Louisiana Republican Aims To Overturn Roe v. Wade

[Coito ergo sum]

And it was only a year ago that they tossed stare decisis to the wind in CU v. FEC.

Kind of like they did in Brown v Board of Education, eh?

Citizen's United was about as clear cut a case as ever comes before the supreme court. Ruling otherwise than they did would have permitted Congress to prohibit newspapers from running editorials on elections. Far from being a "conservative" decision, it was a necessary defense of constitutional liberty and the first amendment.

I meant to advance no opinion on the ruling itself other than that the court was ready and willing to take such measures. The court could readily have deferred to congressional intent in regulating campaign spending and it likely would hardly have raised many eyebrows. Nobody would have faulted them for deferring to precedent. And there are liberals all over this nation who consider it an outrage. Whether it was a conservative ruling or not, I believe many see it as favoring conservative politics, as conservative politics traditionally favors business interests, and business interests are, arguably, favored by the opinion. And the question of judicial activism versus originalism versus plain meaning -- make the decision less than clear cut. I personally think it was a good decision, though I recognize there may be real social issues at stake here, social issues which our founders either didn't or couldn't foresee, thus ruling out any textualist approach to the question as being fundamentally anachronistic. Regardless, many feel the ruling has left things in a worse mess than before they started, and there are numerous movements across the country aimed at using a constitutional amendment to curtail the powers of corporations to influence politics (and in other areas).

The people who criticize the ruling either haven't read it, or have a political dog in the hunt.

Regarding "curtailing the powers of corporations" - what is meant is "shut them up."

[Coito ergo sum]

Seth, dear, you're adorable, but you appear to have been possessed of some clever sounding words and phrases, much like an annoying song that sticks in your head, and you seem to think that liberally sprinkling them about enhances your argument. If I never hear one more use of pettifoggery it will be too soon. This latest is yet another case in point. Somewhere along the way, you got it in your head that "reductio ad absurdum" is a bad thing. You even go so far as to refer to it as a fallacy. Let's peek in Wikipedia and see what they say it is. "Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence." It is not a fallacy, it is a form of proper argumentation. I have a book chock full of proofs of the existence of God based on reductio ad absurdum. Indeed, it is one of the workhorses of philosophy, in line with the maxim that the exception probes (or tests) the rule. It is a perfectly valid form of argument, and as such is no red herring but directly addresses whether the given principle or argument holds. (Indeed, Wikipedia notes that Anselm's venerable ontological proof for the existence of God is a reductio ad absurdum argument.) Your referring to such arguments as "red herring reductio ad absurdum fallacy" only demonstrates that you have a predilection for tossing out words and terms you don't understand in the hope that, magically, they'll make the errors in your logic and weaknesses in your argument go away.

Darling, you are sweet, but deluded and ignorant in your reasoning. Reductio ad absurdum is indeed a useful tool in philosophy, but not so much in law. While it may be instructive to use the technique when discussing a philosophical point, in law such arguments become a fallacy when they create, as the courts call it, an "absurd result."

The idea of a State considering animals to be persons is not reductio ad absurdum. There are examples of arguments being made and serious proposals to do just that. And, that demonstrates by example that the question of whether the 14th Amendment considers animals to be persons is not absurd. By your logic, the 14th Amendment would include animals if a State defined a person to include animals, because it's up to the State to expand, if it so chooses, the term person beyond the federal minimum. http://www.personhood.org/personhoodcase/ and http://www.personhood.org/personhood/lawreview/

Thus the argument that a legislative body has the power to define the word "person" as it applies to a fetus is the same as saying that the legislative body has the power to define the word "person" to mean a chicken or a cow is legally inapt because it leads to that aforesaid "absurd result."

No it doesn't. That's not absurd. It logically follows from your summary of Constitutional law on this topic, and illustrates just why you are wrong. Your view would allow 50 States to have 50 different definitions of "person" for 14th Amendment purposes, meaning that the right to not be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law would fluctuate from State to State. It does not. It flatly, plainly, absolutely, inarguably, does-fucking-not. It's not any clearer than that.

States do NOT have the power to redefine, even if expansively, the word "person" in the 14th Amendment. That's a matter of federal law, to be defined by the federal Constitution and/or interpreted by the SCOTUS. The absurd result is yours, Seth. Because your theory would give someone or something 14th Amendment rights in one state, but deny them in another.

I will point out that you haven't cited one legal authority to support your position. You've made this argument up. And, it's a silly one.

To one who understands the process and rules that apply to statutory construction,

Who is that? Certainly not you.

including the various canons of statutory construction and interpretation, like the one which says that in interpreting a statute, it must be presumed that "the legislature did not intend an absurd or manifestly unjust result," or the "plain meaning" canon that says that "when writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses," or the canon of in pari materia which means that "when a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter," or the canon of noscitur a sociis, meaning "when a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute," one can clearly understand that a legislative definition that extends personhood to a fetus is not intended to be illegitimately or irrationally expanded to extend personhood to chickens or goats.

