CNN Goons Heads Explode After Republicans Big Win in Texas

Well they still have it, it just cost them $10 an hour and we tax payers BILLIONS

 

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

This has all been covered in prior posts. I can't be expected to teach you the constitution. Start with the link above.

For help with the 9th amendment I leave you a quote from James Madison who spearheaded it...oh and please don't tell me Madison is deep state.

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against."

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ix/interps/131

 

Wwwwww2ws

Yep. Mostly seen as an excuse for SCOTUS to do whatever damn fool thing leftist think of as cool these days. Beyond that those things are left to the states, cities, and individuals. Whether Abortion is one such is an entirely debatable proposition.

 

Yes, Southern WHITE Racists did cherish their slavery. It doesn't seem to have changed at all. Southern WHITE Racists look to their utopian plantation model. And facts do matter. Southern WHITE Racists today don't seem to be any different from the cats they were long ago.

Fixed YOUR post for you at NO charge!

 

Excuse for SCOTUS for leftists? Roe v wade was decided by 7 repubs and 2 dems...and one of the dems was against it.

As a matter of fact, SCOTUS has not leaned Democrat appointed Judges in just about 60 years.

By the way, anything is "debatable".

 

Exactly right.

 

Joe Biden.... not exactly a "southern racist" but still a racist. Wasn't it Joe who extolled that Obama was "clean, and articulate.. you know... for one of them". Classic. And he's from Delaware. Or do you now suppose that Delaware is a southern state? I'd suggest that it's the liberal elite who are racists, and every one of their identity politics policies continue to demonstrate just how unchanged from their LBJ days as they are today. Try focusing that insufferable smug on yourself.

 

Apalling ignorance the Warren Court was the most progressive Court in US history.

 

Kindly REFRAIN from PROJECTING your own "insufferable smug" on others!

 

Ok. 53 years. My bad.

I did say about 60 years though but you can have the victory. Good job.

 

Funny as lead boots in a swimming competition.

 

Your ignorance of that great document is duly noted:

"Professor John Eidsmoe writes: "The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America. "The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' "
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law (nccs.net)

So what you're saying that the right to life has nothing to do with laws against murder?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but it appears to be yet another libertarian smokescreen to move the discussion away from the murder of the unborn.

You realize that you made an argument for partial birth abortion, right up until the point of birth don't you? The writers of that great document would disagree;

Is abortion constitutional? Let's ask the founders (fpiw.org)

As you learned in the above link, the Founding Fathers recognized an unborn baby "stirring in the womb" as a human being (due to lack of medical technology, that's all that they had to go on). Regarding the 5th Amendment: It starts off talking about Capital Crimes and that a person can't be put to death without due process, i.e. in order to kill an unborn baby, it would have to be shown that if the pregnancy were to continue, the mother would die, something that just doesn't happen in this day and age of modern medicine.

 

I know what Madison said. That doesn't mean that you can call anything and everything that you want to a Right.

As for RvW, did you even bother to read your own Britannica link?

Just as I have said previously. RvW was about Right to Privacy and State interests. Nothing in your link has shown that abortion is a Right, nor even an implied Right.

 

I know it doesn't. It was SCOTUS that called it a right, not me.

Yes.

Are you sure you know what unenumerated rights are? Are you saying that the right to travel, marriage, presumption of innocence and abortion, among others, aren't rights? That states can revoke them any time they want?

That is some crazy stuff.

 

You do realize that you used a site that is religious in nature right? Here:

LINK: United States Code | govinfo
LINK: OLRC Home (house.gov)

You'll note that "Front Matter", where Organic Laws are listed and under which the DoI is listed is not a part of the title that is considered active law. At best you have a case for prima facie evidence of the law. But since Congress has not declared it law it is still not considered the law of the land. The courts have referred to it many times. But it has never been considered as law.

Right to life is mentioned in the 14th Amendment. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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."

You don't know what the DoI talks about? And you holler about me not knowing what its about? Here, let me refresh your memory:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,"

That's talking about treason. Or did you not know that?

