I dont agree with the Supreme Court, but they have a point...

[PoS]

You've got nothing, and it's reflected in the quality of your posts, empty headed.

LOL Ive proven you wrong many times, and thats a pretty good accomplishment. Keep up the failing posts.

 

[Ug make hammer]

LOL Ive proven you wrong many times, and thats a pretty good accomplishment. Keep up the failing posts.

Not this again.

Let @mrjurrs have the last word. That's how adults win an argument.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Hey wait. @PoS is the thread starter. So it's not just shit-level argument, it's thread bumping as well.

@PoS —> Ignore

 

[ClaraD]

I agree, though the country has been divided for decades now, so the timing will never be right.


But there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, so how can SCOTUS make a judgement on it? Their point is that the issue is for others to decide on, not them.

if there is any question then that right belongs to the people by default. Body and health are personal choices....not one the state can make for you. If the state makes that choice, then you are not free.

 

[PoS]

Not this again.

Let @mrjurrs have the last word. That's how adults win an argument.

Angry again that you have proven to know nothing about the issue? The solution is simple, stop posting on subjects you know nothing about.

if there is any question then that right belongs to the people by default. Body and health are personal choices....not one the state can make for you. If the state makes that choice, then you are not free.

The state is the people, so you agree with SCOTUS.

 

[ClaraD]

Angry again that you have proven to know nothing about the issue? The solution is simple, stop posting on subjects you know nothing about.


The state is the people, so you agree with SCOTUS.

No, the state isn't the people....citizens are the people....notice the amendment uses both citizens and the state....it doesn't use them and it implies primarily to the people. Seems to me that means you have to send it in a ballot to a vote....are you sure you want to allow the people to vote on it? Because these pro forced birth folks are going to lose if they do.

 

[Glitch]

No, the state isn't the people....citizens are the people....notice the amendment uses both citizens and the state....it doesn't use them and it implies primarily to the people. Seems to me that means you have to send it in a ballot to a vote....are you sure you want to allow the people to vote on it? Because these pro forced birth folks are going to lose if they do.

You are three-fourths right. The States are not citizens, or the people, and the amendment refers specifically to "the people," not just citizens. There is no mention of "citizens" in the Ninth Amendment, but it does mention "the people." Citizens are a subset of "the people." However, the US Constitution does also references "citizens" specifically. As in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, the Fourteenth and the Twenty-Sixth Amendments, for example. Where ever the US makes a reference to "the people" or "person" (as in the Fourteenth Amendment) they are actually including everyone within the jurisdiction of the US - regardless whether they are citizens or not.

The phrase "the people," as in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, is a reference to everyone within the borders of the US. Their citizenship status or legal status does not matter.

 

[PoS]

No, the state isn't the people....citizens are the people....notice the amendment uses both citizens and the state....it doesn't use them and it implies primarily to the people. Seems to me that means you have to send it in a ballot to a vote....are you sure you want to allow the people to vote on it? Because these pro forced birth folks are going to lose if they do.

Right, now who elects the state? The people do.

 

[vegas giants]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

Rights dont have to be enumerated

 

[ClaraD]

You are three-fourths right. The States are not citizens, or the people, and the amendment refers specifically to "the people," not just citizens. There is no mention of "citizens" in the Ninth Amendment, but it does mention "the people." Citizens are a subset of "the people." However, the US Constitution does also references "citizens" specifically. As in Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, the Fourteenth and the Twenty-Sixth Amendments, for example. Where ever the US makes a reference to "the people" or "person" (as in the Fourteenth Amendment) they are actually including everyone within the jurisdiction of the US - regardless whether they are citizens or not.

The phrase "the people," as in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, is a reference to everyone within the borders of the US. Their citizenship status or legal status does not matter.

I concede that is correct even though we only confer the right to the ballot 🗳 to citizens...and laws such as this that were overturned should be referred in a national vote

 

[ClaraD]

Right, now who elects the state? The people do.

Have you never voted on a referendum?

 

[Glitch]

I concede that is correct even though we only confer the right to the ballot 🗳 to citizens...and laws such as this that were overturned should be referred in a national vote

Yes, except that is not a law, it is a constitutional amendment. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to be specific, and it is not a "national vote." Only States hold elections, so there can never be a national vote.

 

[PoS]

Have you never voted on a referendum?

Do referendums happen all the time?

 

[ClaraD]

Do referendums happen all the time?

Yes...did you think that they don't? How do you think so many states have legalized marijuana?

 

[ClaraD]

Yes, except that is not a law, it is a constitutional amendment. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment to be specific, and it is not a "national vote." Only States hold elections, so there can never be a national vote.