That's nice and all, but it has nothing to do with the case. State legislatures don't have the power to define words in the federal Constitution. Period.

Such arguments are red herring fallacies because they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion and are nothing more than a bald-faced attempt to derail the discussion into irrelevancies.

No. It's right on target, flays your argument to the bone, and lays it bare like the hollow, empty, corpse that it is.

No legislature has the power to declare a chicken or a goat to be a "person" under the law because that is a manifestly absurd notion.

That's false. Legislatures do have the power to declare chickens and goats - or great apes or cetaceans - to be persons under STATE LAW because they have the power to make any law that does not violate their own constitutions and which does not violate the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the US Constitution (and the 14th Amendment incorporates also most of the bill of rights). States very often enact manifestly absurd laws, and whether a law is manifestly absurd is purely a matter of opinion. Absurdity is not now and never has been a prohibition on legislatures. CONSTITUTIONALITY is the test.

But a legislature might arguably have the power to declare a living human organism at an early stage of development to be a "person" for the purposes of regulating abortions within a state.

That would be manifestly absurd because blastocysts and embryos are clearly not people.

That may or may not pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court, (although in Roe v. Wade that's exactly what happened) but it's a legitimate legal argument and would be a legitimate legislative act, albeit subject to judicial review.

That's why in this specific case, a reductio ad absurdum argument such as the ones given constitute a red herring fallacy.

It's not a red herring fallacy at all.

All you've done is declare by fiat that a state legislature making a chimp or a cetacean or some other animal like a chicken or a goat, a "person" is manifestly absurd. That doesn't make it so.

Yours, of course, is an appeal to ridicule and appeal to emotion, where you simply state "Oh! It's so ridiculous that a state would declare an animal to be a person!" - Yours isn't an argument at all. That's why YOU are engaged in fallacious reasoning, not me. I merely took your argument and drew a logical conclusion. You called it "absurd," but I've provided proof that it is clearly a reasonable possibility that a State would define a person to include animals.

QED Muthafucka!

[Coito ergo sum]

social issues which our founders either didn't or couldn't foresee

You should read the Citizens United majority opinion, which provides ample evidence that the founders not only could have, but in this case did, foresee the relevant issues in this case.

I have read the majority opinion at least three times and I find no reference to the founders views on affording first amendment rights to corporations. The only potential discussion of founders' views references essay 10 of the Federalist, in talking about factions. Please provide substantive documentation of where in the CU v. FEC decision's majority opinion that they reference the founders views on giving corporations first amendment rights (at minimum, a unique searchable phrase). I find it especially odd given that James Madison twice proposed including the power for congress to grant charters (form corporations) and both proposals met with failure (though no official vote was taken). The early history of corporations in our nascent union was hedged on all sides with draconian restrictions being placed on the rights of corporations, through state constitutions and law. Indeed, one writer opines that the founders' attitudes towards corporations was aptly summarized by Jefferson's statement that, "I hope we shall take warning from the example of England and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our Government to trial, and bid defiance to the laws of our country " Indeed, as late as Lincoln's presidency, the view of corporations was such that it moved him to say, "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country....corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Now, if you can find evidence of the founders supporting extending first amendment rights to corporations in either CU v. FEC or in independent record of the founders' views, by all means produce it. I'll be surprised to see it exist, but I'll leave you the opportunity to produce it.

FYI - the New York Times is a Corporation. Doesn't it have first amendment rights? Or, does the first amendment not protect the press organized into corporate forms?

The Huffington Post and the Drudge Report are Corporations. Are they without first amendment rights to publish political opinions?

If I start a Corporation called "My Opinions, Inc." and publish opinion pieces, does My Opinions, Inc. not have first amendment rights?

If I start a Corporation, "Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc." and sell Lemonade, is Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc. to be denied the right to publish my opinion that a bill to outlaw lemons is not a good idea? Can Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc. be prohibited from publishing positive print media pieces in favor of pro-lemon candidates?

[Coito ergo sum]

Please point to the section of the constitution that grants corporations first amendment rights.

The 14th Amendment, which refers to "persons" rather than "citizens."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment is stated generally - and Congress shall make no law "abridging the freedom of speech." It does not limit the kind of associations of people that have protected speech. Free speech is free speech regardless of who the speaker is.

If I ask the question, "please point to the section of the constitution that grants INDIVIDUALS first amendment rights," what would you do? You would have to point to the 1st amendment and say "that applies to individuals." But, does it say that? Nope. it just says that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So, if freedom of speech means the freedom to say "I support John Smith for Congress," then isn't that protected by the first amendment REGARDLESS of who says it?

[apophenia]

Please point to the section of the constitution that grants corporations first amendment rights.

If I ask the question, "please point to the section of the constitution that grants INDIVIDUALS first amendment rights," what would you do? You would have to point to the 1st amendment and say "that applies to individuals." But, does it say that? Nope. it just says that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So, if freedom of speech means the freedom to say "I support John Smith for Congress," then isn't that protected by the first amendment REGARDLESS of who says it?

