Abortion?

[Flem274*]

Consider this for example.

After an emotional floor debate, the House of Representatives on Thursday passed the so-called Protect Life Act, which prohibits women from buying health insurance plans that cover abortion under the Affordable Care Act and makes it legal for hospitals to deny abortions to pregnant women with life-threatening conditions.

Protect Life Act, Controversial Anti-Abortion Bill, Passes House

[stephen]

The modern anti-abortion movement in the U.S. has nothing to do with being pro-life and everything to do with keeping teh wimminz in their place.

I call bull****.

If you believe that abortion is akin to murder then you make sure you do everything you can legally to try and prevent it. If the Supreme Court had not made a ridiculous ruling in Roe vs Wade all those years ago and had have left the legislation up to the states/fed then the pro-lifers wouldn't be making legislation like that you mentioned. When people feel that their voices are not being heard they resort to extremism and rule-bending.

The constitution and the Supreme Court are the ones to blame here. There was no way that the rights in the constitution were intended to cover something like abortion.

[Flem274*]

I fail to see how the legislation above protects "children" in any fashion, but I do see exactly how it removes the right to life and medical care from a perfectly functional human being.

[Redbacks]

To questions Stephen's position I would say that It's part and parcel of UN conventions that they override a nation's soveriegnty in some aspects, and that this is a good thing, whilst is also brings about unintended consequences where judges may then reinterpret the constitution against the will of the public. This process does undermine the strenght of a constitution as a 'timeless' document to restrain the scope of government over the people

Things like

-Rights of a child
-Right to Life
-Against Torture

stand as a good safety net above dictators, whilst we live in peaceful times there is always a threat of a leader going rouge.

[silentstriker]

It's an issue on whether you believe in a 'living' constitution or if you think it should only be interpreted in light of the intentions of the people who first approved it. If you believe it's the former, then you have to be prepared for your rights and privileges to fluctuate with time (it could go backwards if a dictatorish type person comes up and appoints those types of judges, or forwards if you get a liberal court). If you believe it's the latter, then you have to accept things like the fact that was legally justified that the rights in the constitution not apply to black people (until the reconstruction amendments - 13th, 14th or 15th), or the fact that some people who were involved with the constitution thought that it was treason to criticize the President.

Frankly, I'm not sure if I want current society to be held to the thoughts and intentions of a bunch of guys from the 18th century (as enlightened as they were).

[Redbacks]

Being a young nation, and despite a history of No, Australian's constitution is quite good and we also moved discrimination out of it as time progressed.

The 2nd ammendment in the US certainly has grounds for contesting it's relevance to modern society. I doubt there was a even a state police force at the time it was enacted.

Edit: I wouldn't feel right without criticising elements of left-wing academia and their critical theory bull**** for destroying public discourse in the west. Not completely, but any effort wasted on that verbal masturbation that could have been spent on putting forward progressive causes is a waste and they do it on protected salaries to boot.

[stephen]

It's an issue on whether you believe in a 'living' constitution or if you think it should only be interpreted in light of the intentions of the people who first approved it. If you believe it's the former, then you have to be prepared for your rights and privileges to fluctuate with time (it could go backwards if a dictatorish type person comes up and appoints those types of judges, or forwards if you get a liberal court). If you believe it's the latter, then you have to accept things like the fact that was legally justified that the rights in the constitution not apply to black people (until the reconstruction amendments - 13th, 14th or 15th), or the fact that some people who were involved with the constitution thought that it was treason to criticize the President.

Frankly, I'm not sure if I want current society to be held to the thoughts and intentions of a bunch of guys from the 18th century (as enlightened as they were).

The US gun situation is actually a very good argument against enshrining rights in a constitution because societal attitudes as to what is right or important and technologies change over time, leaving some constitutional rights looking outdated and silly. It's no coincidence that violent crimes are far more common in the US than in most other western democracies.

[Sanz]

What I don't get is some of these people never get tired of talking about less government and yet when it comes to Abortion or Gay Rights or perhaps any other social issue that is geared toward individual choices to live and practice, they want the same government to create laws.

[stephen]

Generally the freedom from government that these people are asking for is economic freedom - i.e. the need to pay less tax. Social freedoms are a different topic entirely.