The Family Policy Institute is a pro-life site. Why are you using biased sources? It doesn't matter what the Founding Fathers thought a baby was because they never addressed babies or abortion in the Constitution. If they had then it would be relevant. I agree that in the day and age abortion was considered bad and there were many laws against abortion. However the Founding Fathers had a lot of beliefs and stances. They did not put all of them into the Constitution. Thereby leaving it up to future generations in how the country would be shaped. If they thought that noting that a baby was alive the moment of quickening, or conception, was that important then they should have mentioned it, if only passingly in the Constitution. We cannot make law based on everything that the FF's thought.

Now, they do talk about life. But in every single mention of the word "person" or similar instance (IE: people etc etc) it references only things that is possible for someone that is already born. As such, the Constitution is silent on pre-born.

 

Where has SCOTUS called abortion a Right? You referred to Britannica but you never pointed out where they said abortion was a right.

The rest of your examples has been ruled on by the courts in the past.

 

Lol. Are you pulling my leg?

That is what roe v wade did was make it a right.

Are you expecting me to post a statement from SCOTUS where they specifically stood up and declared, "Low and behold! We as SCOTUS have gathered to ponder whether abortion is protected by the constitution. Here yee here yee, let it be known across the multiverse that we declare abortion as a right. Now go forth my children and abort!"

Haha. You should be a comedian.

Good grief.

 

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
Your ignorance of that great document [The Declaration of Independence] is duly noted:

"Professor John Eidsmoe writes: "The role of the Declaration of Independence in American law is often misconstrued. Some believe the Declaration is simply a statement of ideas that has no legal force whatsoever today. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Declaration has been repeatedly cited by the U.S. Supreme Court as part of the fundamental law of the United States of America. "The United States Code Annotated includes the Declaration of Independence under the heading 'The Organic Laws of the United States of America' along with the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Enabling acts frequently require states to adhere to the principles of the Declaration; in the Enabling Act of June 16, 1906, Congress authorized Oklahoma Territory to take steps to become a state. Section 3 provides that the Oklahoma Constitution 'shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.' "
The Declaration of Independence Part of American Law (nccs.net)

My preference is libertarian/God-hating/atheist/secular humanist websites, but I couldn't find any information of how the Declaration of Independence is or isn't part of American law there, so I had to go to one of them thar "religious in nature" websites.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the DoI was and still is a part of American law (hence due process laws and capital murder crimes). Yes, I concede that things like homosexuality (the Founding Fathers referred to it as "that infamous crime against nature") and abortion are currently considered "active law" in our barbaric nation, but it wasn't always that way.

Thank you so much for making my case. Since libertarian leaning SCOTUS Justices declared homosexuality (i.e. "that infamous crime against nature") and abortion the law of the land instead of Congress doing so, those rulings are not the law of the land (give a libertarian a rope...).

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
So what you're saying that the right to life has nothing to do with laws against murder?

As I mentioned in an earlier post: If you're saying that the right to life only extends to those that are outside of the womb, then you're arguing for making abortion legal up until the time of birth. As I'd also shown in a previous link, the Founding Fathers were very pro life.

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
I have no idea what you're talking about, but it appears to be yet another libertarian smokescreen to move the discussion away from the murder of the unborn.

How about we extend that to the cold blooded murder of 60+ million unborn babies in the womb here in the United States in the past 48 years, would that be grounds to abolish the current government?

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
You realize that you made an argument for partial birth abortion, right up until the point of birth don't you? The writers of that great document would disagree;

Is abortion constitutional? Let's ask the founders (fpiw.org)

As you learned in the above link, the Founding Fathers recognized an unborn baby "stirring in the womb" as a human being (due to lack of medical technology, that's all that they had to go on). Regarding the 5th Amendment: It starts off talking about Capital Crimes and that a person can't be put to death without due process, i.e. in order to kill an unborn baby, it would have to be shown that if the pregnancy were to continue, the mother would die, something that just doesn't happen in this day and age of modern medicine.

Because your pro abortion sites don't tell the truth.

