16
   

God Damnit, Texas.

 
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 09:34 am
@Brandon9000,
the internet is to debate what demolition derby is to auto racing.

get a life...
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 09:46 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion.


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

Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 09:57 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
The Constitution doesn't mention abortion.


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



The liberals have been using the courts as continuation of elections by other means. The justices frequently start with the conclusion they wish to reach and then write words to justify them. The arguments are fictitious. You cannot use that clause to nullify votes because you don't like them. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution. There is, however, a right of the people to be able to determine the laws that they'll live under. People whose votes are habitually annulled (including the votes of Congress people they elected) are reasonable in believing that something so significant has been done to them that a radical response would be justified.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 10:11 am
@Brandon9000,
The Republicans have been passing laws that are unconstitutional.

It's called balance of powers. Deal with it.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 10:18 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

The Republicans have been passing laws that are unconstitutional.

It's called balance of powers. Deal with it.

My assertion is that it's being used by liberals to annul laws they don't like by saying whatever words are required to justify fictitious interpretations of the Constitution - that it is being used as a continuation of voting by other means. Certainly the Founders didn't intend the courts to be used that way. You simply claim that the Constitution says whatever you want it to, even in areas it never refers to at all, and then write words to justify it. My right to vote has now been significantly curtailed. Even if I can persuade people to enact laws I believe in by huge majorities, you will simply annul them (the laws).
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 10:25 am
@Rockhead,
You mean people lie on this forem. Shocked
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 10:58 am
@Brandon9000,
Quote:

My point is that liberal court justices, when considering major social issues, tend to start from the decision that they want and then use whatever tortured logic is necessary to reach it. They are simply legislating. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion.

The Constitution doesn't mention a right to privacy so according to your reading the government can read your mail whenever they want to. They can collect your phone data without needing a court order.

Of course you fail to read the entire US Constitution when it comes to your interpretation. The 9th amendment reads as follows:
Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So just because a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a right.


Quote:
They are simply legislating. The Constitution doesn't mention abortion.
Since you want to bring up the fact that the Constitution doesn't mention abortion then that would mean it is not a power granted to government therefor they can't pass any laws concerning abortion. And if you want to argue that means it reverts to the states then we are back to rights not enumerated in the Constitution and the 14th amendment.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 01:58 pm
@Brandon9000,
Oddly enough, the powers of the courts are enumerated in the Constitution.

Why do you hate the Constitution and America?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 06:06 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
Perhaps with any luck, even in those gerrymandering districts, enough women, gays, minorities and immigrants will start to get enough of it and vote against them.

That may well happen. The nice thing about gerrymandering districts is that it only works when a state's popular vote breaks down closely enough to even. When there's a clear majority against the gerrymandering party, gerrymandered districts have the effect of turning a moderate deficit in votes into a landslide against it. That's what happened in Congress in 2006 and 2008. Whether it has a chance of happening in 2014, I don't know.
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Sun 28 Jul, 2013 06:08 pm
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
These republican state might have the power to ram laws down women's throats

Your throats too, I guess, though I've been informed they're more focused on other body cavities of yours.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Mon 29 Jul, 2013 06:25 am
@Thomas,
http://www.battlegroundtexas.com/content/home

So it seems that Texas Democrats were sending a lot of the money out of state, and that may be changing.

There is talk of being able to turn Texas purple in four years. (They think two years is too quick.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » God Damnit, Texas.
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/07/2019 at 07:45:17