As I pointed earlier, though, there are plenty of rights people take for granted that aren't explicitly mentioned within the Constitution. However, the existence and validity of such rights are acknowledged by the Ninth Amendment, are they not?

Actually, it's the Executive's job to enforce the laws... the Judiciary's job is to interpret the laws.

All of the examples you cite are behavorial-based barriers to citizenship, though. It's obvious that Congress has the right to pass rules barring convicted felons, for example, from citizenship - nobody's arguing against that. What I'm arguing is that Congress has no Constitutional power to pass laws based on classes of people. It'd be unconstitutional to say that Jews or Mongolians can't be citizens, for instance. Congress can pass immigration laws, but those laws have to be uniform across all classes of people. Under the Constitution, all people, provided they conform to the laws, can become citizens. And yet fetuses can never be citizens under the Constitution, just as slaves could never become citizens under the Constitution such as it existed in 1857. This tells me that the US Constitution doesn't recognize a fetus as a person, just as it didn't recognize a slave as a person at the time of Dred Scott.

You're missing my point entirely - my argument is that under the Constitution as it is written today, you have to be born to be considered a person. If you want to change that, you have to change the Constitution, the same way Americans changed the Constitution to do away with slavery after the Civil War.

You're missing my point entirely - my argument is that under the Constitution as it is written today, you have to be born to be considered a person. If you want to change that, you have to change the Constitution, the same way Americans changed the Constitution to do away with slavery after the Civil War.[/quote]

BUT the constitution is not "as it is written today":-(

TODAY it is just Mis-interpreted to justify the lie.

What will happen if abortion stops???

NO ONE CAN ANSWER???????????

NO ONE IS CERTAIN, I bet:-)

Gov't and STATE do not have Authority to distribute the fatherless god:-(
NOR execute the innocent to the tune of 46 million and a net loss of 46 geniuses:-(

And in doing so they shall be held accountable in this timeline, for states must answer to GOD just as individuals.

The RIVER OF BLOOD, the evangelists are saying that christ will spill on the battlefield of amageddon is a lie:-(

The river of blood has already been spilled, and it is the blood of the innocent that crys for CHRIST to AWAKEN:-)

Well HE is awake NOW:-)
So is HIS DAD:-)
And the Little Lady:-)

And you are forgiven anyway, just don't do it again! (once you understand, you won't anyway:-)

Hooookay then.....

Yes you did. But those are implied rights. The right to not have one's life taken without due process, however, is an explicit right. When the court starts manufacturing implied rights and gives them precedence over explicit rights, they have overstepped their bounds and have established precedent that they may overstep any explicit right in favor of an implied right of their own creation.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

No you don't. If that were true, when you refer to legal dictionaries and legal encyclopedias, the definition of person would be more than three words long. A HUMAN BEING. That is it. You can go to those dictionaries and encyclopedias and look up other legal terms that have constitutional ramifications and often get pages of explanation. Person, however is straight forward and as simple as pie. A human being.

Now, if you can demonstrate that unborns aren't human beings, you have something. If you can't, you are just talking to hear yourself talk or typing to see yourself type, as it were. If changes need to be made, then it is the pro choice side of the equation that needs to make changes. You need to expand on the definition of person for a start. It doesn't support your argument. You can type pages and pages of what you theorize, and what you wish, and how you think it ought to be, and erect citizenship strawmen, but when you open the legal dictionary to the p's and look down to person, it just says that a person is a human being. You apply that to the 14th amendment and it becomes undeniable that unborns are covered under the equal protection clause. It doesn't get more black and white than that.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Implied rights do not trump explicit rights, or vice-versa - all rights have to co-exist, and where they conflict, the Supreme Court has to strike a balance between them, which is exactly what they did in Roe. As you rightly point out from what Justice Blackmun said, if case is ever made that a fetus is a person under the terms of the Constitution, the whole legal underpinning of Roe would fall apart. However, as I've point out to you, such a case cannot be made with reference to the Constitution as it now stands. If such an argument could have been made in 1973, the court would have come up with a much different decision than it did. Since the Constitution has only been amended once since 1973 and since the Twenty-Seventh Amendment deals only with Congressional pay limitations and has no bearing on the issue, I don't see how that Constitutional reality has changed.

Once again, there is no clause in the Constitution which implies that the term "person" applies to the unborn, in fact, and as I've point out above, the Constitution seems to exclude the possibility of pre-natal application of the term.

And there is no clause that implies that the term person can not apply to the unborn except in matters of citizenship. Further, the Supreme Court has said that one can reasonably read the constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. That being said, the founders said that we come into being with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma