RChildress107
Well-known member
there's no way you honestly believe this.
He does and he's right
there's no way you honestly believe this.
He does and he's right
when you evaluate a law's existence, it's not important to try to understand why the law exists beyond it's 'merits' within the common law system?
To determine if a law has a rational basis you need not (and should not) inquire into the actual basis for the law. That's what
junebug meant and it's the correct view IMO.
Who gets to define "dignified" and type of actions denigrate the life that once was?
If we are observing it solely through the lens of the legal basis then yes, that is one view to have.
Laws/bills don't operate in a vacuum like that though. We need to look at the ramifications, repercussions, and what the intent behind a bill is when determining whether or not it will be effective/what it could possible lead to down the road.
While he is clearly propping his stance there ONLY looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's hard to believe anybody would actually think that intent of the lawmaker should not be taken into account when viewing the law as a whole.
If we are observing it solely through the lens of the legal basis then yes, that is one view to have.
Laws/bills don't operate in a vacuum like that though. We need to look at the ramifications, repercussions, and what the intent behind a bill is when determining whether or not it will be effective/what it could possible lead to down the road.
While he is clearly propping his stance there ONLY looking at it from a legal standpoint, it's hard to believe anybody would actually think that intent of the lawmaker should not be taken into account when viewing the law as a whole.
I think (though I hesitate to speak for Junebug) that you are fighting a straw man here. I agree with everything you said in your first two paragraphs and I imagine Junebug would as well.
To determine if a law has a rational basis you need not (and should not) inquire into the actual basis for the law. That's what junebug meant and it's the correct view IMO.
Legislators. The same people who get to define anything in the context of regulation for the general welfare.
Legislators. The same people who get to define anything in the context of regulation for the general welfare.
The minority gets the shaft, unless the majority breaches some constitutional restraint. That's life in a democratic republic.
TRIGGER WARNING
Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?
TRIGGER WARNING
Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?
I'll just say as someone who actually buries people, hears Confessions, and counsels people on a regular basis - this is a horrendous idea that wreak havoc on people's souls and consciences. Of course this is government overreach, but this really is the equivalent of psychological and spiritual torture.
TRIGGER WARNING
Hypothetically speaking, what if the legislature concluded that putting a third trimester aborted fetus in a blender, hitting puree, and then flushing it down the toilet creates unwanted psychological effects on abortion providers, nurses, and the general public that causes the denigration and devaluation of human life in the mind of the general populace? Why is that conclusion, which pertains to psychological well being, qualitatively different from a conclusion that dead bodies lining the street create an undue risk of physical disease?