• 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

I'm saying that is all of human civilization since the dawn of time. It's hardwired into our makeup, though we don't like to admit it.
I don't disagree and I don't mind admitting it.

I'm saying that in the United States, the foundation of political change is not violence but speech and thought, if the Constitution is followed. Our temerous experiment was to attempt to place the commitment to the rule of law above the desire for power at any cost.
That does not really change anything. No one likes to admit our propensity for violence is necessary, but even the preamble talks of common defense.

What particularly about Article 1 is important?
Differentiation between the People and the States. The People, not the States, established the Constitution. Article one Sec 2 just mentions the People again as those elected Reps.
 
I don't disagree and I don't mind admitting it.
(y)
I'm saying that in the United States, the foundation of political change is not violence but speech and thought, if the Constitution is followed. Our temerous experiment was to attempt to place the commitment to the rule of law above the desire for power at any cost.
I see. Change the focus from the foundation of the government to the mechanism for change, basically the rule of law.

Differentiation between the People and the States. The People, not the States, established the Constitution. Article one Sec 2 just mentions the People again as those elected Reps.
The distinction between the People and the States was important in the early decades of the country, but less so now. Then, there was a struggle for dominance between the states and the federal government. It was significant that George Washington was able to get Governors to come to him because the reverse was true under the articles of Confederation.

The gist of the Social Contract proposed in the Enlightenment was the exchange of freedoms for security. Under a monarchy, there was a literal oath taken, including by the lord, creating a duty from the crown to the vassal. Essentially, this is the reverse, a duty from the populous to the designated representative.
 

So, the government says what they are, as essentially I said all along. Not surprised you didn't answer the examples.

The government is only as good by the people who form it. It was from the will of the people, not the government, that used inalienable rights to describe rights that could not be granted by the government. Any rights granted by the government could also be taken away.

Your still trying to inject your socialist idealology that its allowed by government, which its not.
 
I am not aware of the word "abortion" in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution.

I think the reason why the OP, a noted progressive hereabouts, tried to make an "originalist" argument to defend abortion rights is because he or she recognizes that the "living Constitution" argument in favor of it being a constitutional right makes no sense.

See the Ninth Amendment:

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

So the idea that the word "abortion" must be in the Constitution to be legal is complete nonsense that everyone with a high school diploma knows is not true.

In Roe vs. Wade, this amendment was part of the ruling in favor of Norma McCorvey.
 
Last edited:
The government is only as good by the people who form it. It was from the will of the people, not the government, that used inalienable rights to describe rights that could not be granted by the government. Any rights granted by the government could also be taken away.

Your still trying to inject your socialist idealology that its allowed by government, which its not.
You keep repeating the word "socialist" idiotically. You should stop that, it makes you look bad and is annoying and inappropriate and irrelevant.

You also show an inability to be rational and address the topic, trying to have it both ways on the government deciding what 'inalienable rights' are, trying to evade how you are wrong. Did the founding fathers get inalienable rights exactly right, alone in the history of countries? How did they get it so exactly right? How do you know they did? What if they didn't?
 
See the Ninth Amendment:



So the idea that the word "abortion" must be in the Constitution to be legal is complete nonsense that everyone with a high school diploma knows is not true.

In Roe vs. Wade, this amendment was part of the ruling in favor of Norma McCorvey.

On the one hand, what you said is right. On the other, the issue seems to show how much trouble the law has with 'unenumerated' rights. It's much better with 'enumerated' rights. For perhaps an odd example, should a parent have the right to kill their baby after it's born? Why not? Who's to say whether that is an unenumerated right? If not, who's to say whether abortion is?
 
In Roe vs. Wade, the Ninth Amendment was part of the ruling in favor of Norma McCorvey.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 153.