Abortion doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment...that's not what the Supreme Court said in their decision

 

[Glitch]

Abortion doesn't need to be a constitutional amendment...that's not what the Supreme Court said in their decision

The US Constitution must specifically grant the federal government the authority to regulate abortion, or they don't have it. Furthermore, the US Constitution must specifically prohibit the States from regulating abortion, otherwise they have exclusive authority to regulate abortion as they see fit. It is no different from education, healthcare, or social spending. All of those regulatory powers fall exclusively within the State's constitutional authority, and not with the federal government.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The US Constitution must specifically grant the federal government the authority to regulate abortion, or they don't have it. Furthermore, the US Constitution must specifically prohibit the States from regulating abortion, otherwise they have exclusive authority to regulate abortion as they see fit. It is no different from education, healthcare, or social spending. All of those regulatory powers fall exclusively within the State's constitutional authority, and not with the federal government.

Well just a couple of things:

#1 There are certain aspects of abortion that the Federal government can regulate when it impacts interstate commerce. For example if a State tries to impact advertising for legal abortion services in other locations or the ability of women to travel out of state for a legal abortion.

#2 Then there is the regulation of how federal dollars are spent. Similar to what was done with drinking age. They didn't impose a federal drinking age, just told states if your drinking age is not XX, you don't qualify for transportation money. You don't regulate abortion, you regulate how much federal money goes to a state based on legal access to abortion services.

#3 Regarding Education, Healthcare, or Social Spending you realize we have:

• A Department of Education,
• Department of Health and Human Services,
• Food and Drug Administration,
• Social Security,
• Medicare/MediAid
• Federal Unemployment Benefits

[DISCLAIMER: Whether those things should exist or not is a topic for it's own thread, but the fact remains they do.]

WW

 

[Glitch]

Well just a couple of things:

#1 There are certain aspects of abortion that the Federal government can regulate when it impacts interstate commerce.

No, they cannot.

For example if a State tries to impact advertising for legal abortion services in other locations or the ability of women to travel out of state for a legal abortion.

That isn't the Commerce Clause, that's the First Amendment. States cannot violate the US Constitution any more than the federal government can.

#2 Then there is the regulation of how federal dollars are spent. Similar to what was done with drinking age. They didn't impose a federal drinking age, just told states if your drinking age is not XX, you don't qualify for transportation money. You don't regulate abortion, you regulate how much federal money goes to a state based on legal access to abortion services.

I have no doubt leftist filth will find ways to try to extort the States into complying with their sick and twisted agenda. Some may actually capitulate and allow themselves to be bought. Yet others may refuse. Like Alaska did when Bush41 tried to get Alaska to impose a mandatory helmet law while riding a motorcycle, or withhold federal highway funding. So Alaska went for three years without any federal highway funding until Clinton was elected President. Alaska still does not have a mandatory helmet law.

#3 Regarding Education, Healthcare, or Social Spending you realize we have:

• A Department of Education,
• Department of Health and Human Services,
• Food and Drug Administration,
• Social Security,
• Medicare/MediAid
• Federal Unemployment Benefits

[DISCLAIMER: Whether those things should exist or not is a topic for it's own thread, but the fact remains they do.]

WW

There are many unconstitutional laws. Just because it exists does not mean that it should.

 

[PoS]

Yes...did you think that they don't? How do you think so many states have legalized marijuana?

Well if you think referendums will somehow legalize abortion then go for it. I'll be sure to vote.

 

[ClaraD]

Well if you think referendums will somehow legalize abortion then go for it. I'll be sure to vote.

It absolutely would the vast majority are for allowing abortion up to a certain gestation...most of the time viability.

 

[ClaraD]

No, they cannot.


That isn't the Commerce Clause, that's the First Amendment. States cannot violate the US Constitution any more than the federal government can.


I have no doubt leftist filth will find ways to try to extort the States into complying with their sick and twisted agenda. Some may actually capitulate and allow themselves to be bought. Yet others may refuse. Like Alaska did when Bush41 tried to get Alaska to impose a mandatory helmet law while riding a motorcycle, or withhold federal highway funding. So Alaska went for three years without any federal highway funding until Clinton was elected President. Alaska still does not have a mandatory helmet law.


There are many unconstitutional laws. Just because it exists does not mean that it should.

Federal government can set up clinics and allow abortions on federal land and there isn't a damn thing any red state can do about it.

 

[Glitch]

Federal government can set up clinics and allow abortions on federal land and there isn't a damn thing any red state can do about it.

No, they cannot. The federal government may not have anything to do with abortion in any regard. The federal government is specifically prohibited from doing anything with regard to abortion by the Tenth Amendment because they lack the constitutional authority. As the Supreme Court already held, only the States have the constitutional authority to regulate abortion, not the federal government.

 

[Cardinal]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution,

Neither is "industrialization," so going by your logic the United States should have remained a completely agrarian society.

 

[Glitch]

Neither is "industrialization," so going by your logic the United States should have remained a completely agrarian society.

Except that the US was never a completely agrarian society - ever.

 

[Cardinal]

Except that the US was never a completely agrarian society - ever.

Yeah, because we had tons of space ships in 1787 (those aren't in the constitution either, by the way).