|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jun 24, 2022 18:40:09 GMT
Never belonged there. It should be between a woman and her doctor. Legislators should stay the fuck out of it. And the ruling does NOT prevent Congress and the President from enacting a law making it legal. Something that should have been done ages ago. There is a true dichotomy in this country and your desires are irrelevant to them. Either the power resides with the Federal government, and the Constitution spells out specifically which powers those are, or they reside with the States. It's one or the other and abortion does not reside with the feds. Or they reside with the people, per the 10th Amendment. And this one belongs to the people. RBG was against the decision because she felt that it was the wrong case and ruled under the wrong part of the Constitution. She believed that it should have been ruled on under the Equal Protection Clause. Wrong. Federal laws CAN, in fact, override state laws. And this is NOT a states rights issue. Never was. The Equal Protection Clause should cover this issue. I said Congress and the President because it takes BOTH of those to enact a law. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 24, 2022 18:51:42 GMT
Trigger laws in multiple states will now force women and girls to bear the children of their rapists and pedo incestuous fathers. Then those people in those states need to vote those fuckers out and get things changed. You don't get to alter the Constitution to suit your wants and desires just because bad things are going to happen. You have to fight to get those bad things changed in the appropriate venue. No one has changed the Constitution. Will that was done was correcting a terrible ruling because the court at the time of RvW was too gutless to throw the case back to the states. Pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say "you have the right to kill viable babies for no reason other than you were too lazy to use birth control" isn't changing the Constitution. Those now rioting over this ruling are the same assholes who demanded forced vaccinations of everyone, forced censorship of facts that get in the way of their preferred narrative, etc. - essentially demanding that they ignore rights that the Constitution *explicitly* makes clear that we inherently have. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 24, 2022 18:53:20 GMT
There is a true dichotomy in this country and your desires are irrelevant to them. Either the power resides with the Federal government, and the Constitution spells out specifically which powers those are, or they reside with the States. It's one or the other and abortion does not reside with the feds. Or they reside with the people, per the 10th Amendment. And this one belongs to the people. RBG was against the decision because she felt that it was the wrong case and ruled under the wrong part of the Constitution. She believed that it should have been ruled on under the Equal Protection Clause. Wrong. Federal laws CAN, in fact, override state laws. And this is NOT a states rights issue. Never was. The Equal Protection Clause should cover this issue. I said Congress and the President because it takes BOTH of those to enact a law. Explain how the equal protection clause permits the killing of those who cannot consent to it. Go ahead, I'll wait... |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 24, 2022 18:55:44 GMT
There is a true dichotomy in this country and your desires are irrelevant to them. Either the power resides with the Federal government, and the Constitution spells out specifically which powers those are, or they reside with the States. It's one or the other and abortion does not reside with the feds. Or they reside with the people, per the 10th Amendment. And this one belongs to the people. RBG was against the decision because she felt that it was the wrong case and ruled under the wrong part of the Constitution. She believed that it should have been ruled on under the Equal Protection Clause. Wrong. Federal laws CAN, in fact, override state laws. And this is NOT a states rights issue. Never was. The Equal Protection Clause should cover this issue. I said Congress and the President because it takes BOTH of those to enact a law. The "or to the people" means that they can vote for their local elected officials and get things changed that way. The 10th Amendment was written to enshrine states rights and ensure that the Feds did not swallow up those rights. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 24, 2022 18:57:39 GMT
Then those people in those states need to vote those fuckers out and get things changed. You don't get to alter the Constitution to suit your wants and desires just because bad things are going to happen. You have to fight to get those bad things changed in the appropriate venue. No one has changed the Constitution. Will that was done was correcting a terrible ruling because the court at the time of RvW was too gutless to throw the case back to the states. Pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say "you have the right to kill viable babies for no reason other than you were too lazy to use birth control" isn't changing the Constitution. Those now rioting over this ruling are the same assholes who demanded forced vaccinations of everyone, forced censorship of facts that get in the way of their preferred narrative, etc. - essentially demanding that they ignore rights that the Constitution *explicitly* makes clear that we inherently have. The original Roe ruling was a change to the Constitution, though. It "added" a right that was not there prior to the ruling. This new ruling corrects that. The argument by the pro-choice crowd that this was a horrible decision is an appeal to go back and change the Constitution again to put in what they want to be there(but isn't). If they want the Constitution to give abortion rights, they need to get a new Amendment passed. |
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 24, 2022 19:03:41 GMT
No one has changed the Constitution. Will that was done was correcting a terrible ruling because the court at the time of RvW was too gutless to throw the case back to the states. Pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say "you have the right to kill viable babies for no reason other than you were too lazy to use birth control" isn't changing the Constitution. Those now rioting over this ruling are the same assholes who demanded forced vaccinations of everyone, forced censorship of facts that get in the way of their preferred narrative, etc. - essentially demanding that they ignore rights that the Constitution *explicitly* makes clear that we inherently have. The original Roe ruling was a change to the Constitution, though. It "added" a right that was not there prior to the ruling. This new ruling corrects that. The argument by the pro-choice crowd that this was a horrible decision is an appeal to go back and change the Constitution again to put in what they want to be there(but isn't). If they want the Constitution to give abortion rights, they need to get a new Amendment passed. I beg to differ. No amendment and no ratification = no change to the Constitution. That having been said, the Dems could have introduced a law to codify abortion at any time after the original ruling. Instead, they used it for it's intended purpose - to dupe the useful idiots into voting for them. The fact of the matter is that the States *always* were the ones who had the power to legislate abortion and - they did so before RvW, continued doing so after RvW, and will continue to do so now. |
|
|
|
Post by libtard on Jun 24, 2022 19:07:13 GMT
If Americans were less devoted to a defunct 250-year old document and more concerned with a dynamic legal system which reflects contemporary values, you would be a happier society.