 
On the one hand, what you said is right. On the other, the issue seems to show how much trouble the law has with 'unenumerated' rights. It's much better with 'enumerated' rights. For perhaps an odd example, should a parent have the right to kill their baby after it's born? Why not? Who's to say whether that is an unenumerated right? If not, who's to say whether abortion is?

Your example blows up in the other amendment that was used in the Roe vs. Wade ruling: the Fourteenth.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

See the word born there? That clearly distinguishes who has the right to life and, therefore, makes abortions legal but not killing anyone who has a birth certificate.
 
See the word born there? That clearly distinguishes who has the right to life and, therefore, makes abortions legal but not killing anyone who has a birth certificate.

Good try, but see where it says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." that is a protection against state execution, but not parental killing. The constitution grants the right to vote at 18, maybe that's when parents should be prohibited from killing children? Who's to say if that's an unenumerated right?
 
Good try, but see where it says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life..." that is a protection against state execution, but not parental killing. The constitution grants the right to vote at 18. Maybe that's when parents should be prohibited from killing children? Who's to say if that's an unenumerated right?

That is the minimum age for pregnant citizens to get abortions without parental approval or notification, depending on the state.
 
That is the minimum age for pregnant citizens to get abortions without parental approval or notification, depending on the state.

OK, but that's a different topic.
 
OK, but that's a different topic.

So is what you said about the minimum voting age.

Do you agree or disagree with my factually supported claim that the Fourteenth Amendment permits abortions by distinguishing which human beings have a right to life?
 
Your example blows up in the other amendment that was used in the Roe vs. Wade ruling: the Fourteenth.

See the word born there? That clearly distinguishes who has the right to life and, therefore, makes abortions legal but not killing anyone who has a birth certificate.
I lean left and support abortion rights but you are mis reading or over reading the 14th amendment. The first sentence merely refers to who is a citizen of the US. It has nothing to do with life or death.

Moreover, the 14th was cited because- and this is a difficult concept for many to accept- because the original bill of rights had absolutely no application to the actions of individual states. The federal government could not infringe upon your free speech or due process. But there was nothing stopping the states from doing so. The 14th had a due process clause that did apply to the states. The courts ultimately determined to incorporate the first 10 amendments to apply to the states via the due process clause of the 14th. And that is the reason the 14th is part of Roe v. Wade.
 
I lean left and support abortion rights but you are mis reading or over reading the 14th amendment. The first sentence merely refers to who is a citizen of the US. It has nothing to do with life or death.

Moreover, the 14th was cited because- and this is a difficult concept for many to accept- because the original bill of rights had absolutely no application to the actions of individual states. The federal government could not infringe upon your free speech or due process. But there was nothing stopping the states from doing so. The 14th had a due process clause that did apply to the states. The courts ultimately determined to incorporate the first 10 amendments to apply to the states via the due process clause of the 14th. And that is the reason the 14th is part of Roe v. Wade.

In that case it was not even about abortion specifically and could apply to any rights being given to the states.
 
So is what you said about the minimum voting age.

Except it's not. My point was related to the topic of the vagueness of unenumerated rights, but yours was just discussing a different topic.

Do you agree or disagree with my factually supported claim that the Fourteenth Amendment permits abortions by distinguishing which human beings have a right to life?

You didn't understand what I said, I'll repeat it once. The 14th gives a guarantee relative to *state* taking of life - executions - not to private citizens taking life. Laws on private citizens taking life are based on state murder laws, exceptions like self-defense or 'stand your ground', etc.
 
In that case it was not even about abortion specifically and could apply to any rights being given to the states.
I'm not sure if I understand what that means.
It's not a matter of rights being given to the states but whether the states could infringe upon rights mentioned in the bill of rights that prior to the 14th did not apply to the states. Via the incorporation doctrine the answer is that the states are indeed now bound by the bill of rights so in that broad sense, yes it applies to many issues not just Roe v. Wade. In short, the issue/decision was:
Does the bill of rights implicitly provide a right to privacy: Yes
Is the choice to have an abortion a privacy right: Yes.
Via the 14th amendment, does the protection of the right to privacy from the bill of rights apply to the states: Yes.
 