If you knew anything about the Constitution, which obviously you don't, you'd know that it wasn't the purpose of that document to mention things like murder/abortion, homosexuality/pedophilia, recreational drug use, prostitution and pornography (things that libertarians....which you're not...cough cough...call "liberty! and "freedom!") those things were left up to the respective States. Guess what, every State criminalized those immoral and destructive behaviors (theocrats!)

I'd love to see a single quote or numerous quotes by one or more of the Founding Fathers stating they're leaving it up to future generations to decide if killing babies in the womb or "that infamous crime against nature" should be legal. Look hard.

On the contrary: John Adams said just the opposite when he stated to a brigade of military officers: "Our Constitution was made ONLY for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate for for the government of any other."

 

No, it didn't. Point to where it did. And yes, when it comes to SCOTUS they actually have to say it. Assuming it does not cut it. Not when it comes to the law and what is and isn't a Right. Even your own Britannica link specifically says LINK: "The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe’s assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time". The case was decided on a Right to Privacy. Not a supposed Right to Abortion.

 

Should have stuck with one of your preferences.

Yeah...progress happens. A shame isn't it?

Why are you making things up?

Except in RvW the court said that at the point of viability the State has an interest and is able to set aside the right to privacy.

If you feel that you have the support to overthrow the government based on this then by all means, go for it. I won't be holding my breath though.

What pro-abortion site did I use? The only links I have given you are .gov sites in regards to the DoI. Any other links I have used are the ones that you yourself has provided. Or did I forget something?

*sigh* Another person assuming what I am and am not. I'm not a Libertarian. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I'm what would be considered a True Independent. I do not follow any party. Nor have I ever been a part of any party. I believe as Thomas Jefferson did. That parties are a necessary evil and if being in a party was a requisite for getting into heaven I would decline going into heaven.

Where did I say that they said that? Oh right, I didn't. I said that anything not in the Constitution was left to future generations.

Don't care what he told his military officers. :shrug:

 

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the DoI was and still is a part of American law (hence due process laws and capital murder crimes). Yes, I concede that things like homosexuality (the Founding Fathers referred to it as "that infamous crime against nature") and abortion are currently considered "active law" in our barbaric nation, but it wasn't always that way.

It really is sad in a pathetic way that you "I am NOT a libertarian! libertarians" consider things like death "progress".



I believe it was a libertarian forefairy that stated the following:

"There will be victims on the road to liberty and freedom". What he didn't say was 60 million of them will be unborn babies.

On that note: have a wonderful "I am NOT a libertarian! libertarian" day.

(Sigh, my very bestest friend in the whoooole wide world tries so hard...)

 

You holler about libertarians and trying to deflect away from talking about abortion and here is a post of you talking about deaths from aids. Which has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Rights of women? When did it become a right for a woman to take half the paycheck of a man when they get divorced. We had a security guard at my work who got a huge promotion to maintenance at my work (a jump from working class wages to middle class wages). His wife immediately divorced him (within weeks of the promotion). He ended up alone and after paying alimony and child support did not make enough to live on, he committed suicide within two years of his big promotion. Now that woman gets nothing. There is something sick and demented about a system that incentivizes women to leave marriages that offer them financial stability.... they now can get the stability at the expense of the man they divorce.

Women were happier..... MUCH MUCH MUCH happier when they were caregivers and lived at home. When they took care of men, the home and the children. Women were DESIGNED to do this... IT IS A BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE. The suicide and depression rates for women are unparalled in American history. The "rights" the left give to women are the right to be unhappy, childless and alone.... sex toys for chad men in their youth and discarded as they age out of their prime. To add injury to injury, now cross-dressing men are more female than women, women can't even have their own sex anymore.

 

Of course SCOTUS placed restrictions.

When I stated abortion was a constitutional right, I did not mean to imply under any and all circumstances. I didn't think I needed to. All rights, from the 1st, 2nd and on, have restrictions.

When I state that roe v wade legalized abortion, I meant within the constraints of the decision. My bad I guess...it just seemed common sense to me.

To reiterate, abortion is a constitutional right based on restraints set forth by the decision.

Does that work for you?