I agree that single issue voters are problematic especially at the federal level, and especially in relation to abortion or marriage legislation.

IMHO, you bump headlong into the constitutionality of the federal government even addressing the abortion or marriage issues, because I just don't see where the powers in Article 1 allow them to consider such issues.

It is time that We The People also understand the LIMITS placed upon the federal government. You can not have it both ways.

Regarding the Shadegg Enumerated Powers Act, this just proves once again that the Reps. are almost as bad as the Dems. They had the majority to pass this Act, but noooo, we can't be Limited by that dusty piece of parchment you call the Constitution.

I believe that every representative that voted for either the Healthcare or the Defense of Marriage bills (and many others) is guilty of a breach of oath of office, period.

Please email all of your representatives and senators, and let them know that support of Shadegg's Enumerated Powers Act is required to get your vote...I certainly will.

This would go A LONG WAY to making our representatives at least consider the constitutionality of their actions.

It would also give the SCOTUS the clear intent of Congress, and make it easier for them to decide cases brought to it for consideration.

As for the Congress' power to address abortion, Amendment 4 says that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons...shall not be violated",

the Preamble also states:

"and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

The Dec of Ind also says that all people have a right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Of course, this only holds if you believe an unborn baby to be a person, but it does seem to me that Congress does have some power/obligation to be involved in this issue

Hi Bob, not to beat a broken drum, but which Power in Article 1, Section 8 would you tuck this kind of legislation under?

That is my sole contention. I don't argue the morality, just the powers.

Laura: I say amend the Constitution to make it clear. We had to do that with slavery (13th amendment). The issue of slavery should not be left up to "each state to decide" because CLEARLY the institution of slavery is at total odds with the ideas of liberty and equality embedded in our founding documents. So too is abortion.

Out of curiosity, since you don't disagree with the morality, just the powers, what is your answer to the problem?

Anyway, despite being staunchly pro-life, I'm upset about about the pro-life amendment passing. It was a ploy to get the pro-life Dems to vote for the bill and it worked. The bill probably would not have passed without the amendment, and then we wouldn't have had to worry about EITHER the funding of abortion OR the entire rest of the abomination of a bill. Republicans shot themselves in the foot with this one, and I think that I will write a letter to the NRLC, which has received my past support. Apparently, a lot of pro-lifers can't see the forest for the trees.

Hi Laura, I guess my point is that amendment 4 is as much of the constitution as Article 1, section 8. I guess my thinking is that the last clause of Art.1 sec 8 is:

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

It calls for the Forgoing powers, but also any other powers granted to them in the rest of the Constitution. Amendment 4, since it was ratified, would fall under the "all other powers vested..." in that they have an obligation to pass laws that uphold the right of people to be secure in their person, in this case, the person being an unborn child, so it seems to fall into those powers listed in Art.1, Sec.8.

Plus the 14th amendment says that:

..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The 5th amendment says the same on a federal level, so if you beleive an unborn child is a person then this falls under Congress' power to uphold the Constitution.

I agree with your points, I just thought that abortion wasnt a good example of your point, since it seems (albeit in my opinion) that there is a constitutional authorization in that regard. I never really thought about it much before, but if I am incorrect and these arent correct arguments then does that mean Congress has no power to pass a law against murder? Something I will have to think more about.

Very few people cite the 5th Amendment as a protection for an unborn person, it is very inconvenient for people that support abortion. In our country, a person can only forfeit his or her life in specific situations (e.g. 1st degree murder, (in some states), and treason, (federal)). In all other instances, an innocent person's life is already protected by the U.S. Constitution.

However, many have chosen to ignore this protection and "We The People" have not held them accountable for their grievances against us.

I have decided to only vote for those whose actions demonstrate that they support and uphold the Constitution, regardless of party.

Hi everybody, great comments...I thank you for your considered words.

Again, I want to say that I am considering this a pure legal topic, not a moral one.

My points are: Amendments 4, 5 and 14 are restrictions upon government(not personal)action with certain conditions precedent present. They convey no new authority to act beyond the powers enumerated in Art 1.

The classic IF/THEN applies.

IF they want your property, THEN they must compensate. IF they want to search, THEN they must procur a warrent, IF they want to deprive you of life, property, ect., THEN they must provide a due process.

BTW, the intent of these amendments have effectively been gutted in my opinion. #4 think Patriot Act, #5, think Kelo vs. New London CT., #5 and 14, think War on Drugs... Did you know that you do not have to be convicted (only charged) of a drug crime to have your property taken and sold? See ACLU Amicus brif to the SCOTUS on this topic, sorry I don't rememeber the specific case. This is one of the few areas where I agree with the ACLU.

I believe Ann has the only constitutional answer, in that an amendment would be required, and that amendment would have to contain the ban, and also convey new authority to act.

The perfect example...the 18th Amendment as shown here:

Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933. History

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 14 does say :

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

then lastly,

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

So it seems to me that falls into the area that you stated. It is expressed power to Congress to stop a state from depriving a person of life, liberty or property and the state must provide equal protection of the laws. Since there are laws against murder in every state I would think this would apply.

Fistly, the Female not the State is depriving life. So I don't see the application of the 14th.

Secondly, The 14th applies to Persons Born or Naturalized.

Here is the text of Amendment 14, Section 1 :

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I can see that you feel very strongly about abortion, and good for you, but the 14th is not were you should look for constitutional authority to ban that particular activity.

Again, Law, not morality is the basis of my contention.

You know, it's nice to be able to debate with other people on a place where people use rational argument instead of just yelling at each other or attacking. That's not so uncommon when conservatives are debating each other like it is when conservatives and liberals, or creationists and evolutionists debate. This has really made me think and consider your argument. I think your argument is pretty sound on the law, but I just think this particular example is covered. The last statement says:

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

ANY person, not just citizens. The first part establishes citizenship, but it doesnt say that it's only citizens that the state is not to deny these things. It says any person.

Take abortion specifically out of it. Are you saying that Congress or the State cannot pass laws prohibiting things like murder in general?

I think the amendment idea is obviously the best way to handle it and take out all speculation. It amazes me how often you read of guys like Madison and Hamilton debating something and they were the ones who were there, who wrote it and they still didnt always agree.

Someone tell me why, when democrat hacks claim that the "Hyde Amendment" already precludes any federal funding of abortions, why this supposedly superfluous amendment even made it to the floor?