England UK

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 10:41:08 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote in <8pBLf.95313$tK4.26693@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com> :

|>In article <h9adncQQUZ0eRmPeRVn-rA@adelphia.com>,
|>4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net says...
|>> > 4) Your "Opinion" and my "Opinion" don't really matter.
|>>
|>> On the contrary, the opinion of the people is the ultimate authority. We are
|>> the final arbitars of the Constitution.
|>
|>Well, at least two of us disagree, since since you and I disagree, then
|>we cancel each other out - I believe it IS constitutional, you believe
|>it is NOT constitutional.
|>
|>So, taken just the two of us, where does that leave the country? I'll
|>help you out here - some authority, higher than the two of us, has to
|>make the call on the legality of the PA LAW. Right now that higher
|>authority has NOT denounced the PA as being unconstitutional - so, it
|>stands as a valid LAW.

<Zadoc comments start>




To resolve this one just go back and consider the issue of
abortion. Many, if not most, US states had laws banning
abortion.

Most medical practitioners wouldn't risk doing an abortion simply
because they risked losing their license to practice and often
could be imprisoned as well.

All of these state laws were legal, and thousands poorer women
died at the hands of amateur backyard abortionists.

Richer ones could travel to other countries where abortion was
legal, of course. Abortionists were fined, jailed, doctors lost
licenses, and so on.

These laws were valid for decades. However, finally a case went
all the way to SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States.

To quote from the World Almanac, Landmark Decisions of the U.S.
Supreme Court, page 539. Am using this reference as almost any
public or school library would have a copy in the reference
section, so there is no need to even access a computer. :-)

1973: Roe v.s. Wade, Doe v.Bolton. The court ruled that a fetus
was not a "person" with constitutional rights and that a right to
privacy inherent in the 14th Amendment's due process and
guarantee of personal liberty protected a woman's decision to
have an abortion. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the
Court maintained, the decision should be left entirely to the
woman and her physician. Some regulation of abortion of abortion
was allowed in the 2d trimester, and some restriction of abortion
in the 3d.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but all of this is as obvious as testicles
on a male canine, or "balls on a dog".

A pregnancy lasts roughly 9 months from date of conception. The
embryo or fetus is simply not viable outside the mothers body for
the first three months, therefore the ruling is that is NOT a
human being and therefore NOT a legal "person" under law.

The first trimester is the first 3 months from conception. From
three to six months is the second trimester, and from 6 to 9
months is the third trimester.

As federal law always takes precedence over state or county or
local laws, as soon as that decision was announced ALL state laws
banning abortion in the first trimester were immediately null and
void, as they were unconstitutional. They didn't need to be
repealed, they were simply overthrown as soon as SCOTUS made the
decision.

Now it doesn't matter a damn whether any or all US citizens agree
or disagree with this ruling, as SCOTUS has the last word. That
is why it is called the Supreme Court. There is no higher court
in the USA.

So what happened to abortionists serving time in prison for doing
abortions in the first trimester, or those who were fined, or
medical practitioners who lost their license to practice?

As far as I know, all these penalties stood, as the they broke
the law while the law was legal, before it was overthrown by
SCOTUS. Laws aren't retroactive.

While abortion was illegal under their state law, they chose to
break it. If the law was always illegal under the Constitution,
then logically all these offenders would have to be released,
compensation paid for their illegal imprisonment, fines returned,
licenses restored to medical vacationers, and so on.

Now this would involve a lot of hassles and a lot of lawsuits. If
"X" was an abortionist and had done ten years of a 15 year
sentence, how much can he sue the state for the loss of ten years
of his life.

AFIK, he has no comeback whatsoever. The law was valid when he
chose to break it, he was legally convicted, and he has to serve
his sentence.

Now in an attempt to explain this even further, suppose your
particular state legislature decides to outlaw the following and
provide a ten year sentence for possession of a switchblade
knife, a firecracker, or possession of a Rottweiler, an Alsatian,
a pit bull, ....or for that matter a cocker spaniel or a
goldfish.

Can they do it and enforce it? Of course. A city, county or
state can pass any law it likes as long as it doesn't conflict
with Federal law or the Constitution.

Are they likely to? No, not really. Most authorities aren't
going to pass a law that will probably be eventually overthrown
by SCOTUS. ....Or will lead to the elected officials being
thrown out of office at the next election.

However, they can do it if they want to. If a state wants to
seize your car if they find you guilty of drunken driving they
can do that too.

If you travel through several southeast Asian countries with over
25 grams, about a half ounce of heroin or other proscribed
narcotics they can hang you, shoot you, or jail you for life. Any
country is soverign and can pass any laws that it likes.

If you are in that country, you damned well better obey its laws,
for the US can't necessarily get you out of any penalty they want
to impose.

So, basically, the Patriot Act, or any other act is legal and
enforcable unless and until SCOTUS declares it illegal.

Which means that someone has to challenge any of its provisions
up through the lesser courts, which isn't cheap. Nor does SCOTUS
have to agree to rule on the case if it gets that far.

Now I can't make it much clearer than that. Am a bit surprised
that one of the lawyers on misc.survivalism hasn't bothered to
explain why the Patriot Law is legal and enforceable.

</ Zadoc comments end>

Cheers,






zadoc@invalid.com.au