• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:#310]Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty'

NWRatCon said:
I beg to differ, friend. We got it from you. :)
Click to expand...

Yep, that appears to be the case.

Civil forfeiture in the United States is a holdover from English law. It was commonly used by the government during the Prohibition era to seize the property of bootleggers in an attempt to stymie the production and sale of illicit alcohol. When Prohibition ended, civil forfeiture was still available but not so commonly used until the War on Drugs began in the 1980’s.
Click to expand...

www.law.cornell.edu

civil forfeiture

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 
NWRatCon said:
God, you really don't understand the concept at all, do you?

Due Process is a continuum, not a black and white thing (I understand that you don't see gray). The process that is due is based upon the circumstances.

Also, you have mixed apples and oranges in your assertion. I spent several years prosecuting civil asset forfeiture cases. ALL of the ones I dealt with were well within the concept, although there were a number of jurisdictions which got ridiculous with it, and there I would agree with you (seizing cars from Johns, for example). Of course, my experience was with explicitly drug dealers, so that was a much easier case to make. Red flag laws are a completely different issue. That's a balancing of personal versus public safety.
Click to expand...

OK, then you know the substantial cost of civil litigation, the huge advantage of resources held by the state and that winning a civil judgement does not obligate anyone but the winner to try to recover its (monetary?) value from the loser.

It’s not as if when you win in civil court the state (or court) will then collect your judgement (from the losing party) and hand it to you in cash. All you get (win?) is an official looking IOU which you must then try to collect (convert to a legal lien on some property owned by the loser?).
 
Credence said:
Nice try. That is a whole nother topic
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. We either have the right to privacy or we don't.

Virtually everyone considers their finances to be a private matter, that's why it's consider rude to even ask someone about their income.
 
aociswundumho said:
Great, so that must also include financial privacy as well, meaning the government has no business knowing how much money someone makes or how they made it.
Click to expand...
16th amendment
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I think that without text the alleged individual “right to privacy” is largely a figment of the imagination’s of the current SCOTUS majority opinion. For example, can this “right to privacy” be abridged or denied? According to RvW yes, based on a SCOTUS declared (defined?) ‘compelling state interest‘. What is a ‘compelling state interest’? Who knows, since that appears to be entirely up to the SCOTUS as well.
Click to expand...
You trot that stupidity out any time the Ninth Amendment is mentioned. The Ninth Amendment explicitly states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It's in the Constitution. It has meaning. Courts have to give it force, as Griswold, and many other cases have noted.
ttwtt78640 said:
After all, if the government has the power to take private property via civil asset forfeiture and/or red flag laws then you have no individual Constitutional rights (not even the right to due process of law or trial with a jury of your peers before a sentence is imposed) - they are all merely state issued privileges subject to “reasonable restriction” or barely limited abuse.
Click to expand...
I think the word is "obtuse". my friend, as in, that assertion is decidedly "obtuse".

Let me state clearly, I am not, generally, in favor of asset forfeiture laws, except in the most egregious of circumstances. I readily admit that law enforcement (and legislatures), got way out over its skis in dreaming up ways to use it. But the assertion that "the power to take private property via civil asset forfeiture and/or red flag laws" renders rights "merely state issued privileges" is, generously, asinine. The assertion's relationship to the Constitution is not even tentative, it is at best ephemeral.

Do you even know what the, say, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment, 14th Amendment actually say? How about the Seventh?
 
rahl said:
16th amendment
Click to expand...

What about it?

People have the right to buy, sell, and drink alcohol, and the 18th amendment didn't change any of that, it only violated their rights to do so.

If the right to privacy exists, then the IRS is violating it every single day.
 
NWRatCon said:
You trot that stupidity out any time the Ninth Amendment is mentioned. The Ninth Amendment explicitly states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It's in the Constitution. It has
meaning. Courts have to give it force, as Griswold, and many other cases have noted.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. It's been mentioned in a handful of cases in the entire history of the supreme court. The supremes have not "give[n] it force", because if they did, 99% of the federal government would be abolished.
 
rahl said:
It gives the govn't the right to know your personal finances.

lol, no

Nope. 16th amendment.
Click to expand...
You're not going to get anywhere that way, my friend. You're using facts, logic and reality to try to convince an ideologue with no conception of reality that their position is wrong (which it most obviously is). You have to appeal to some sky being or fantasy figure to convince them. Reference to logic or the Constitution itself ... fugetaboutit.
 
NWRatCon said:
'Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.' Section 54—196, General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.)

This was the statute that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut. In doing so, the Supreme Court stated, "This law... operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation." As the Court then put it, "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights older than our political parties, older than our school system." We are on the precipice of laws such as this being reinstated around the country. Do we want to be?

