We’re used to some seriously bizarre pronouncements from David Barton, but this one really leaves me scratching my head. He told a pre-RNC prayer gathering that abortion is unconstitutional under the 7th Amendment. What does the 7th Amendment say? I’m glad you asked:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re–examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
And here’s Barton:
34 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
muzakbox
August 30, 2012 at 11:34 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I guess a woman’s uterus is worth more than $20. Or the sperm inside it is….or something. But clearly abortion is about ownership. And the woman clearly doesn’t have it.
Quinn Martindale
August 30, 2012 at 11:36 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe he meant the 8th amendment barred the government from aborting criminal fetuses?
MikeMa
August 30, 2012 at 11:37 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
How many Barton-ites would know or bother to look up the text of an actual amendment or the constitution for that matter.
Abortion is illegal as part of clause 734C, part 6.
Muslims may be arrested based on the 1797 ruling, section 4b.
Homosexuals can be legally hunted and slaughtered as a result of…
You get the idea.
danielkast
August 30, 2012 at 11:38 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Barton has previously made this claim, referencing the writings of James Wilson:
The ONLY way the Seventh Amendment has anything to do with this passage is if Barton is interpreting it to mean the United States has bound itself to follow “common law”.
Of course, since English common law at the time prohibited abortion only after “quickening”, it would seem that David Barton is, in fact, saying abortions during the first trimester are just fine.
ArtK
August 30, 2012 at 11:39 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll take non sequiturs for $1000, Alex.
Raging Bee
August 30, 2012 at 11:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I can’t get the sound here, but that shirt he’s wearing totally sinks his credibility. My parents used to put me in jammies more dignified than that.
DaveL
August 30, 2012 at 11:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Clearly he means that if the father objects to the fetus making use of his property (i.e. the woman), he must bring a civil action against it, which under the 7th Amendment requires a trial by jury.
The good news is, we now have a lower bound for Barton’s estimation of a woman’s worth.
Reginald Selkirk
August 30, 2012 at 11:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Note to future government founders: do no put specific cash values in your constitution. It makes you look silly after a few centuries of inflation.
Chiroptera
August 30, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think that a good case can be made that if a woman sets the rental cost of her uterus for 9 months to be more than $20, and if the fetus files a suit claiming a right to reside in it, the trial must be by jury.
At least, that’s the only way I can make sense of this.
keithb
August 30, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe he is saying that if some lower court/jury somewhere, found that “abortion = murder” is a “fact”, that it could not be overturned by a higher court, and as such becomes de facto law.
What would he say about Loving vs West Va?
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
August 30, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What’s Barton’s official position on flag desecration? If that shirt doesn’t qualify then I don’t know what does.
d cwilson
August 30, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ll file this in the same place as his claim that the Constitution quotes the Babble “verbatim”. He just pulls these ideas out of his ass and throws in whatever reference he wants, knowing most of his audience will never check.
Larry
August 30, 2012 at 11:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Yet another example of the MSU christofacist theory of jurisprudence. Otherwise known as Making Shit Up.
slc1
August 30, 2012 at 11:57 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re danielkast @ #4
Of course, since English common law at the time prohibited abortion only after “quickening”,
Oddly enough, this was the position of Thomas Aquinas.
Zinc Avenger (Sarcasm Tags 3.0 Compliant)
August 30, 2012 at 11:59 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If called on it, he’ll just plead the Third.
eric
August 30, 2012 at 12:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
keith @10:
Nope, that still doesn’t work. The amendment clearly implies that common law jury rulings can be re-examined, as long as the courts also use common law to do the re-examining. IANAL but (in addition to the primary effect of protecting the right of trial by jury), this is seems to be a protection against ad hoc overturning of judicial decisions. It is not, however, a protection against normal judicial overturning of (lower court) judicial decisions.
I think danielklast has the right idea. Barton’s just doing an idiotic word match. He found some old sentence that appears pro-life* and mentions “common law.” Then he looked for amendments that say also use the words “common law,” and decided that since the amendment uses words found in his quote, it must be talking about abortion. Utterly silly. I’d say grasping at straws but that really gives grasping at straws a bad name.
*But, as daniel also said, it doesn’t support the life-begins-at-conception idea at all.
alanb
August 30, 2012 at 12:11 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, I say that abortion is legal under the 3rd amendment, no quartering of troops without the consent of the Owner. Makes just as much sense.
garnetstar
August 30, 2012 at 12:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
No surprise, but yet another whopper: the founders did not “recognize abortion as a crime, way back in the beginning”.
The first state statute outlawing abortion was passed in 1821, and it took until 1900 before every state had outlawed it.
Apparently it was sometimes treated as a violation of common law, whatever that may mean, but I recall once reading advertisements from doctors outlining their services in a newspaper from 1879. Abortion was listed as a medical procedure they provided.
sbh
August 30, 2012 at 12:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
From the Weatherford Star-Telegram of 20 July 2012:
tommykey
August 30, 2012 at 12:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Maybe he means that aborting a fetus deprives it of a trial by jury.
lofgren
August 30, 2012 at 12:49 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I think the thinking goes something like this:
If a fetus is alive, then:
The woman who possesses it still has control of her autonomy, so:
She may, as a matter of self-defense, choose to expel the parasitic mutant beast which intends to claw its way forth from her nether regions at great risk to her body and mind.
However,
If this can instead be seen as a disagreement between mother and unborn child, then:
The value of the child and woman’s lives are clearly worth more than $20, so:
The woman cannot expel the fetus without first finding it guilty of something by a trial by jury.
Or something.
wayneturner
August 30, 2012 at 12:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Hercules@11
+1
theschwa
August 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Zinc #15: “If called on it, he’ll just plead the Third.”
Nice one! That make me laugh.
theschwa
August 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Muzakbox @1:
Of course not. Her father does.
nedchamplain
August 30, 2012 at 1:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
According to Leviticus 27: 1~8 the fetus has no value until 1 month after birth.
greg1466
August 30, 2012 at 1:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I also like how he had to make the quick correction from you have rights just because you’re born to because you’re conceived. Kind of killed his whole argument right there it seems.
momkat
August 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jingoism and fascism have been given physical form, and they are that shirt.
xmnr
August 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
keithb @10
Minor correction:
It’s Loving v. Virginia, not W. Virginia.
grumpyoldfart
August 30, 2012 at 2:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
His plan will work though – every fundie who watches that video will now assume that the 7th amendment prohibits abortion and they will carry that idea with them until the day they die. Some his younger viewers will be re-telling the lie in fifty or sixty years from now. The cat is out of the bag…
Nentuaby
August 30, 2012 at 2:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
To be fair to them, they were not referencing ‘cash’– i.e. fiat currency. They were talking about the Spanish dollar, a bullion coin containing just over 25 grams of fine silver. The US dollar didn’t even exist yet at the time the constitution was framed. If later interpretations of the amendment had been a bit less silly, it would equate to somewhere around $500 today.
lofgren
August 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“Here, let me just convert that to 19th century Spanish bullion dollars for you.”
KathyO
August 30, 2012 at 4:57 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
He forgot to mention that the eighth amendment prohibits fact-checking.
Doug Little
August 30, 2012 at 6:03 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Does it count as flag burning if by chance that horrible shirt he is wearing were to accidently catch fire?
dingojack
August 30, 2012 at 11:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Doug Little – presumably from his pants, which are already well and truly alight.
Dingo
—–
PS: Nentuaby – um no, not fiat money, you could exchange it for real cash. (But let’s not get into that argument again :D )