"The New Federalism" does not work; and "Right to Life" as applied by the anti-abortion cult would be correctly stated to say "right to live" which shows their inherent lack of integrity.
How is it that they are deemed to have standing ? One approach is a US Constitutional Amendment "Life begins at birth and ends at death". But section 1 …
"The New Federalism" does not work; and "Right to Life" as applied by the anti-abortion cult would be correctly stated to say "right to live" which shows their inherent lack of integrity.
How is it that they are deemed to have standing ? One approach is a US Constitutional Amendment "Life begins at birth and ends at death". But section 1 of the 14th A US Const. proscribes the States:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" the same sentence continues "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".
So everyone has come to have a rough idea of what "attorney client privilege is" so what about "doctor patient privilege" - the question as Chris has correctly stated is, to whom does the privilege apply? The correct view IMHO is that in the 1st case it applies to The Client otherwise what protection under the law have they from a crooked lawyer? viz., "The Honest Trustee" because there is a "relationship of confidence and trust" between the attorney and the client. Having it work both ways (as it's 'interpreted') annihilates the protection of the client in regards to a crooked lawyer, leaving the client with one choice, fire the attorney be abused as a pro se or go hunt down one you can 'trust'. i.e., the equities are not equal. The same ought to apply to Doctor patient - protection is accorded to The Patient. Both are "relations of confidence and trust".
But what about this relationship in regard to "fundamental rights" viz., "Life, Liberty and Property". Barron v Baltimore was a bad decision and so was The Slaughterhouse Cases. Consider
Article VI, clause 2 "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".
So the proponents of "The New Federalism" don't believe that "The Supreme Law of the Law" governs the conduct of the States
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. 8”
Magna Carta June 15, 1215
They don't believe that Due process is the supreme law of the land nor that clients of Attorneys or Patients of doctors have any protection from the unequal relationship which is even more pronounced in regards to a woman that requires a doctor to assist her. So the anti-nationalists, anti-federalists however you wish to refer to them skirt these issues by saying that both constitutional provisions are dead letters unless Congress enforces the 14th A via sec 5 thereof - and if that's the case how are they different than Parliament?
42 USC 1983 fills what ever imagined interstice they long to manifest into existence viz.,
" the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" i.e., is the supreme law of the land - it transcends the semi-colon - in other words the privilege is a constitutionally protected right.
"The New Federalism" does not work; and "Right to Life" as applied by the anti-abortion cult would be correctly stated to say "right to live" which shows their inherent lack of integrity.
How is it that they are deemed to have standing ? One approach is a US Constitutional Amendment "Life begins at birth and ends at death". But section 1 of the 14th A US Const. proscribes the States:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" the same sentence continues "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".
So everyone has come to have a rough idea of what "attorney client privilege is" so what about "doctor patient privilege" - the question as Chris has correctly stated is, to whom does the privilege apply? The correct view IMHO is that in the 1st case it applies to The Client otherwise what protection under the law have they from a crooked lawyer? viz., "The Honest Trustee" because there is a "relationship of confidence and trust" between the attorney and the client. Having it work both ways (as it's 'interpreted') annihilates the protection of the client in regards to a crooked lawyer, leaving the client with one choice, fire the attorney be abused as a pro se or go hunt down one you can 'trust'. i.e., the equities are not equal. The same ought to apply to Doctor patient - protection is accorded to The Patient. Both are "relations of confidence and trust".
But what about this relationship in regard to "fundamental rights" viz., "Life, Liberty and Property". Barron v Baltimore was a bad decision and so was The Slaughterhouse Cases. Consider
Article VI, clause 2 "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".
So the proponents of "The New Federalism" don't believe that "The Supreme Law of the Law" governs the conduct of the States
(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. 8”
Magna Carta June 15, 1215
They don't believe that Due process is the supreme law of the land nor that clients of Attorneys or Patients of doctors have any protection from the unequal relationship which is even more pronounced in regards to a woman that requires a doctor to assist her. So the anti-nationalists, anti-federalists however you wish to refer to them skirt these issues by saying that both constitutional provisions are dead letters unless Congress enforces the 14th A via sec 5 thereof - and if that's the case how are they different than Parliament?
42 USC 1983 fills what ever imagined interstice they long to manifest into existence viz.,
" the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" i.e., is the supreme law of the land - it transcends the semi-colon - in other words the privilege is a constitutionally protected right.
And has to be interpreted as such