SC rulings may lead to a Republican Administration

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

The constitution provides a woman privacy relative to her pregnancy termination.

Where?
Provide the appropriate article and clause that says that.

Check the bill of rights.

OK,
Here is the Constitution...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

Please show us all where abortion or anything similiar is mentioned.
And if its a privacy issue, then ANYTHING I do in my home is protected by that right, correct?

You always ask questions, and have little original to say. Check the Roe decision and you will find link between privacy and the constitution.

So if there is that link, then are you willing to say that ANYTHING I do inside my home is protected by the supposed right to privacy?

Oh, another question. Well, yes, provided it doesn't injure others.

So if I want to look at child porn on my computer, it should be allowed?
After all, I'm not injuring anyone by doing so.
If I want to make meth in my garage, it should be allowed, provided I'm not injuring anyone and its for my own use?
Would you go along with that also?

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Quote:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The right to privacy is not denied simply because it isn't mentioned.

Nor is the right to have the government depost 10 million dollars into my bank account, but most would agree that the Consitution does not, in fact, grant me this.

You might want to look up the word "retained" Brandon. You can't retain something if you didn't already have it prior to the constitution. All people had the right to privacy before the constitution and retained that right. Government didn't intrude into their lives and make medical decisions for them.

People did NOT have $10 million prior to the constitution.

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

Government didn't intrude into their lives and make medical decisions for them.

Govt DID intrude into other peoples lives prior to the American revolution.
That was part of the reason for the war.

And how is overturning Roe v Wade an intrusion?
Are you so afraid of what the voters think that you wont allow them to decide what they want to be legal or not or what laws they want in their own state?

What does that say about your opinion of the voters?

The constitution overrides state law.


How would you feel should the state decide to confiscate your weapons? Would that be cool?

It cant be done without changing the Constitution, but to answer your hypothetical question...If a state decided to do that, I would simply move to a state that allows me to keep them.

Abortion laws should be the same way.
If a state passes abortion laws you dont like...MOVE.

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:

Government didn't intrude into their lives and make medical decisions for them.

Govt DID intrude into other peoples lives prior to the American revolution.
That was part of the reason for the war.

And how is overturning Roe v Wade an intrusion?
Are you so afraid of what the voters think that you wont allow them to decide what they want to be legal or not or what laws they want in their own state?

What does that say about your opinion of the voters?

The constitution overrides state law.


How would you feel should the state decide to confiscate your weapons? Would that be cool?

It cant be done without changing the Constitution, but to answer your hypothetical question...If a state decided to do that, I would simply move to a state that allows me to keep them.

Abortion laws should be the same way.
If a state passes abortion laws you dont like...MOVE.

The point is that the Constitution doesn't forbid the government to make abortion illegal. In fact, it is utterly mute on the subject.

...If you were to read the ruling, you can see how the insertion of a law criminalizing abortion would be at odds with several other areas of the constitution.

T
K
O

Diest TKO wrote:

...If you were to read the ruling, you can see how the insertion of a law criminalizing abortion would be at odds with several other areas of the constitution.

T
K
O

You're spouting nonsense as usual. List for me one single passage in the Constitution which forbids the government to illegalize this. Don't just refer us to someone else's words.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

...If you were to read the ruling, you can see how the insertion of a law criminalizing abortion would be at odds with several other areas of the constitution.

T
K
O

You're spouting nonsense as usual. List for me one single passage in the Constitution which forbids the government to illegalize this. Don't just refer us to someone else's words.

Well 9000, I directed you not to just words, I directed you to the words of the people with the ultimate say on this matter. I'm not going to chase my tail for you. Read the damn ruling.

T
K
O

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

Advocate wrote:

The constitution provides a woman privacy relative to her pregnancy termination.

Where?
Provide the appropriate article and clause that says that.

Check the bill of rights.

OK,
Here is the Constitution...

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

Please show us all where abortion or anything similiar is mentioned.
And if its a privacy issue, then ANYTHING I do in my home is protected by that right, correct?

You always ask questions, and have little original to say. Check the Roe decision and you will find link between privacy and the constitution.

So if there is that link, then are you willing to say that ANYTHING I do inside my home is protected by the supposed right to privacy?

Oh, another question. Well, yes, provided it doesn't injure others.

