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

[PoS]

Thanks for proving me right.

Yeah, we know you love Trump.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Yeah, we know you love Trump.

Thanks for proving me right again.

 

[mrjurrs]

The only way this can be resolved is when abortion is specifically added to the Constitution, and that can only be done via an amendment.

Until you actually add that word in the document, then you will be at the mercy of whoever "interprets" what, and this right will never be safe.


Which proves my point. Until the exact word gets in there, all this is pointless.


You dont have to be afraid to admit your Trump love since your actions speak for themselves.

That is not true, and I disagree with your conclusion. This isn't a right anymore (kind of the definition of judicial activism don't you think)?

 

[PoS]

That is not true, and I disagree with your conclusion. This isn't a right anymore (kind of the definition of judicial activism don't you think)?

What is not true? This is about a woman's right to an abortion isnt it? If you want to create an unassailable right, then put it in the Constitution. Its as simple as that.

Thanks for proving me right again.

Youre right: youre obsessed with Trump.

 

[mrjurrs]

What is not true? This is about a woman's right to an abortion isnt it? If you want to create an unassailable right, then put it in the Constitution. Its as simple as that.


Youre right: youre obsessed with Trump.

It is untrue that this has to be an amendment to create the protection or the right. See 1973-2022.

Where is our right to travel around the US listed in the Constitution?

 

[Glitch]

Under the 10th Amendment, reserved powers aren't exclusively held by the States.... they are also held by the people.

So if a person doesn't have the power of dominion over their own body, then what reserved power could ever possibly be held to belong to the people rather than the State?

Not exactly. Those specific powers not prohibited to the States by the US Constitution "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Powers that involve things like education, healthcare (including abortion), are exclusive powers of the State and not the people. To be a power wielded by the people exclusively it would have to be an individual power. Powers that involve or require more than one person puts that power under the control of government, and not individuals.

The US Constitution does allude to individual sovereignty under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Just as the Tenth Amendment asserts State sovereignty. While the rest of the US Constitution makes the federal government sovereign. Considering all the people with tattoos and other self-mutilations, I would say they are demonstrating their individual sovereignty just fine.

As with all rights, we draw the line at when it comes to harming another. If you want to injure yourself, you certainly have that right - even if it is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. However, nobody has the right to harm others, physically or financially.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Well perhaps if we start to elect better reps it might change things instead of hyperpartisan extremists.

Hyperpartisan districts are the root of that problem. When your only choices are an extremist of your own party, and a member (extreme or not) of the enemy party, you have to vote for your extremist.

There are palliative measures to do with districting, short of a complete overhaul of how the House is elected.

Something bad happened in California though. I had feared that "non-partisan committees" might end up favoring the majority, and with the latest redistricting that seems to have happened.

This Politico article estimates how many districts each party will win if the 2020 vote was applied to the new districts in force this year. In California, Republicans would win only 4, with an equal chance in another 5 (ie, 6.5 estimated). This is considerably worse than the 11 they currently hold in California.

I'm not saying Democrats gerrymandered the state, rather that non-partisan committees didn't work as intended. It's a shame, but hardly a surprise to me. "Non-partisan" anything in the US is just a dream ...

 

[Ug make hammer]

It is untrue that this has to be an amendment to create the protection or the right. See 1973-2022.

Where is our right to travel around the US listed in the Constitution?

It's in the Boats Trains and Airplanes Clause I think. Right next to the Smoke Anywhere I Damn Please Clause.

 

[Cordelier]

You are entitled to your opinion. The right to have an abortion is on par with the right to not have an abortion. The issue is whether one can have an abortion because it is generally agreed that someone can't be forced to have an abortion.

I think you didn't really consider the ability of the state to regulate medical procedures. If a person can perform an abortion on themselves, then that would seem to leave the state out of it. Same for the discussion about the pills which can induce an abortion. That seems to be an area where the state could overreach if the medication has FDA approval. I'm less certain in that area.