Now you're just devolving. The words speech and press in the first amendment had plain meanings referring to acts of persons on one hand, and acts of the media on the other. They no longer have such plain meanings thanks to the accretion of activist courts in the 19th century.

[apophenia]

Now, if you can find evidence of the founders supporting extending first amendment rights to corporations in either CU v. FEC or in independent record of the founders' views, by all means produce it. I'll be surprised to see it exist, but I'll leave you the opportunity to produce it.

FYI - the New York Times is a Corporation. Doesn't it have first amendment rights? Or, does the first amendment not protect the press organized into corporate forms?

The Huffington Post and the Drudge Report are Corporations. Are they without first amendment rights to publish political opinions?

If I start a Corporation called "My Opinions, Inc." and publish opinion pieces, does My Opinions, Inc. not have first amendment rights?

If I start a Corporation, "Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc." and sell Lemonade, is Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc. to be denied the right to publish my opinion that a bill to outlaw lemons is not a good idea? Can Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc. be prohibited from publishing positive print media pieces in favor of pro-lemon candidates?

And what, exactly, does this have to do with whether there is evidence that the founders supported extending first amendment rights to corporations?

[Coito ergo sum]

Please point to the section of the constitution that grants corporations first amendment rights.

If I ask the question, "please point to the section of the constitution that grants INDIVIDUALS first amendment rights," what would you do? You would have to point to the 1st amendment and say "that applies to individuals." But, does it say that? Nope. it just says that Congress may make no law abridging the freedom of speech. So, if freedom of speech means the freedom to say "I support John Smith for Congress," then isn't that protected by the first amendment REGARDLESS of who says it?

Now you're just devolving. The words speech and press in the first amendment had plain meanings referring to acts of persons and acts of the media on the other hand. They no longer have such plain meanings thanks to the accretion of activist courts in the 19th century.

No, I'm not devolving. I'm illustrating why your question, asking me to point out where the first amendment grants rights to corporations is nonsensical, because I also can't point to where the first amendment grants rights to individuals. It doesn't specify who the right of free speech is granted to - it says that the Congress shall make no law abridging that right.

Hand wave it away all you want, but you'll have to provide support for your position that the first amendment did not apply, when it was created, to associations of individuals. You can't just simply declare that the first amendment has plain meanings - what's your source of those meanings (other than your own interpretation of what you think it originally meant)?

I think you're wrong about the activist courts of the 19th century. There isn't a SCOTUS opinion on the First Amendment in the 19th century, except for the Rosen case where a publisher was arrested and convicted for publishing obscene material. SCOTUS upheld the conviction.

[Coito ergo sum]

Now, if you can find evidence of the founders supporting extending first amendment rights to corporations in either CU v. FEC or in independent record of the founders' views, by all means produce it. I'll be surprised to see it exist, but I'll leave you the opportunity to produce it.

FYI - the New York Times is a Corporation. Doesn't it have first amendment rights? Or, does the first amendment not protect the press organized into corporate forms?

The Huffington Post and the Drudge Report are Corporations. Are they without first amendment rights to publish political opinions?

If I start a Corporation called "My Opinions, Inc." and publish opinion pieces, does My Opinions, Inc. not have first amendment rights?

If I start a Corporation, "Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc." and sell Lemonade, is Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc. to be denied the right to publish my opinion that a bill to outlaw lemons is not a good idea? Can Coito's Lemonade Stand, Inc. be prohibited from publishing positive print media pieces in favor of pro-lemon candidates?

And what, exactly, does this have to do with whether there is evidence that the founders supported extending first amendment rights to corporations?

It has everything to do with whether the first amendment's protections extend to those organizations.

It is also meant to illustrate that things like Moveon.org and the ACLU are corporations. The whole notion that "The Corporations" are to be denied the right to freely express themselves is really a way of saying, "corporations THAT I DON'T LIKE ought not have as much influence as they do..." - there is no way to differentiate the "good" corporations from the bad ones, is there?

And, if you deny first amendment rights to a ABC and CBS news, then you strike at the very heart of the reason the first amendment exists in the first place. After all, they are corporations too....

Now, referring specifically to the "original intent" issue - my first argument would be that the writers of the first amendment meant what they said and said what they meant. Had they meant that only individuals would be covered, and not associations or corporations, then they would have said "Congress shall make no law abridging individuals' freedom of speech..." or some other such restrictive language. Instead they chose to say "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech," and they did not restrict it to only certain persons sending the message.

Moreover, what the founding fathers intended is not a uniform thing. John Adams apparently was of the impression that speech critical of the government and his administration was not covered by "freedom of speech," which is why he championed the "Alien and Sedition Acts," and folks were prosecuted for uttering things contrary to the government. So, no matter what we find in terms of evidence of one or another founding father's intent, we are still left with the plain language of the first amendment to go by. I certainly would not accept John Adams' interpretation that the first amendment doesn't allow people to speak out against the government. Do you?