| awthrawthr@yahoo.com 2006-08-01, 2:28 am |
|
Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
> Above, you claim that state-forced medical treatment is a violation of
> Constitutional Law.
>
> However, when asked to prove that, you provide none. Instead, you
> discuss your view that a state usurping parental jurisdiction is
> injurious to individual rights. However, you offer nothing to
> substantiate even that point, which is not responsive to the claim you
> made.
Is it the 4th Amendment that protects a citizen's PERSON and papers
from unreasonable search? If one accepts emanating penumbras, which at
present the Supreme Court does indeed, private medical decisions are
just that.
>
> Further, you go on to discuss polling efforts over the years have
> "certainly confirmed" your view, yet you offer no proof of said polling
> efforts, or an explanation of how this supports your constitutional
> allegations.
>
> As for the Constitution representing the will of the people, it is, more
> importantly, the framework for the rules between the government and the
> people. In cases where the people's will is to hang someone because of a
> crime that they have allegedly committed, the Constitution provides for
> an attorney and a trial with a jury of his peers.
>
> Where someone utters vile speech against the government, the First and
> Fourteenth Amendment prohibits state action to squash that speech.
>
> Back to square one. Please provide proof of your claim of
> unconstitutionality, and, being the nice guy I am, I will give you a
> hint of the obstacle you must overcome. It is called the 10th Amendment,
> which provides for the police power to rest within a state.
Sheesh, you are not a very good lawyer. The US Constitution has been
used to limit state police powers time and again for actions far more
trivial than seizing a person against their will for the purpose of
forcing a particular brand of drugs on them.
> Further, you
> will have to overcome the broad powers granted under the Commerce
> clause, since Abraham will be engaging in a form of "commerce" by going
> to another jurisdiction.
The Commerce Clause has been wildly abused by the Supreme Court of
late...no argument there. That clause could be used to stop or force
just about anything at this point. Didn't they most recently decide
that people couldn't use marijuana for nausea, glaucoma etc because it
interfered with the Commerce Clause?
>
> I am looking forward to your treatise on this burning issue.
|