Let's get something straight about 'enumerated' vs 'unenumerated' rights

Please link to the events you vaguely refer to.

Thank you.

 

Please put a 'question mark' at the end of a sentence when you ask a question.

Question has an assumed premise.

First, you must prove your premise or at least achieve a meeting of mind with the persons to whom you put the question, and then, and only then, can you ask the question. Otherwise, only a fool would attempt to answer a question with a premise with which that person does not see to eye with.

Moot points, per above.

I'm in the school of thought which says rights are not things subject to majority vote. Once granted, we do not take them away. However, for the first time in history, this court did precisely that.

 

The left makes it so easy to tell they have no idea what the constitution is.
The constitution is provided ONLY to control the governments actions against the people.
The ONLY constitutional rights in the constitution governs the power of the people over the government
It doesn't give you any other rights what so ever.
Now you can start over with your rant.

 

Please reread the comment, it answers your question.

 

I read it and I didn't see the answer I wouldn't have asked the question if I did. Show me where.

 

Of course. You said "The only time I support vaccine mandates are during pandemics and regionally for endemics." You justified abuse of power. You don't honestly believe that the powerful government you support wouldn't abuse power for things you oppose, do you? Here we have hypocrites in both parties pushing their own brand of overreach under the guise of protecting you. This feigned concern for rights is not fooling me.

 

You are alleging that mandates during a pandemic is an abuse of power.

That's not even logical.

The Government has a responsibility to protect the health and well being of the nation, and a pandemic is a direct threat.

You don't protect the nation by being nice, you must take decisive action, and a vaccine mandate that has passed FDA scrutiny given the gravity of circumstance, is not abuse. IN fact, to not mandate would have been dereliction.

Therefore, I suggest that you support dereliction.

I gave a solid path of logic and reasoning for my position, you have only offered a vacuous allegation.

Your argument would only have merit if the government made it illegal to refuse vaccination, but it didn't.

 

Interesting. So, once say slave owners could have slaves... You couldn't take that right away from them?

 

Might you expand on which non-enumerated rights the people have and which they do not have? How this can be determined?

 

What happens to your reasoning when any given 'pandemic' is contrived?

 

Yes. It was an egregious abuse of power. First responders and health care workers had no idea how serious Covid would be, but they showed up for work and put in long hours. A political pharma product came out and they were given an ultimatum; get the shot or get fired.

These politicians care about you so much, they closed the mom n pop stores so you wouldn't catch covid in these stores. They preferred you caught covid going to Walmart or any of the giants with political power.

The level of gullibility it takes to believe that government was trying to protect our health is profound. If you believe that, then enjoy government protecting the unborn. They are just trying to help.

 

Sorry but it is still her baby's life.

 

And the fact that its inhabiting her body means she gets to decide if it stays there.

 

According to you.

 

Why should someone else decide?

 

That's one way of telling us you can't tell the difference between law, and a hole in the ground.

 

It certainly confirms you have no clue what the constitution is or the reason for its provisions.

 

You are comparing the right to own slaves to the right of a woman to have bodily autonomy ( within the parameters of Roe ) ?

Say it isn't so.

 

Im not, actually. I suggesting your standard would allow for this. I know, you didn't think about it, but perhaps you should. If, as you suggest, once granted the right, irrespective of what that right is/was, that government shouldn't be able to take it away. Do you retract your statement? If not, you're literally saying that the government couldn't have taken away the right of folks to own slaves. Sorry, this isn't hard, but you seem to not want to accept the responsibility for your own assertion and it's consequences. So like progressives.

 

What happens to debates in general, when it is allowed to offer unreasonable hypotheticals?

See, Eleuthera, you don't argue against contrivance when your point, itself, is contrived.

You really think a president of these united states would declare a pandemic,
commit vast resources to it, without advice from the NIH, FDA, CDC, HHS, et al?

Next time, think your question through before asking the question.

 

Your comparison is absurd. There is a threshold having something to do with what is reasonable, fair and just.

Bodily autonomy is reasonable. Defining a fetus as a person at the third trimester is reasonable. I would even compromise at 15 weeks to end the fight.

However, Enslaving humans is not.

So, you can't use a 'standard' or a 'principle' when the comparison puts the absurd and unjust against the fair and reasonable.

That is a disingenuous argument.

 

And you have no idea what happened after that.

 

LOL.. No, your assertion is sophomoric and puerile. Accept that you didn't consider the potential outcome, and move along. People usually grow from their mistakes. Learn from this. Suggesting the example is absurd just demonstrates how insular your thinking is.

Look, you've asserted that a right is anything a democracy chooses to ascribe to its citizens. Anything, no context or limits. And, you've also argued that rights can be removed, ie, the 2nd amendment, among others. Your credibility here is slim to none. So which is it? Can government take rights that you don't approve of away then? Is that what you're now asserting to be your standard?

 

I think the argument is the 9th A blows up Alito's rationale that because the right to access birth control services is not an enumerated constitutional right, it doesn't mean the state can force a woman to carry a fetus to term against her will.

 

You are 100% wrong, we will just have to disagree and leave it there.