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

What part of my post was wrong?

I could be wrong about many things and thats why I should not use government to push my beliefs when I think I am right. The same power you justify will be used for what you oppose.

 

We all know what happened after that. Lefties like yourself hate the constitution because you can't wield it like a sword to get your way so you spend your little lives trying to undermine it.
Thats what happens after

 

That is far beyond my expertise. Besides I don't know all of the rights that might be asserted. Of the ones in question, IMO their is unenumerated constitutional rights for inter-racial measures, the purchase of birth control, and gay relationships. There is no unenumerated constitutional right to abortion or same sex marriage. That's my $1.95 worth.

 

Vacuous allegations, your rebuttal is inadequate. You'll need a more substantive rebuttal than that than to toss a bunch of ad homs.

Ahh, so the basis for your ad homs is your total failure to grasp what I wrote. Sorry, I asserted no such thing.

Ditto, i.e., Ahh, so the basis for your ad homs is your total misunderstanding of what I wrote. Sorry, I asserted no such thing.
I did assert that rights decreed via penumbra reasoning can be removed, though it would be rare. The only time I know it to have happened was the ruling on Dobbs repealing Roe.

Sorry, I asserted no such thing.

I'll file that in the wishful thinking file.

Your question has an assumed premise, most likely arising from the aforementioned failures to grasp my previous comments.

Since your above premises are assumed, and incorrect, your subsequent question is moot.

You should read carefully what someone writes, before you pull an arrow from your quiver.

 

Your point:

It was an egregious abuse of power.

Is 100% wrong.

 

i might normally agree, but we recently had a president who declared a national emergency because a few lettuce pickers wanted to go to work. but even trump knew a fake pandemic when he could blame everyone else for it and take no responsibility at all.

 

For the same reason we make most other homicides illegal.

 

So, clearly, you need to understand the difference between birth control and abortion. Unless you're now asserting that abortion is birth control. I recall folks, like you, disputing that abortion was used as a convenience like that. Get to the legislature, where mr Alito said you can legislate to your little hearts content. I seems that truly is what scares you. I doubt that anyone disagrees with you about the state's role in this. Of course, what your comment doesn't do is then place any responsibility on women who should then know better. Should women not want pregnancy, shouldn't they ensure they don't become pregnant? Or did this escape your grasp today?

 

Oh boy, that's rich coming from one who pretends the Ninth does not say what it means or mean what it says.

 

Abortion is not homicide.

 

There is so much evidence, so many facts that show it was planned it would blow your fragile mind. That's why you've convinced yourself that those facts and evidence do not exist. Incessant propaganda does not deceive people, it merely helps them deceive themselves.

Did you know that one of the good things Trump did was to take the US out of WHO?

And then Josef Biden put us back into it.

You and many others, all of us basically, were fooled 2 years ago. Many now understand that, but many will never understand it.

 

I admire you for admitting it's beyond your expertise.

The larger point is that as Madison noted 2 centuries ago, an exhaustive listing of the rights of man is impossible.

Your argument here fails because you alone claim to know which rights are not enumerated. As we used to say in the Catholic church, you seem to be a Cafeteria Catholic, picking and choosing which rights are included and which are not. How do YOU know which are?

Simple answer: you cannot know. In the case above you pick the ones you like, and you reject the ones you don't like. My guess is religious dogma drives that view.

 

That is an opinion I don't share. Sorry.

 

Yes, of course, the language of the Ninth Amendment is so difficult to interpret.

 

And so is the 10th?

 

RBG famously thought the right came from the 14th A.

 

Your logic is good but your conclusion is wrong. My opinion is based on my understanding of the constitution, not on any desires I might have. I couldn't care less about same sex marriage for instance but IMO it is not a federally constitutional guaranteed right. In any case I don't make the official determination. If anybody does it is the supreme court. There is still a (unresolvable) hazard with that in that SCOTUS, made up of nine humans who happen to wear black robes, is often a long ways from interpreting the constitutional and instead very close to exerting their desire and opinion. (By often I don't mean most but too many.) Plus, a big (and probably the only) error made by the framers IMHO was not putting any checks and balances on the third branch of government, so only the court itself can rectify its errors. Of course the framers had no conceivable idea SCOTUS would be so powerful.

 

some on the right think government should decide for women, simple as that, they want a nanny government, they do not want freedom

 

You can say that, but we have 2 years of results that make it extremely easy for me to defend my position on merit. While your argument is equivalent to "nuh uh" I can show the ineffectiveness of the product being forced, and the double standard when it came to shutting down businesses.

Lets start with the risk if hospitalization/death for children and healthy people. Its close to zero.
Now lets review the sales pitch behind the product being forced. It is to prevent contracting and spreading the virus. Did you know that the vast majority of new cases were among the "vaccinated" ?