Recall the response to the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, though.... SCOTUS ruled that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, and then Virginia engaged in massive resistance and closed all of the public schools rather than desegregate them. I've got no illusions that if abortion is ever reinstated as an individual right again that we're going to be faced with the same intensity of feeling among some States and the administrative powers of those states will be marshalled against abortion in the way you describe and the way Virginia used it's powers to combat desegregation. No doubts there whatsoever.

But before we get to that, the people have got to win back the right. It's no use worrying about the ramifications we ought to be worrying about the edifications, don't you think?

 

[jaypatriot]

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.

And I am a proponent of states rights.
We are a federation of states. We are not controlled by a central government.
That's what the country was founded on.
Let the states make decisions that do not belong to the federal government.
If people don't like it they can move to another state that is more to their liking.

 

[Cordelier]

My thoughts go like this. It has been said that a right to privacy is not in the Constitution. The 9th enumerates that there are rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Seems like it is worth a court case.

Imo, the best option to grant choice to women would be to find a successful woman entrepreneur that does business in many states and lives in a state that prohibits abortions. She is forced to carry her fetus to term, and as a result her business goes under. She then sues under the Commerce Clause protections (Gibbons v Ogden).

You're preaching to the choir there. I agree that people have a right to privacy according to the 9th Amendment and that right covers access to abortion. Problem is that you're never going to convince the present Supreme Court that such a right - or any unenumerated right - exists in practice. Absolutely they'll agree that unenumerated rights exist in principle... but as they say, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

10th Amendment reserved powers of the people, however, are harder to explain away. Sure, SCOTUS will probably arbitrarily give them to the State, as we have seen in this case... but we need to find a means of holding their feet to the fire and force them to explain why so personal and intimate a decision as to whether or not a woman carries a baby to term is more properly a reserved power of the State and not of her own accord, as a reserved power of the people. If it is not the latter, then what reserved power could so be construed as belong to the people?

 

[Cordelier]

The only way this can be resolved is when abortion is specifically added to the Constitution, and that can only be done via an amendment.

Until you actually add that word in the document, then you will be at the mercy of whoever "interprets" what, and this right will never be safe.

I disagree. I think it can be resolved by establishing two basic facts in Constitutional law.... 1) What is the criteria for deciding upon the legitimacy of a 9th Amendment right? ; and 2) What is the criteria for deciding which 10th Amendment reserved powers properly belong to the people?

If we can nail down those two questions, then we will have a solid piece of ground to base a lasting decision, one way or the other. Until they are decided, though, then we're going to continue to have all of this ungrounded political battling. It's like playing football on a hill. One side is always going to up and one side is always going to be down. We need the level playing field to get a real decision.

 

[Cordelier]

I answered that for you, and you didn't accept that, so no we're back to square one, and I'll ask you the same question. if abortion is to be considered a reserved power under the 10th Amendment, why does it necessarily follow that it be considered a reserve power of the people and not of the states?...have to ask how true scotus is being to the entire text of the 10th amendment when RvW insisted it was a power of the federal government.

Again, you have no basis to suggest that abortion fits in that criteria. The fact that you previously insisted, under RvW, that it was the power of the federal government to make such laws to begin with shows you don't actually believe this.

May I remind you that neither RvW and Casey codified any sort of pro-choice position. They actually, if you read these decisions, allowed for states to regulate abortion during the stages of viability (trimesters under the Roe standard). So if you're defending roe, then you automatically admit that the states do have the power to regulate, we just disagree where the line should be. Your position is only tenable if you are against roe.

I've given you my answer a couple of times now... the nature of abortion is so personal and intimate a decision, that I think it ought to be entirely a matter for the individual to decide. The State has no business in the wombs of the nation. I don't expect you to agree with that... but before you out-and-out disagree with it, answer me this... if a power so personal and so intimate doesn't properly belong to the people, then what reserved power could ever be construed to so? Can you name one?

