tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3222418233330841391.post2136667605889881880..comments2024-03-27T05:25:04.829-04:00Comments on Hallowed Secularism: My Response to Randy BarnettBruce Ledewitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10419873523392584062noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3222418233330841391.post-85400165212328541642017-07-13T06:05:36.749-04:002017-07-13T06:05:36.749-04:00First, let me apologize to Haris H for not respond...First, let me apologize to Haris H for not responding to his comment earlier. Because of Randy Barnett's reference to this blog, I am getting more readership than I am used to.<br /><br />As to the point, yes, I am sure that many, perhaps most, people disagree with me about unborn life constituting human life, at least in a legal sense. But the Constitution already protects "life" as a fundamental human category: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."[Fifth Amendment]. The Fourteenth Amendment is similar. If the unborn are human, you don't vote on their fundamental right to live. <br /><br />I have never felt I know what abortion law should be. As a man, I never could have faced an unwanted pregnancy. Plus, the common law never required any physical sacrifice from parents--no requirement to give up a kidney to a child who would die without the transplant, for example. But whatever the law should be, it should not begin by denying the humanity of the unborn unless that is actually our best judgment. That judgment should not be yielded to the 18th century. Bruce Ledewitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10419873523392584062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3222418233330841391.post-42465010938697967482017-07-10T21:02:12.876-04:002017-07-10T21:02:12.876-04:00You know, there is a way for the unborn to be prot...You know, there is a way for the unborn to be protected under the law. It's called changing the law. The constitution even provides for it. If "we relate differently to babies before birth now" why aren't we changing the law to acknowledge that, like we have repeatedly done with other categories? Could it be that not nearly enough people agree with you about that, but you'd like to interpret the constitution as if they do? <br /><br />Whatever a "living constitution" is supposed to accomplish can be done through the democratic process. You don't seem to be willing to do the hard work though. Haris H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05104767341796867363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3222418233330841391.post-42769106738983847272017-07-10T11:18:17.502-04:002017-07-10T11:18:17.502-04:00Well, actually, I like the Constitution very much....Well, actually, I like the Constitution very much. Just not what originalism sometimes does to it. I am disappointed, for example, that unborn life cannot be given much constitutional protection because of originalism--the framers used the word person to refer only to existence after birth and would not have thought of the unborn as part of the political community. That was the originalist analysis in Roe and it was accurate. But it was wrong. We now relate differently to babies before birth. Abortion is hard and I am not saying what the law should be. But the unborn should not be totally excluded from protection. Originalism excludes them. (To be clear, I am a liberal on issues other than abortion). Bruce Ledewitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10419873523392584062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3222418233330841391.post-30911650279088149002017-07-10T10:34:13.677-04:002017-07-10T10:34:13.677-04:00Since you have argued the original constitution wa...Since you have argued the original constitution was a contract between two parties, and therefore should be reviewable once a generation, then you must be deeply in favor of having your employment contract with the college you teach at reviewed what--once a quarter?--by outside individuals who can tell YOU what the original language you agreed to means and you will live that outcome, right? No? <br /><br />What a surprise. How about your contract on your house? Your car? No? Hmm. Sort of reminds one of the "Climate Change" advocates telling the rest of us how to live while driving in limos from their polluting mansions to fly in their parties jets to conferences where they can lecture us little people.<br /><br />Why don't you simply come out and be honest, professor. You don't like the liberty and freedoms enshrined in our Founding documents, and you don't believe in inalienable rights, and that they come from a higher power. Admit you vote routinely for Left-wing politicians who fight tooth and nail to take away those rights, and that this game you play with the language is just that--a game to rid us of our protections so the smart folks like you can run the game of life. <br /><br />Come on, professor. It's not hard. Just tell the truth. TPShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07613663983162109098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3222418233330841391.post-3785673782120470232017-07-09T09:20:38.042-04:002017-07-09T09:20:38.042-04:00The meaning of language changes. Yes. Go look at S...The meaning of language changes. Yes. Go look at Shakespeare. Many of the words are used quite differently today. So, how do we figure out what Shakespeare meant to say? We find out what theose words meant at the time he wrote them. Any other way would cause Shakespeare to be incomprehensible and useless. And, you are dead wrong. Originialism is the only legitimate way to interpret the consitution. Anything else gives us a Court that pretends to be our ruler. Democracy has been deeply diminished in my lifetime by the Living Constitution. Trump is the expression of this. People are tired of elites creating whole universes of law where they are excluded from participating. ffcfcfcfcfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17404285900890504912noreply@blogger.com