The Court rested its decision on the concept that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." It is the same basis that informed the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. But three of the then-Justices, in concurrence, went further and specifically addressed the Ninth Amendment's application to the issue: "My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution1 is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment." ('The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.')

The concurrence noted that "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments." They concluded "the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people."

I have always preferred the concurrence's argument over the "penumbra" argument, as it stands on firmer footing. I think almost anyone would agree that privacy is a fundamental interest of all of us, even if it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution's "Bill of Rights". As the concurrence notes, "The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments. I do not see how this broadens the authority of the Court; rather it serves to support what this Court has been doing in protecting fundamental rights."

How are we to protect fundamental rights from governmental erasure if we don't acknowledge that the Constitution is broader than its four corners?
Click to expand...
No, there cannot be a "fundamental right of privacy" because that would allow some people to do things of which other people disapprove. That simply cannot stand!

Patients must not have the right to privately consult with their physician or other healthcare providers, lest that lead to the patient choosing to do something like use oral contraceptives to ease menstrual pain, or God forbid, prevent an unwanted pregnancy!

It could lead to individuals engaging in promiscuous sexual activity of which others find to be an abomination in the eyes of almighty God. God's chosen are responsible for making sure others do nothing that would offend God. Must have laws to stop them.

Nope, there is no right to privacy, and we are all going to know it next month when SCOTUS unveils its ruling on ROE.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, that appears to be the case.



www.law.cornell.edu

civil forfeiture

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure it isn't used here in the way it is in the US.

The way it's used in the US is completely scandalous.
There's plenty of stories of people whose only crime was to have some cash on them when they get stopped by the police.
The police seize the cash and claim that it could possibly be the proceeds of some unexplained crime and it's the job of the person who just had their money stolen to prove it isn't the proceeds of crime.
Even when evidence is shown that the money is totally fine and part of a completely legal transaction like simply a person buying a car from a private owner the police often still keep the money and demand the person go through an expensive court case to get back money the police illegally seized.

Lawyer Steve Lehto has done a fair few videos about the subject and why it's such a problem.
 
My wife just shared a Facebook post (I don't use it) that is completely relevant to this thread.

"Opinions on abortion are like nipples, everyone has one, but women's are more relevant, yet you only see the men's."
 
NWRatCon said:
My wife just shared a Facebook post (I don't use it) that is completely relevant to this thread.

"Opinions on abortion are like nipples, everyone has one, but women's are more relevant, yet you only see the men's."
Click to expand...

Americans aversion to nipples on TV is really odd.
I remember the outcry about an accidental nipple showing in the Superbowl Halftime show was huge.

It was baffling how serious some people got about an accident that she rectified as fast as she could.
 

mrjurrs said:
An ovum isn't alive any more than your big toe is alive.

ovum, noun, a mature female reproductive cell, especially of a human or other animal, which can divide to give rise to an embryo usually only after fertilization by a male cell.
Click to expand...

No. Human ovum, and sperm, are, literally, alive. That's the biology. It is not, though, a live human being, necessarily, or a person. My point is how ridiculous the Rep/cons are in trying to control women's bodies through denying them abortion. They might as well make illegal passing ovum without saving it. Or illegal to not take a fertilized egg to birth. Or passing law that a fertilized egg is when the life of a human begins or, therefor, has all the rights afforded under the Constitution.
 
bluesmoke said:
No. Human ovum, and sperm, are, literally, alive. That's the biology. It is not, though, a live human being, necessarily, or a person. My point is how ridiculous the Rep/cons are in trying to control women's bodies through denying them abortion. They might as well make illegal passing ovum without saving it. Or illegal to not take a fertilized egg to birth. Or passing law that a fertilized egg is when the life of a human begins or, therefor, has all the rights afforded under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. The idea that a fertilized egg is a "life" is insane. The entire IVF system relies on it, and the implications of that thought process has fueled science fiction dystopias for decades. The problem is, the anti-abortion crowd don't think through their slogans. Mostly, they just don't think.
They react.

It's ironic because the Bible actually tracks Roe v. Wade. "The word "abortion" is not mentioned in the Bible, but much in the Bible speaks to the issue. The most obvious passage is from Exodus 21:22-25. This part of the Covenant Code legislates the case of a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between 2 men and has a miscarriage. A distinction is then made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges. However, if the woman is injured or dies, "lex talionis" is applied -- life for life, eye for eye, etc. The story has somewhat limited application to the current abortion debate since it deals with accidental and not willful pregnancy termination. Even so, the distinction made between the woman and the fetus is important. The woman is valued as a person under the convenant; the fetus is valued as property. Its status is certainly inferior to that of the woman. This passage gives no support to the parity argument that gives equal religious and moral worth to woman and fetus. The bibilical portrait of person does not begin with an explanation of conception but with a portrayal of the creation of Adam and Eve. Thus, the biblical portrait of a person is that of a complex, many-sided creature with the god-like ability and responsibility to make choices. The fetus does not meet those criteria." (Emphases mine) Biblical views on abortion: an Episcopal perspective (PubMed)
 
bluesmoke said:
When human ovum enters the fallopian tubes, it is alive. It only dies by neglect. What about the living ovum's right to life? We need Texas to get on that.
Click to expand...
I know you're joking, but don't be surprised when some loon proposes it in earnest.
 