 

[Cordelier]

Not exactly. Those specific powers not prohibited to the States by the US Constitution "are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Powers that involve things like education, healthcare (including abortion), are exclusive powers of the State and not the people. To be a power wielded by the people exclusively it would have to be an individual power. Powers that involve or require more than one person puts that power under the control of government, and not individuals.

The US Constitution does allude to individual sovereignty under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Just as the Tenth Amendment asserts State sovereignty. While the rest of the US Constitution makes the federal government sovereign. Considering all the people with tattoos and other self-mutilations, I would say they are demonstrating their individual sovereignty just fine.

As with all rights, we draw the line at when it comes to harming another. If you want to injure yourself, you certainly have that right - even if it is not explicitly stated in the US Constitution. However, nobody has the right to harm others, physically or financially.

Constitutionally speaking, and medical personnel aside, there is only one person involved in any abortion, is there not?

 

[StillBallin75]

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.

Tyranny is tyranny. Just because it's local doesn't make it better.

There was a whole Civil War fought over "states rights" to oppress. There was an entire Civil rights movement that was created to resist tyranny at the state level.

Dobbs was essentially overturning an individual right and handing it over so states could take it away.

That's not a pro-freedom or pro-liberty take no matter what mental gymnastics you perform to try and pretend it's so.

 

[DarkWizard12]

I've given you my answer a couple of times now... the nature of abortion is so personal and intimate a decision,

ok, and I find the nature of my vaccinations are a personal and intimate decision.

that I think it ought to be entirely a matter for the individual to decide.

YOU think that. Not the constitution.

The State has no business in the wombs of the nation.

again, that's you, that's not the constitution. I am not bound at all to what you personally like.

I don't expect you to agree with that... but before you out-and-out disagree with it, answer me this... if a power so personal and so intimate doesn't properly belong to the people...

But it does properly belong to the people, by letting states decide(Federalist 45)

then what reserved power could ever be construed to so? Can you name one?

There is no such thing as a power reserved for social anarchy that's protected by the constitution. The people elect their state governments, who represent them, to govern themselves, their lives, their liberties, and their property, for as long as the people approve of it. If you don't like this, you're gonna have to dig up the dead body of James Madison and ask him why the constitution wasn't written to align with your views. Your interpretation is so fringe, that there isn't a single interpretation anywhere, even in Roe, in which it's accepted. You're just going to have to accept that the way you interpret it just isn't true, and it's why you're not a judge.

 

[Lakryte]

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.

One thing to note is that Dobbs does not give the decision over to the states. Congress could pass a law banning all abortion at the federal level and that would not run afoul of the post-Roe legal landscape. Dobbs is not about federal vs. state power. It is about government power vs. a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Government power won.

As to your first point, the Constitution protects a number of individual rights that are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Many of these rights relate to bodily autonomy and control over one's own family matters. For example, though not enumerated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has protected the right of parents to send children to private schools, the right to marital privacy, the right to sexual intimacy, the right to contraception, the right to marry, and the right to travel, among others. If you assume the majority in Dobbs is not picking and choosing which rights it thinks should remain, the logical import of the decision is that all of these rights are in jeopardy to the extent they were not viewed as rights in the mid 19th century.

 

[Lakryte]

And I am a proponent of states rights.
We are a federation of states. We are not controlled by a central government.
That's what the country was founded on.
Let the states make decisions that do not belong to the federal government.
If people don't like it they can move to another state that is more to their liking.

We do not live under the Articles of Confederation. The current Constitution was enacted to establish a stronger federal government than existed when the colonies first set up their combined government. The federal government of the United States very intentionally was given significant powers that both states and individuals are subject to. We are a federation of states with a central federal government.

And Dobbs does not prevent the federal government from passing abortion laws - this was not a pro-states rights decision. Congress could pass a federal law tomorrow codifying the old Roe framework if it wanted, make abortion legal in all cases, or ban abortion nationwide regardless of state laws. The Supreme Court did not leave this issue to the states exclusively.

And while I agree that the concept of states rights is important and for the most part a benefit of the U.S. system, I also first and foremost believe in individual rights. We do not live in a system where whatever the states say goes - there are some rights that even state and local governments should not be able to infringe.

