Zaphod for President

President Tralfamadore makes the case for Burger King Diplomacy. On face value I agree with him and Presidential Candidate Congressman Dr. Ron Paul. Except for certain keys problems:

Let us suppose the State of Mississippi outlaw all forms of Abortion and the State of New York completely legalized all forms of Abortion. This is a highly plausible scenario given “Burger King Diplomacy.” According to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, this would be perfectly Constitutional for Mississippi to adopt a Pro-Life set of laws and New York a Pro-Choice set of laws.

The problem is Federal. The reason is the free movement of people and yes even property across State lines. The problem with the above example is this:

Let us suppose a lawfully married couple conceived a child in Oxford, Mississippi and several months into the pregnancy the wife leaves her husband to be with an Internet fling in Sag Harbor, New York. At this point upon arriving in New York, the wife has a LEGAL Abortion to please her new mate and because she simply doesn’t want it any more. The reasons for the Abortion are NOT even necessary or relevant at this stage.

The husband back home in Mississippi is outraged and asks his local District Attorney to file murder charges on his wife. The District Attorney agrees, finds enough evidence [presumably from admissions made by the wife to the husband] and draws up a warrant for her arrest. The Mississippi DA turns to his State Attorney General to have the warrant executed in the State of New York. After contacting Albany, the Mississippi Attorney General realizes that New York will NOT execute a warrant since no crime occurred in the State of New York.

The woman then files for divorce against her husband in Mississippi. She wins and then proceeds to sue her former husband for malicious prosecution. She also files suit against the Attorney General of Mississippi to vacate the murder warrant. She does this because Citibank refused her employment due to a pending murder warrant. The suit is filed for $10million, a New York Jury awards her the judgment. However, the pending warrant has not been vacated.

The former husband sues his ex-wife in Mississippi for “wrongful death” and a Mississippi Jury awards him a judgment against her.

The real trouble commences when it comes to the execution of judgments. Just like O.J Simpson can’t discharge the multi-million dollar wrongful death judgment against him in United States Bankruptcy Court, this gentleman’s ex-wife couldn’t discharge a wrongful death judgment against her in Bankruptcy Court given the Federal nature of that Court. [Some types of judgments like wrongful death are not dischargeable in Bankruptcy Court]

Alright, so back to the judgment execution. The New York Courts won’t legalize a wrongful death judgment since no wrongful death happened in New York. The Mississippi Courts won’t legalized a New York judgment for malicious prosecution since a pending murder warrant is still in the system. We are now at a legal standstill. Time to go to the Federal Courts? No, let’s add some more spice to the case.

The former husband inherits a $5million estate from a long lost relative in Oregon, a State that permits Abortion. The ex-wife takes a new job in South Carolina, the employer didn’t do a background check. The ex-wife’s Attorney learns of this inheritances and legalizes the $10million NY malicious prosecution judgment in Oregon and impounds the $5million estate. Upon doing so, the former husband’s Attorney moves to legalize not only the wrongful death judgment in South Carolina, a pro-Life State but notifies the Attorney General of Mississippi to ask the South Carolina authorities to extradite the woman on the pending murder charges.

The woman being afraid decides to floor it up i-95 back to New York. The DA in South Carolina issues a new warrant for fleeing from justice. This time the New York AG legalizes such a warrant. As fleeing from justice is a crime in New York, unlike say Abortion for example. The woman FIGHTS extradition to South Carolina arguing the entire premise for her fleeing was for a non-crime in New York. This is exactly where the appeals to higher Federal Courts could quickly come into play. The woman realizes that she has to fight otherwise, she’ll go back to South Carolina and then be summarily extradited to Mississippi where she could possibly face the DEATH PENALTY for a non-crime in the State of New York.

Guaranteed the Supreme Court of the United States would have to get involved at some point. Even if the woman lost all of her appeals, was extradited and ultimately brought back to Mississippi, found guilty, sentenced to execution, she would have the mother of all appeals to have her sentence commuted if not thrown out altogether or if sustained by SCOTUS, the so called “chill effect” would be felt across the country. Such a case would make Roe v. Wade look like a good decision. [Even pro-choice parties acknowledge that Roe v. Wade isn’t strong enough in their favor]

Other notes:

The problem is that the Constitution shouldn’t be a suicide pact. It would be sad if the 14th Amendment which was intended on giving former Slaves citizenship could now be abused to Abort unborn children. Even the 14th Amendment protects foreigners [not born and not naturalized] in the United States. Imagine two illegal El Salvadoran gangsters shooting each other in Los Angeles, no doubt the LAPD has jurisdiction since the shootings took place in Los Angeles. The gangsters couldn’t sneak out on the technicality that neither parties were born or naturalized in the United States. More succinctly, one illegal immigrant can’t steal the property of another illegal immigrant in LA and get away with it on a 14th Amendment technicality.

As much as I would like the Paulian Burger King diplomacy to be law of the land, it will not stay “stare decisis et non quieta movere.” In other words, it will not stay as settled law. As for Goldwater the great, he makes a significant mistake with regard to Genesis and the 14th Amendment:

“A life-long Christian, Goldwater cited Genesis 2:7 as a biblical justification of this belief. According to the passage, man did not become alive until God breathed life into him. An unborn fetus does not breathe; not until after they are born. According to Goldwater, this is the point at which a fetus become a person. As stated, this view is supported by the 14th Amendment.”

Arguably, the unborn child does indeed breathe. In fact, the unborn child breathes through the mother, if the mother were suffocated, the unborn child would die. If the unborn child didn’t die, there would be no doubt the child either didn’t need to breathe or could breathe independent of the mother. In such a case it wouldn’t matter much. Lastly, Goldwater fails to mention his position on respirators, what about those that are born that need machines to help them breathe? If we accept the validity of such machines, then surely a mother’s breathe shouldn’t make one less of a human being, than those that use machines to breathe?

Hungry for more?

• Uncategorized
• Religion
• Philosophy
• Ideas
• Blather
• Family