Besides, a small government person can quite easily oppose something that they view as akin to murder.

[silentstriker]

The US gun situation is actually a very good argument against enshrining rights in a constitution because societal attitudes as to what is right or important and technologies change over time, leaving some constitutional rights looking outdated and silly. It's no coincidence that violent crimes are far more common in the US than in most other western democracies.

An important difference is that the US constitution (the bill of rights specifically) places certain fundamental limits on the power of the government, not the citizenry (e.g 'Congress shall make no law' instead of 'All citizens are allowed...'). Meaning it is implicit that the citizens have many more rights than are explicitly spelled out in the constitution - but these are the limits that are placed on the institution of government to stop it from tyranny. I think those limits are very fundamentally needed, otherwise there is nothing to stop a government, in times of public hysteria or crisis, to do whatever it wants.

[stephen]

An important difference is that the US constitution (the bill of rights specifically) places certain fundamental limits on the power of the government, not the citizenry (e.g 'Congress shall make no law' instead of 'All citizens are allowed...'). Meaning it is implicit that the citizens have many more rights than are explicitly spelled out in the constitution - but these are the limits that are placed on the institution of government to stop it from tyranny. I think those limits are very fundamentally needed, otherwise there is nothing to stop a government, in times of public hysteria or crisis, to do whatever it wants.

True and with the US's system of giving the power of the executive to the president, it's certainly necessary, far moreso than in a westminster style system where the executive is tied so closely with the legislative and there are no term limits.

[Uppercut]

True and with the US's system of giving the power of the executive to the president, it's certainly necessary, far moreso than in a westminster style system where the executive is tied so closely with the legislative and there are no term limits.

You don't mean to say that it's too easy for politicians to legislate in the American system in comparison to Westminster?

[silentstriker]

True and with the US's system of giving the power of the executive to the president, it's certainly necessary, far moreso than in a westminster style system where the executive is tied so closely with the legislative and there are no term limits.

It's harder to do something like that due to the separation of powers. Many times, the party in power and the executive are completely different politically (as in now) and while the president has a great deal of power when it comes to conducting war and certain other areas, his ability to do anything domestically without congress is severely limited. Unlike the parliamentary system where the PM and the legislature are in many ways the same (eg one wave election due to mass hysteria could completely change the landscape politically). The downside is of course that while it is probably harder for a tyrannical government to take hold in the US, the separation of powers also means that it is frequently impossible for the elected officials to implement the policies that their constituents want (as is going on right now - republican congress can't get what they want and the democratic senate and president can't get what they want and you have a standstill). So it's simply a matter of what you value most when designing a government.

In the US you probably needs six years (3 consecutive elections) to truly transform the political landscape (senate = 6 year term, house is two and the president is four). Thats on purpose - public sentiment can change a lot in six years and you don't want emotions or some short term panic just dictating all policy. I shudder to think what would have happened if we had a parliamentary system and elections were right after 9/11.

Now is that worth all the political standstills where nothing can get done for long periods of time, or legislation which has been watered down so mich that neither side is actually happy with it? Honestly I'm not sure if I'd design a system more like the US or a parliamentary system if I could do it from scratch but I do like the fact that the branches of government are clearly separated.

[stephen]

You don't mean to say that it's too easy for politicians to legislate in the American system in comparison to Westminster?

No, only that presidential power is extremely concentrated and is rarely accountable. In a parliamentary system the executive is always answerable to their backbenchers. It is easier to get legislation through but harder to wage war in a parliamentary system.

The scariest thing about US politics though is that voting is not compulsory and it is denied to convicted felons who have served their time. It basically means that high crime areas in the US are never going to get the help that they need.

[silentstriker]

No, only that presidential power is extremely concentrated and is rarely accountable. In a parliamentary system the executive is always answerable to their backbenchers. It is easier to get legislation through but harder to wage war in a parliamentary system.

Not accountable in what way? There's an election every four years . Plus the President can't do anything without $$ and congress controls the purse strings. And they also have other avenues to limit Presidential policies - though some of them are hard to pull off. This keeps the power between the two branches separate, compared to a parliamentary system where the PM is basically an extension of the legislature.