• 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!

Constitutional basic issue, for the right especially

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,937
Reaction score
7,894
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?
 

Athanasius68

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
18,679
Reaction score
3,133
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would first marvel that progressives like to think they have become originalists and strict constructionists-- when the subject is abortion.
 

CLAX1911

Supreme knower of all
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
Messages
53,968
Reaction score
11,043
Location
Houston, in the great state of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?
Most people that are against abortion view it as murder that's already illegal there's no constitutional issue here.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
75,844
Reaction score
30,447
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?
I think you'll need to come up with a better example. What makes you think abortion is a right? Be careful, though...things that some people want doesn't automatically make it a "right".

Anyway, your opening premise is faulty regarding your hypothetical constitution. You said, "and powers they aren't given are retained by the people". Your mythical constitution should more precisely say, "by the people and by the states". What that does is take the federal government OUT of the question and leaves it TOTALLY up to the states and their citizens.

If someone wants their pet "right" to be protected at a federal level, they would need to change the constitution.

The hypothetical opinion of a Supreme Court Justice would be correct.

Yes.

Work to change the constitution...or suck it up and go on with life.
 

nvflash

Changing the law does not change the truth.
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
1,174
Reaction score
517
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The Bill of Rights as flawed as it is, is what separates us from despotic rule. Tho we have oft argued, may always disagree around the edges, and there are some major ebbs and flows to state of federal encroachments to our basic rights.

Without the Bill of Rights, or some other form such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we are no better than any other form of government at the point of a gun.

What should be unacceptable to us in indefinite detention, because it is the denial of every right we hold dear without any due process.
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I would first marvel that progressives like to think they have become originalists and strict constructionists-- when the subject is abortion.

Is that like how the right wants a living document when Twitter comes up?
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5,528
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Is that like how the right wants a living document when Twitter comes up?
dont need any change in the document

just need to do away with the law giving "platforms" free gratis from any and all lawsuits

twitter and facebook want to have their cake and eat it too....

they just need to LOSE the protections given.....done deal
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
dont need any change in the document

just need to do away with the law giving "platforms" free gratis from any and all lawsuits

twitter and facebook want to have their cake and eat it too....

they just need to LOSE the protections given.....done deal

Right, you want to strip everyone of the ability to use these platforms because some nazis were kicked off it. What do you think happens to this board or Breitbart?

Whoopsie.
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5,528
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Right, you want to strip everyone of the ability to use these platforms because some nazis were kicked off it. What do you think happens to this board or Breitbart?

Whoopsie.

dont give a rats ass about Breitbart

and the smaller platforms like this dont try to adjust what people say

it either meets TOS or doesnt....there is no "per se" political bias one way or the other

you are either a straight platform like DP, or a publication with editors and staff and that makes you more like a journalistic source

and the NYT doesnt have that blanket coverage, nor does the Wall St Journal, or any other publication

So if they want to use their staff and editorializing, wonderful....it is a public company, and they have the right

But they LOSE the blanket immunity......
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
and the smaller platforms like this dont try to adjust what people say

This board is moderated for words and ideas every single day.

What does “smaller” have to do with it anyway?

Also: Twitter can violate its own tos if it chooses. It allowed Trump to violate their own rules daily in deference to his standing. You don’t want equal protection, you want special access.
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5,528
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This board is moderated for words and ideas every single day.

What does “smaller” have to do with it anyway?

Also: Twitter can violate its own tos if it chooses. It allowed Trump to violate their own rules daily in deference to his standing. You don’t want equal protection, you want special access.
this board either a post meets TOS or it doesnt

posts arent EDITED by staff

you are either told by staff to change something in a relatively short time, or it is REMOVED

that is the difference....posts both on twitter and facebook have BEEN EDITED from their original postings

postings have also been removed that were not in violation of TOS

hence the issues, and the new laws being talked about....and the discussion of the loss of the blanket immunity
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
this board either a post meets TOS or it doesnt

posts arent EDITED by staff

you are either told by staff to change something in a relatively short time, or it is REMOVED

that is the difference....posts both on twitter and facebook have BEEN EDITED from their original postings

postings have also been removed that were not in violation of TOS

hence the issues, and the new laws being talked about....and the discussion of the loss of the blanket immunity

You don’t get to make any of the determinations for Twitter that you’re making. And none of Trump’s posts were edited by Twitter.

Again: Trump was allowed to stay on the platform despite violating their TOS. Were you okay with them using the context that he was the potus to allow them to bend their own TOS (which their tos allows for because duh)?
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5,528
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You don’t get to make any of the determinations for Twitter that you’re making. And none of Trump’s posts were edited by Twitter.