I'm saying that in the United States, the foundation of political change is not violence but speech and thought, if the Constitution is followed.
Except that more accurately, it's personal prejudices on issues the wealthy aren't concerned about, and largely opinions influenced by manipulation and money on issues the wealthy do care about. And 'party loyalty' based on that money building loyalty. I'd say the large majority of "speech" influencing opinions has money controlling it. This is not some Greek ideal of rational citizens talking.
 
Except that more accurately, it's personal prejudices on issues the wealthy aren't concerned about, and largely opinions influenced by manipulation and money on issues the wealthy do care about. And 'party loyalty' based on that money building loyalty. I'd say the large majority of "speech" influencing opinions has money controlling it. This is not some Greek ideal of rational citizens talking.
Couldn't agree more. You can give the citizens the space and opportunity to make informed decisions, that's all. You can't force them to be well informed. We can, however, as a society, put way more resources into education to create a citizenry with strong intellectual fundamentals including critical thinking skills.
 
Couldn't agree more. You can give the citizens the space and opportunity to make informed decisions, that's all. You can't force them to be well informed. We can, however, as a society, put way more resources into education to create a citizenry with strong intellectual fundamentals including critical thinking skills.

Sadly, that's unlikely while the money spent to influence them is essentially guaranteed to continue to dominate. If you don't want to sleep tonight, imagine the 1/3 of the country in the trump cult grew to 2/3.
 
You keep repeating the word "socialist" idiotically. You should stop that, it makes you look bad and is annoying and inappropriate and irrelevant.

You also show an inability to be rational and address the topic, trying to have it both ways on the government deciding what 'inalienable rights' are, trying to evade how you are wrong. Did the founding fathers get inalienable rights exactly right, alone in the history of countries? How did they get it so exactly right? How do you know they did? What if they didn't?

Inalienable rights were written to the Constitution before it was signed forming this new government. These inalienable rights were not added after it was signed. So to say the government recognized these rights, it was men, not the government, that recognized these rights.
 
Inalienable rights were written to the Constitution before it was signed forming this new government. These inalienable rights were not added after it was signed. So to say the government recognized these rights, it was men, not the government, that recognized these rights.
"The government" that's not people doesn't recognize anything. Government is people. They write the constitution, they're the presidents, they're the judges. You are continuing a bizarre semantic waste of time.
 
Sadly, that's unlikely while the money spent to influence them is essentially guaranteed to continue to dominate. If you don't want to sleep tonight, imagine the 1/3 of the country in the trump cult grew to 2/3.
Well, nothing just happens on its own. We have to make it happen.
 
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
Why?

Because they applied their rules??

Seems the problem would be the people that can't abide by them

Kind of like the idiocy to change voting laws for election problems that don't actually exist
 
Well, nothing just happens on its own. We have to make it happen.
If there isn't big money in the culture, then political discussion is a more real, honest effective thing. But money drowns that and dominates, creating an industry for powerful speech that's expensive.
 
No. You are wrong in your interpretation. The FF wrote a document that establishes what rights citizens have and what rights the government has.

You are incorrect that we are "susceptible to 5 unelected super-legislators". Liberals look upon the SC as legislators. They are nothing but interpreters, sometimes getting it wrong, like Roe V, Wade, but we have a mechanism to fix those situations, if we want.
OK, I’m not sure what we’re arguing about.

But if you don’t see how we’re susceptible to 5 unelected super-legislators you haven’t been paying attention.

Regardless of how you feel about it, I’m reasonably confident the founders did not put rights to things like gay marriage into the Constitution yet they somehow, after mixed success with actual elected legislatures, it somehow became the law of the land. Of course one day 5 different (or the same) unelected super-legislators could decide it isn’t anymore.
 
Back
Top Bottom