Most people that are against abortion view it as murder that's already illegal there's no constitutional issue here.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".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 would first marvel that progressives like to think they have become originalists and strict constructionists-- when the subject is abortion.
dont need any change in the documentIs 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
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.
and the smaller platforms like this dont try to adjust what people say
this board either a post meets TOS or it doesntThis 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
who the **** is talking about Trump?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
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".
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.
There are numerous cases of people who posted things on Twitter or Facebook, where because of the political lean of those posts, they were DELETEDOh, 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
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.
A living document??? Really !!! Is anyone that foolish enough in america to still think their constitution is a living document?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?
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.
Facebook accused of censorship after hundreds of US political pages purged
The removal of 800 pages and accounts came as a shock to many on both the left and rightwww.theguardian.com
over 800 pages
now Facebook says they were ALL for “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and spamming.
Facebook, bias and the battle over conservative and liberal content on social media
A New York Post article about Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden is the latest political flashpoint.www.deseret.com
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)
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.The second bolded should answer the first.
By definition since the constitution can be changed means it’s a living document.
The first thing you should understand is that Constitution does not give or grant the government power.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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?