Again: Trump was allowed to stay on the platform despite violating their TOS. Were you okay with them using the context that he was the potus to allow them to bend their own TOS (which their tos allows for because duh)?
who the **** is talking about Trump?
why are you bringing his name up in the discussion?
does he rent space in your head or something?
Trump has NOTHING to do with the issues at hand....NOTHING
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
who the **** is talking about Trump?
why are you bringing his name up in the discussion?
does he rent space in your head or something?
Trump has NOTHING to do with the issues at hand....NOTHING

Oh, then who is it you feel has been wrongly booted off twitter for just ideology? And my last “for instance” with Trump was to highlight an example in which Twitter discarded their own TOS to keep him in place. Did you have an issue with that or not? You can scream and curse, but that just means I’m right over target.
 

vanceen

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
406
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?

The 9th and 10th amendments, which I think you're referring to in your first paragraph, are slightly different from "powers they aren't given are retained by the people".

The 9th reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'

Which clearly means (in my view) that simply because a list of rights exists in the Constitution does not mean that there are not other rights, nor that those other rights are less important than the ones listed.

The 10th reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This contains a couple of problems. It seems to imply that the individual states can take on any powers that they decide to, unless they are powers specifically denied to them by the Constitution. And it doesn't really make clear what "the people" means in this context, although it probably means governments below the state level.

The difficulty you're pointing out is that while the 9th amendment protects rights not specified in the Constitution, it doesn't give a mechanism to know what those rights are. Surely not everything someone decides to call a right is really a right deserving of legal protection. Very many people would say that there is no right to abortion at all, to use your example.

My guess would be that the definition of rights would come down to court decisions, based on the picture of inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and further illustrated in the Bill of Rights. I think it is true that sometimes rights are discounted because they aren't listed in the Bill of Rights, which must be wrong according to the 9th. But in fact we are left with no objective, fool-proof definition of those other rights, and it has to be a matter of judgement going forward.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
20,937
Reaction score
7,894
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The 9th and 10th amendments, which I think you're referring to in your first paragraph, are slightly different from "powers they aren't given are retained by the people".

You're right, but I wasn't trying to copy exactly, I was trying to ask a question and setting up a scenario, where I simplified from 'states and the people' to 'the people' to remove the issue you discuss.


This contains a couple of problems. It seems to imply that the individual states can take on any powers that they decide to, unless they are powers specifically denied to them by the Constitution. And it doesn't really make clear what "the people" means in this context, although it probably means governments below the state level.

Yes, it seems poorly written on state power, and the court has seemed to 'make it up' about which limits apply to states as well as the federal government. The people seems reasonably clear though in meaning each person.

The difficulty you're pointing out is that while the 9th amendment protects rights not specified in the Constitution, it doesn't give a mechanism to know what those rights are. Surely not everything someone decides to call a right is really a right deserving of legal protection. Very many people would say that there is no right to abortion at all, to use your example.

That is basically what they wrote. It's not clear how they could 'give a mechanism to know what those rights are'; its point was to say just that, that any unlisted right would be protected just like those listed. This indicated the political debate that it came out of: some wanting specific rights listed, and others not wanting that to remove protection of rights not listed.

My guess would be that the definition of rights would come down to court decisions, based on the picture of inalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and further illustrated in the Bill of Rights. I think it is true that sometimes rights are discounted because they aren't listed in the Bill of Rights, which must be wrong according to the 9th. But in fact we are left with no objective, fool-proof definition of those other rights, and it has to be a matter of judgement going forward.

I don't think they meant to define it by court decisions (which are supposed to be based on the constitution, making that backwards) or the DoI which has no direct legal power. Basically, it seems like they recognized the difficulty of protecting unspecified rights, and were right to; would the specific rights be as protected by the courts if they weren't specified, even though they should be? It seems pretty clear it hasn't quite worked well.
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5,528
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Oh, then who is it you feel has been wrongly booted off twitter for just ideology? And my last “for instance” with Trump was to highlight an example in which Twitter discarded their own TOS to keep him in place. Did you have an issue with that or not? You can scream and curse, but that just means I’m right over target.
There are numerous cases of people who posted things on Twitter or Facebook, where because of the political lean of those posts, they were DELETED

They were not against TOS....there was nothing sent to the poster....it was information the "left" did not want out there during political season

The people took their cases to court, but because of the blanket immunity that Twitter and Facebook have, nothing can be done

That i why they both need to lose their blanket immunity....

If they are going to edit posts and act like a journalistic board similar to the Washington Post or Times, then they need to have the same chance of being sued as the other news and journalism sources have

Otherwise, they need to act like DP....they can simply use TOS....either a post meets it or not

If it does it stays whether it meets their political lean or not
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
There are numerous cases of people who posted things on Twitter or Facebook, where because of the political lean of those posts, they were DELETED

They were not against TOS....there was nothing sent to the poster....it was information the "left" did not want out there during political season

The people took their cases to court, but because of the blanket immunity that Twitter and Facebook have, nothing can be done

That i why they both need to lose their blanket immunity....