So if I want to look at child porn on my computer, it should be allowed?
After all, I'm not injuring anyone by doing so.
If I want to make meth in my garage, it should be allowed, provided I'm not injuring anyone and its for my own use?
Would you go along with that also?

Quote:

Government didn't intrude into their lives and make medical decisions for them.

Govt DID intrude into other peoples lives prior to the American revolution.
That was part of the reason for the war.

And how is overturning Roe v Wade an intrusion?
Are you so afraid of what the voters think that you wont allow them to decide what they want to be legal or not or what laws they want in their own state?

What does that say about your opinion of the voters?

The Constiution doesn't say that every common practice prior to its inception will be legal. Burglary was also common.

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

And that is why the govt should not be involved.
I point out to you to 10th amendment...

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

So since the Constitution did not give Congress the power,the govt shouldnt be involved.

What you mean is that you reserve the right to post false assertions, but become indignant when someone suggests that you provide a particle of evidence in support.

I'll tell you what, you're wrong and I'm right, and my proof is the public library in your town. I'm not going to "chase my tail for you." Go to the damn, library and you'll see.

Brandon9000 wrote:

What you mean is that you reserve the right to post false assertions, but become indignant when someone suggests that you provide a particle of evidence in support.

I'll tell you what, you're wrong and I'm right, and my proof is the public library in your town. I'm not going to "chase my tail for you." Go to the damn, library and you'll see.

Since you can't do even basic research that is available on the very device you have in front of you, don't expect any sympathy when you make stupid statements.

I posted the relevant part of the decision that lists other decisions about privacy.

Brandon9000 wrote:

The Constiution doesn't say that every common practice prior to its inception will be legal. Burglary was also common.

Burglary wasn't a "right" prior to the constitution. It was and still is a crime. If you don't know the difference you should maybe not post.


Privacy IS a right.

From Roe v Wade...

Quote:

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8 -9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453 -454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

What you mean is that you reserve the right to post false assertions, but become indignant when someone suggests that you provide a particle of evidence in support.

I'll tell you what, you're wrong and I'm right, and my proof is the public library in your town. I'm not going to "chase my tail for you." Go to the damn, library and you'll see.

Since you can't do even basic research that is available on the very device you have in front of you, don't expect any sympathy when you make stupid statements.

I posted the relevant part of the decision that lists other decisions about privacy.

A person making a particular assertion must offer evidence. You cannot rightfully make an assertion and then demand that people who disagree go determine that you're correct. If you make an assertion to people who disagree, it's you who have the responsibility to support it.

Your argument that something is in the Constitution because A said that B said that it's implied is insufficient. I defy you to do something more than quote opinions, and actually offer me a quotation from the Constitution, then give an argument that it shows that it means there is a right to abortions. You absolutely cannot do this.

The real fact is that I can justify any conclusion whatever about the Constitution as long as I am not required to actually show directly how it says what I want it to say. If the Constitution really said what you want it to, you could quote a passage from the document itself and show me how it justifies your conclusion.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Brandon9000 wrote:

parados wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

What you mean is that you reserve the right to post false assertions, but become indignant when someone suggests that you provide a particle of evidence in support.

I'll tell you what, you're wrong and I'm right, and my proof is the public library in your town. I'm not going to "chase my tail for you." Go to the damn, library and you'll see.

Since you can't do even basic research that is available on the very device you have in front of you, don't expect any sympathy when you make stupid statements.

I posted the relevant part of the decision that lists other decisions about privacy.

A person making a particular assertion must offer evidence. You cannot rightfully make an assertion and then demand that people who disagree go determine that you're correct. If you make an assertion to people who disagree, it's you who have the responsibility to support it.

So if I disagree with the statement you just made then it is your responsibility to support it.

OK.. I disagree.. I guess that means you have to provide something to back up your statement.


You do realize that you were told specifically where to find the information and given a link to it. It's not like you were told "go to the library and look it up." It took me all of 2 minutes to find and post the relevant part of Roe. Do you really want to claim that it isn't supported unless the person drives you to the library, checks out the book for you, highlights the section, and finally reads it aloud to you? Giving a specific source with a link that is readily available to a person sitting at the computer is not the same thing as saying "It's in the library."