These two facts alone make mandates an extreme abuse of power. You will not be able to justify your support for these mandates with facts.

What you have is a belief you wish to be forced on others using government might. That doesn't put you in a position to claim you have a sincere opposition to government abusing power when they impose abortion laws. If anything, their argument is far stronger as abortions end a life 100% of the time and Covid, less than 1%.

I say your support for overreach you agree with earned you the overreach you oppose.

 

Coming from the poster that thinks abortion is in the constitution. lol

 

The Federalists won. Yes, they lost the argument about the Bill of Rights, but the anti-Federalists didn't get "expressed" as a modifier on "enumerated" as it appeared in the Articles of Confederation, but the anti-Federalists have turned out to be right at every turn. Even Jefferson proved to be simply human when he was in power. We have seen what happens when a Kenyan who did not have the benefit of a an American father to influence his understanding of liberty came to power in violation of the natural born citizen clause.

No one has been denied anything. They have been given the right to vote for Congressmen and Senators to influence the powers and rights that were not enumerated as issues to be dealt with by the Feds.

The people who put the justices on the bench were Obama and Reid when they nuked the Senate to stack the lower courts and thought that they would be given Fascist Democrat Merrick Garland as a backstop on the Supreme Court. The Kenyan and Harry Reid,,, yes, Harry, who stated that he adhered to the Stalinist tenet that his desired end justifies any means,,,own the current Supreme Court and the divisive politics we are experiencing.

 

Trump, as always, is an exception to norms. I was referring to Biden.

 

If you premised a point on this, you need to show me. I just reply to what is in front of me. Based on what was supplied in your post, I stand by the comment. If you have more substance, the onus is on you to produce it. I'll consider any facts or evidence you supply.

Your arguments will be more credible if you approach word usage with greater care.

As it stands, above, you are sloppy with terms. I.e., your usage of 'blow your fragile mind', has absolutely no debate significance whatsoever.

Your cavalier usage of weighty terms indicates you are not articulating with much care or precision and you are under the false impression that posturing (which is what your phrase 'blow your fragile mind' falls under, in debate methodology, as posturing, and all of its flavors, are pseudo debate tricks).

Given your willingness to do that, it throws into question your credibility insofar as properly evaluating data and facts, and current events.

I will admit, however, you are not alone in your sloppiness, it is much more common than it is not. But, that is no excuse. Most of us have been guilty of such tactics, and I do it, as well, here and there, but never to improve an argument. I usually do it to end a discourse that is going nowhere.

Oh, really? How about this, how about you produce said evidence. I'm open to whatever you may turn up.

Your point is?

That's a claim. In a debate, whenever you make a claim, the onus on you is to:

1. Give the solid path of reasoning and logic, and, if possible, with examples reasonable people can agree on are real, etc.
2. Give evidence, links to documents, testimonies, court rulings, authoritative essays/videos, etc, anything that will help solidify (though it might not necessarily prove) your argument.

I'll be waiting for your argument as to why what Trump did regarding WHO was a good thing. I'm not convinced, either way.

As stated above, Posturing, and all it's flavors, such as the above statement by you, does not improve an argument. It is a non argument.

 

Abuse of power is an allegation which is based on specific things.

A policy result only goes to the caliber of the policy, it has no bearing on what constitutes an abuse of power.

For example, the Fed could raise interest rates, overcompensate, and it might cause an overcorrection manifested in a temporal economic downtown greated than desired, which the opposite will seize as a 'mistake'.

But, even if the claim by the opposition were true, even if the Fed made a policy mistake, that is not what abuse of power means.

You toss around the term cavalierly without regard to what the term actually means.

YOu have not provided one iota of evidence that mandates were an abuse of power.

A good example of an abuse of power is where Trump tried to extract concessions from Zelensky, concessions that would benefit Trump's campaign, with the withholding of already congressional appropriated funds. An abuse of power, for example, was when Trump ordered everyone testifying in the impeachment, en masse, to defy all subpoenas ( before any facts ). Another example of an abuse of power would have been if Trump succeeded in getting the DOJ to seize all the voting machines, or if Trump had succeeded in corruptly declaring martial law, things of this nature.

Mask mandates, which are not force, if done in a pandemic, are not abuses of power. They are about as far from what the term means as one can get.

Clearly, you have no clue as the term's meaning.

 

The birther argument has long since debunked.

Given your willingness to traffic in weasel words/unnecessary terms of disparagement, your credibility is not a level that merits a proper response.

You have earned my kill file ( excuse the old Usenet expression, I believe they now call it the 'ignore function' ).

congratulations.

Btw, don't worry, I never put people on ignore permanently.