If they are going to edit posts and act like a journalistic board similar to the Washington Post or Times, then they need to have the same chance of being sued as the other news and journalism sources have

Otherwise, they need to act like DP....they can simply use TOS....either a post meets it or not

If it does it stays whether it meets their political lean or not

Prove it. Show me those cases. I bet in each one it wasns’t a “lean” so much as some batshit dangerous CT.

Or maybe they had no case.

They have every right to choose who they are in business with and who uses their platform.
 

vanceen

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2015
Messages
1,230
Reaction score
406
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You're right, but I wasn't trying to copy exactly, I was trying to ask a question and setting up a scenario, where I simplified from 'states and the people' to 'the people' to remove the issue you discuss.




Yes, it seems poorly written on state power, and the court has seemed to 'make it up' about which limits apply to states as well as the federal government. The people seems reasonably clear though in meaning each person.



That is basically what they wrote. It's not clear how they could 'give a mechanism to know what those rights are'; its point was to say just that, that any unlisted right would be protected just like those listed. This indicated the political debate that it came out of: some wanting specific rights listed, and others not wanting that to remove protection of rights not listed.



I don't think they meant to define it by court decisions (which are supposed to be based on the constitution, making that backwards) or the DoI which has no direct legal power. Basically, it seems like they recognized the difficulty of protecting unspecified rights, and were right to; would the specific rights be as protected by the courts if they weren't specified, even though they should be? It seems pretty clear it hasn't quite worked well.

It seems likely that they were thinking of individual rights under English Common Law.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,647
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is that like how the right wants a living document when Twitter comes up?
A living document??? Really !!! Is anyone that foolish enough in america to still think their constitution is a living document?

Given the current hatred and hostility your politicians demonstrate towards each other what makes you think that your constitution can still be called a living document.
Considering that your constitution mandates a two-third majority in both houses to make a change in it and that a living document is defined as one that can change.

What do you think are the chances of many republicans and many democrats agreeing on something, anything?
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
A living document??? Really !!! Is anyone that foolish enough in america to still think their constitution is a living document?

Given the current hatred and hostility your politicians demonstrate towards each other what makes you think that your constitution can still be called a living document.
Considering that your constitution mandates a two-third majority in both houses to make a change in it and that a living document is defined as one that can change.

What do you think are the chances of many republicans and many democrats agreeing on something, anything?

The second bolded should answer the first.

By definition since the constitution can be changed means it’s a living document.
 

gdgyva

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2014
Messages
11,218
Reaction score
5,528
Location
Near Atlanta Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Prove it. Show me those cases. I bet in each one it wasns’t a “lean” so much as some batshit dangerous CT.

Or maybe they had no case.

They have every right to choose who they are in business with and who uses their platform.

over 800 pages

now Facebook says they were ALL for “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and spamming.


either they have to cater to ALL the posts if they meet TOS or they need to LOSE their blanket immunity (one or the other)
 

Aunt Antifa

Vaccinated-American
Banned
Joined
Aug 19, 2020
Messages
27,202
Reaction score
14,210
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive

over 800 pages

now Facebook says they were ALL for “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and spamming.


either they have to cater to ALL the posts if they meet TOS or they need to LOSE their blanket immunity (one or the other)

But you keep defining whether a post has met their tos and insisting your judgment should stand in for theirs.

And you keep lying about your position on them giving Trump special access.
 

soylentgreen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
11,347
Reaction score
2,647
Location
new zealand.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The second bolded should answer the first.

By definition since the constitution can be changed means it’s a living document.
By definition maybe, by the fact that your countries politicians would not agree on anything just on nothing more than they like many americans, have been taught to hate each other. The idea that your constitution is a living document is absurd claim given the current political stupidity your politicians demonstrate.
 

Jay59

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2019
Messages
11,262
Reaction score
2,305
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
You want to write a constitution for the United States. In it, you say that you want to give the federal government specific power, but to limit them to those powers, and powers they aren't given are retained by the people. You decide to list a few especially key rights, like free speech and the right to have guns, and just to make sure that rights that you didn't highlight aren't lost, you say any others are kept by the people.

Then a state or the federal legislature passes a law limiting a right of people that isn't listed in the constitution. How would you suggest that right be protected? How would you respond if a Supreme Court Justice said they were an "originalist", and if it wasn't listed, then he doesn't recognize it? You can answer both if the right in question is abortion, or another right.

Would you support saying that the right way to ban abortion would be to pass a constitutional amendment, as was done for alcohol, another right not given to the government?

What do you think you should do if your political interests conflict with the constitution?
The first thing you should understand is that Constitution does not give or grant the government power.

Rather, the Constitution recognizes where the power already resides and the document's purpose is to limit and diffuse that power. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to grant individuals powers against the government.
 
Top Bottom