax like NY. It is not just the feds, the states rip us off too. Usually the worst is in a demonrat run state like Oregon, NJ and NY. In Oregon we don't even have a sales tax, but there are so many other rip off schemes like 2 billion in "carbon offset fees" for BS fantasy science called "Man Made Global Warming" and for which none of it will ever be used. It's not just a distant govt, its next door.

"The founders knew exactly what would happen if there was to become a aristocratic elite"
I wonder if there's just no way to have a distant central gov't that takes over a quarter of your income and has vast powers and have it run well. I thought, maybe naively, that we had a good court system. It's just the gov't has its hands in so much.

" forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted birth makes ethical sense is a contract."
Then it really wouldn't be force. It's a mutually beneficial agreement. If you contract to build a building but decide you don't want to, the court tries to make everyone whole. They get the buyer's money back plus any damages from the builder flaking out. They don't crack a whip and force the builder to work. (I know you are not supporting gov't force.)

"abortion would be legal (since there is no basis against it that is not religious),"
I do not understand the details of the Constitutional arguments, but I never understood why the issue must come down to religion or what it has to do with privacy. In my non-expert view there is a non-religious argument that fetus has some properties that give it interests that must be protected by law. If we don't have incubator technology to keep the fetus alive, though, then we have to use gov't force on the mother to protect the fetus' rights (assuming the fetus has them, which I know is debated). These rights come into conflict if the mother wants the fetus removed, wants a medical treatment that would possibly harm the fetus, wants to do a job or other activity that puts the fetus at risk, or even wants to ignore a doctor's recommendation of bed rest. It seems like the rights are in conflict, and I err on not having government use force. I am ignorant of the details of how the Constitution and existing case law interact with this difficult issue.

" Who knows how far the Tenth could go?!?"
Yes. If we followed it according to my lay reading of it, the fed gov't would be much more limited.

The Congressional Democrats want to ignore the Constitution because they couldn't get all the states to agree on a Constitutional Convention. So, it's easier to just destroy the current form of representative government through legislation.

The US Constitution is the law on this.
The law is being obeyed and for the moment the Democrats might obey it for a change.

Sorry for my short drive-by statement above, but I was in the waiting room of the oral surgeon and suddenly had to cut short my attempted input above.

Anyway, I wish to add I disagree with willy-nilly abortion on demand. I think labeling the natural gestation period of our species a "parasite" or "rights violation" is absurd. Nothing religious or mystical about it. I figure a civilized people holds the life of all its members in high esteem and doesn't extinguish that on a whim, even if that life is going through the natural gestation period. Some may create "rules" about when that life is allowed to be called human, but they are just opinions. If there is an error involved in any decision, I figure the only way to be sure, to be safe, is to err the side of protecting life itself. Don't need religion to do that. Could there be rare exceptions? Sure, but be very careful on how they are addressed.

I mean killing of people who can speak. That part is not publicly acknowledged.

Its been disclosed, and they ignore it.NY people and NJ are just weird. Like a herd of masochists or something...

Be that as it may, it is still the primary driver in the dissension we see. We cannot apply our personal views to the debate or it will be skewed. Have to look at the group think going on.

Me either.

For me the abortion thing has no religious or mystical element.

Actually like to see killing disclosed and people react. Might actually get people to stop voting based on stealing other people's money.

Exactly. Although the NY thing has bothered me, in that it was proof to me of deep state desire to ensure they can kill whenever they want. Start with babies, and move up. They are evil. How NY people did not rise up is appalling.

My point was to make you feel better, there ARE social parasites, by definition. They just left out "liberal" and "demonrat" in their definition. "However, I'm so happy you offered the definition of parasite. Now we all know that people camping on welfare and nursing government jobs are no parasites. Whew! I always thought they were. "

Of course not, the cells were not organized into a cohesive unit. I was adding that the reason we will never get to a clear decision is because we have 3 different levels of "law", maybe more. So when one "unlawful" is negated by political and money, they still have a few more to fight. That, I do not believe , will ever change. So, even if Trumps court change the law (which they won't the whole point is to NOT have a SCOTUS doing that cra), but can rule some laws unconstitutional, the demonrats will come back with thousands of local laws to overwhelm it, until they can pack the court again. Tit for tat. Someday it may settle down to 1st trimester, which seemed to be a neutral ground for a while till the demand for baby parts picked up in China, then the floodgates opened, and we ended up with NY killing infants. I agree we are at 2 ends of the debate here, but there are some other aspects we never really discussed. bruces logic seems a bit off, 1 and 2 seemed to justify, 3 rejects, so they did not track. I was just adding that murder has the little added definer "unlawful", and it comes to mind, "whos law?".

I haven't really thought through post-birth abortion, but I am much more callous on the subject than most. Maintaining the life of a being that can not ever support themselves is wasteful and silly, unless someone wants a project. I got into a fight in Jr High School because I said to a guy who was being a pain, "You are 16 years old and your mother is still trying to get an abortion". He was an idiot, and thought I was making a slight at his mother. Unfortunately he was both stupid, and body/mind not as tough as his tongue.

I agree with respect to religion being separate and irrelevant from interview for office ...
... except that some choose to legislate from the bench using their religion as a position. Abortion if the key issue affected today.

Antone Scalia was religious, but he set that aside, and took a strict Constitutional view when he voted. He was great. Gorsuch is similarly excellent, having sided with liberals on some Constitutional issues. Others, less so. No good answer for how to deal with that bias, other than just ask a question about how one would vote...

Homie, you and I have had this discussion, and agreed to disagree. If you want to start again, ok. I was waiting for a new defense from Mr. "I just say it and it is so".

BTW, the assertion needing support is showing that 16 cells is a human, not that killing a human is murder. I scratched a nasty bug bite this am, and killed several hundred, perhaps a thousand cells with my own DNA. Was that suicide?

Ah, but the extra adjective is the key.