bluesmoke said:
No. Human ovum, and sperm, are, literally, alive. That's the biology. It is not, though, a live human being, necessarily, or a person. My point is how ridiculous the Rep/cons are in trying to control women's bodies through denying them abortion. They might as well make illegal passing ovum without saving it. Or illegal to not take a fertilized egg to birth. Or passing law that a fertilized egg is when the life of a human begins or, therefor, has all the rights afforded under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Sperm I agree. Ovum I don't. They are a part of the female reproductive system, not a separate organism..

I take your point. Pretty sure the way this law is written, late periods could lead to prosecution.
 
NWRatCon said:
'Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned.' Section 54—196, General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.)

This was the statute that was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1965 in Griswold v. Connecticut. In doing so, the Supreme Court stated, "This law... operates directly on an intimate relation of husband and wife and their physician's role in one aspect of that relation." As the Court then put it, "We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights older than our political parties, older than our school system." We are on the precipice of laws such as this being reinstated around the country. Do we want to be?

The Court rested its decision on the concept that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance." It is the same basis that informed the Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. But three of the then-Justices, in concurrence, went further and specifically addressed the Ninth Amendment's application to the issue: "My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted and that it embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution1 is supported both by numerous decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment." ('The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.')

The concurrence noted that "The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments." They concluded "the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people."

I have always preferred the concurrence's argument over the "penumbra" argument, as it stands on firmer footing. I think almost anyone would agree that privacy is a fundamental interest of all of us, even if it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution's "Bill of Rights". As the concurrence notes, "The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments. I do not see how this broadens the authority of the Court; rather it serves to support what this Court has been doing in protecting fundamental rights."

How are we to protect fundamental rights from governmental erasure if we don't acknowledge that the Constitution is broader than its four corners?
Click to expand...

Hard to believe that was the law in 1964! 1864, I could have seen it.
 
NWRatCon said:
I completely agree. The idea that a fertilized egg is a "life" is insane. The entire IVF system relies on it, and the implications of that thought process has fueled science fiction dystopias for decades. The problem is, the anti-abortion crowd don't think through their slogans. Mostly, they just don't think.
They react.

It's ironic because the Bible actually tracks Roe v. Wade. "The word "abortion" is not mentioned in the Bible, but much in the Bible speaks to the issue. The most obvious passage is from Exodus 21:22-25. This part of the Covenant Code legislates the case of a pregnant woman who becomes involved in a brawl between 2 men and has a miscarriage. A distinction is then made between the penalty that is to be exacted for the loss of the fetus and injury to the woman. For the fetus, a fine is paid as determined by the husband and the judges. However, if the woman is injured or dies, "lex talionis" is applied -- life for life, eye for eye, etc. The story has somewhat limited application to the current abortion debate since it deals with accidental and not willful pregnancy termination. Even so, the distinction made between the woman and the fetus is important. The woman is valued as a person under the convenant; the fetus is valued as property. Its status is certainly inferior to that of the woman. This passage gives no support to the parity argument that gives equal religious and moral worth to woman and fetus. The bibilical portrait of person does not begin with an explanation of conception but with a portrayal of the creation of Adam and Eve. Thus, the biblical portrait of a person is that of a complex, many-sided creature with the god-like ability and responsibility to make choices. The fetus does not meet those criteria." (Emphases mine) Biblical views on abortion: an Episcopal perspective (PubMed)
Click to expand...

The thin-skinned over reactionary impulsivity of the RW is part of their Rep/con DNA. It works because the Dems don't bother defending against it. When it doesn't work, it's because the Dems got out of the way of a runaway cement truck that continually runs over the lines the Dems won't defend and the people finally figure it all out, that Rep/cons go too far.
 
mrjurrs said:
Sperm I agree. Ovum I don't. They are a part of the female reproductive system, not a separate organism..

I take your point. Pretty sure the way this law is written, late periods could lead to prosecution.
Click to expand...

If you Google the subject, there ar quite a few articles that ovum is alive:

www.abort73.com

Are Sperm and Egg Cells Alive?

Some ethicists try to defend abortion on the assertion that sperm and egg cells are just as
www.abort73.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom