Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)

William H. Geiger III whgiii at
Sat Aug 23 23:42:50 PDT 1997


In <199708240358.WAA28187 at>, on 08/23/97 
   at 10:58 PM, Jim Choate <ravage at> said:

>Forwarded message:

>> From: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii at>
>> Date: Sat, 23 Aug 97 22:37:02 -0400
>> Subject: Re: Reproductive Rights and State Benefits (fwd)

>> >Would you be so kind as to explain exactly what the 14th brings to the
>> >table that was not already covered in the original document? We didn't
>> >need the 14th and still don't. It was, and still is, a political ploy to
>> >get people to willingly (through ignorance) comply with a bunch of
>> >schills.
>> Nice try but it was you who brought up the 14th in your original reply to
>> my message. An intresting debating technique present and argument then
>> blame your opponent for brining up that argument.

>You're the one trying a straw-man, I was simply asking a question based
>upon several comments you have made both in this exchange and in others
>as well. It had nothing to do with your original question but rather an
>attempt on my part to expand the discussion to include the 14th which it
>must to be whole.

>Or is your view that you are the only party who may bring other issues
>into this discussion? Because, my personal opinion is that I don't need
>your permission to include other issues in the argument as long as I feel
>they are relevant and can justify them.

>> Clause 2:  This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
>> shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall
>> be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
>> Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
>> Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
>> notwithstanding. 

>> This trumps any argument you have made on this issue so far.

>Not really as it clearly states in the first clauses where that authority
>comes from and the 10th clearly puts limits on what expansions the courts
>and legislature can do with the Constitution. The last clause also
>clearly states that the constitutions and laws of any state are not
>superior (but does not deny equality as granted in the 10th) to the laws
>and treaties of the federal government. The last clause also provides
>even less reason for the 14th.

>Face it bud, you ain't got a foot to stand on.

<sigh> I have yet presented an argument for nor against the need for the
14th Amendment. This has been your own private one man circle jerk.

The position I presented was that the States do not have the power to deny
its citizens the rights protected under the Constitution of the United
States and the Bill of Rights. Rather than debate the validity of this
position you have conjured up this irrelevant issue of wether or not the
14th Amendment was/is needed.

Whenever you sober-up and come back down to reality we can debate the
issue at hand.

FWIIW I do not believe that the 14th Amendment was needed IMHO as the
rights of the citizens were guaranteed under previous articles of the
Constitution. Once again taking into account the political climate after
the civil war the Congress felt that this needed to be more clearly spelt
out via the 14th amendment in an effort to insure that the recently freed
blacks received the same protections under the law as the rest of the
citizens (13th & 15th Amendments were of similar nature).

- -- 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
William H. Geiger III
Geiger Consulting    Cooking With Warp 4.0

Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice
PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail.
OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at:                        
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: cp850
Comment: Registered_User_E-Secure_v1.1b1_ES000000


More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list