Unfortunately you are a nation of bibliophilacs - unconcerned with the contents of the documents you revere, whether religious or secular - and entirely concerned with posturing in their name.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 24, 2022 19:11:50 GMT
The original Roe ruling was a change to the Constitution, though. It "added" a right that was not there prior to the ruling. This new ruling corrects that. The argument by the pro-choice crowd that this was a horrible decision is an appeal to go back and change the Constitution again to put in what they want to be there(but isn't). If they want the Constitution to give abortion rights, they need to get a new Amendment passed. I beg to differ. No amendment and no ratification = no change to the Constitution. That having been said, the Dems could have introduced a law to codify abortion at any time after the original ruling. Instead, they used it for it's intended purpose - to dupe the useful idiots into voting for them. The fact of the matter is that the States *always* were the ones who had the power to legislate abortion and - they did so before RvW, continued doing so after RvW, and will continue to do so now. It's a De Facto change, not an official one. Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling that something in the Constitution isn't there or vice versa, the De Facto change is instant |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jun 24, 2022 19:22:36 GMT
Or they reside with the people, per the 10th Amendment. And this one belongs to the people. RBG was against the decision because she felt that it was the wrong case and ruled under the wrong part of the Constitution. She believed that it should have been ruled on under the Equal Protection Clause. Wrong. Federal laws CAN, in fact, override state laws. And this is NOT a states rights issue. Never was. The Equal Protection Clause should cover this issue. I said Congress and the President because it takes BOTH of those to enact a law. The "or to the people" means that they can vote for their local elected officials and get things changed that way. The 10th Amendment was written to enshrine states rights and ensure that the Feds did not swallow up those rights. It's still not a states rights issue. The Equal Protection Clause should allow women to make the choice that they don't have to physically support a person with their own body that they don't consent to support. You can't be forced to donate your organs. You can't be forced to be connected to a living person to save their life. Why is this circumstance any different? |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 24, 2022 21:23:12 GMT
The "or to the people" means that they can vote for their local elected officials and get things changed that way. The 10th Amendment was written to enshrine states rights and ensure that the Feds did not swallow up those rights. It's still not a states rights issue. The Equal Protection Clause should allow women to make the choice that they don't have to physically support a person with their own body that they don't consent to support. You can't be forced to donate your organs. You can't be forced to be connected to a living person to save their life. Why is this circumstance any different? The Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply here. Wisconsin doesn't have to provide a minimum wage of $14.00 an hour just because California does. Nor does Alabama have to provide legal abortions just because New York does. You have to first prove that abortion is privilege of citizens of the U.S. under the Constitution in some other manner before this clause would kick in. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jun 24, 2022 21:31:09 GMT
It's still not a states rights issue. The Equal Protection Clause should allow women to make the choice that they don't have to physically support a person with their own body that they don't consent to support. You can't be forced to donate your organs. You can't be forced to be connected to a living person to save their life. Why is this circumstance any different? The Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply here. Wisconsin doesn't have to provide a minimum wage of $14.00 an hour just because California does. Nor does Alabama have to provide legal abortions just because New York does. You have to first prove that abortion is privilege of citizens of the U.S. under the Constitution in some other manner before this clause would kick in. And again, you ignore the other part of the argument. A person can't be forced to give support to another person with their own body without consent. Just like we can't force you to donate your organs. |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Jun 24, 2022 21:43:49 GMT
The Equal Protection Clause doesn't apply here. Wisconsin doesn't have to provide a minimum wage of $14.00 an hour just because California does. Nor does Alabama have to provide legal abortions just because New York does. You have to first prove that abortion is privilege of citizens of the U.S. under the Constitution in some other manner before this clause would kick in. And again, you ignore the other part of the argument. A person can't be forced to give support to another person with their own body without consent. Just like we can't force you to donate your organs. If you can find a way for the innocent baby to survive from the get go, then your comment will apply. Until then it's apples and oranges. You don't have an inherent right to murder a baby just because nature didn't set it up in a way that benefits you. This isn't the same as organ donation. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Jun 24, 2022 22:26:36 GMT
And again, you ignore the other part of the argument. A person can't be forced to give support to another person with their own body without consent. Just like we can't force you to donate your organs. If you can find a way for the innocent baby to survive from the get go, then your comment will apply. Until then it's apples and oranges. You don't have an inherent right to murder a baby just because nature didn't set it up in a way that benefits you. This isn't the same as organ donation. Nope, the comment applies the whole time. It's still a separate life that we cannot force a woman to support. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Jun 24, 2022 23:19:15 GMT
Things like that should never belong to the state. It's a personal right, therefore a federal matter.
Republicans just lost the midterms with this stunt.
|
|
|
|
Post by 3catcircus on Jun 25, 2022 0:32:03 GMT
Things like that should never belong to the state. It's a personal right, therefore a federal matter.
Republicans just lost the midterms with this stunt.
Tell us you don't understand the SCOTUS ruling *nor* the Constitution without telling us you don't understand the SCOTUS ruling *nor* the Constitution... |
|