 

[Cordelier]

ok, and I find the nature of my vaccinations are a personal and intimate decision.

YOU think that. Not the constitution.

again, that's you, that's not the constitution. I am not bound at all to what you personally like.

But it does properly belong to the people, by letting states decide(Federalist 45)

There is no such thing as a power reserved for social anarchy that's protected by the constitution. The people elect their state governments, who represent them, to govern themselves, their lives, their liberties, and their property, for as long as the people approve of it. If you don't like this, you're gonna have to dig up the dead body of James Madison and ask him why the constitution wasn't written to align with your views. Your interpretation is so fringe, that there isn't a single interpretation anywhere, even in Roe, in which it's accepted. You're just going to have to accept that the way you interpret it just isn't true, and it's why you're not a judge.

That's good... but no rights are absolute. The States had a compelling interest to see to it that the healthcare systems wasn't overwhelmed by Covid.

You don't need to cite the Constitution to me, DW... I'm not the one ignoring key passages of it.

Again, the people decide by participating in the political processes of the republican form of government guaranteed to them by Article IV §4. Whatever reserved powers allotted to them by the 10th Amendment are over and above that.

 

[jaypatriot]

The Supreme Court did not leave this issue to the states exclusively.

Didn't the SC leave it for the states to decide whether abortions should be allowed in states? If that decision is not left exclusively to each state, then whose decision is it to allow a woman to choose to terminate a living being in the womb?
Is it not left up to the abortion law in each state?

And I am fully aware that Pelosi, with her Congressional majority, and with the Senate with their potential 51 vote majority hopes to codify Roe v Wade.
And they will no doubt force Manchin and Sinema to accept the decision to eliminate the filibuster so that a majority vote can make such a law happen.

Care to educate me on that one too.?

 

[Warlitz]

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.

Honestly in practice, I'm not aware of where federal laws against murder fit into the Constitution, but I don't see anyone in a hurry to legally challenge their Constitutionality in a court of law. Why is that?

So in practice, we could honestly just let this slide and I don't see it being the end of the world.

 

[Lakryte]

Didn't the SC leave it for the states to decide whether abortions should be allowed in states? If that decision is not left exclusively to each state, then whose decision is it to allow a woman to choose to terminate a living being in the womb?
Is it not left up to the abortion law in each state?

And I am fully aware that Pelosi, with her Congressional majority, and with the Senate with their potential 51 vote majority hopes to codify Roe v Wade.
And they will no doubt force Manchin and Sinema to accept the decision to eliminate the filibuster so that a majority vote can make such a law happen.

Care to educate me on that one too.?

The Supreme Court did not rule that abortion was exclusively a state issue. They simply ruled that it was not up to each individual woman to decide, at any stage in the pregnancy. As I said in my earlier post, the federal government can make the decision to ban or allow abortion nationwide. So no, it is not just left up to the abortion law in each state.

I don't understand your last question. Educate you on the filibuster?

 

[jaypatriot]

The Supreme Court did not rule that abortion was exclusively a state issue. They simply ruled that it was not up to each individual woman to decide, at any stage in the pregnancy. As I said in my earlier post, the federal government can make the decision to ban or allow abortion nationwide. So no, it is not just left up to the abortion law in each state.

I don't understand your last question. Educate you on the filibuster?

You wrote: "it is not just left up to the abortion law in each state."
If abortion is not left up to each state to decide, then who gets to decide if it is legal not? Are you avoiding acknowledging that each state controls whether abortions can be done in a particular state?

No. Not educate me on the elimination of the filibuster.
Should Congress try to codify Roe v Wade as a federal law ? Can they succeed?

 

[Lakryte]

You wrote: "it is not just left up to the abortion law in each state."
If abortion is not left up to each state to decide, then who gets to decide if it is legal not? Are you avoiding acknowledging that each state controls whether abortions can be done in a particular state?

No. Not educate me on the elimination of the filibuster.
Should Congress try to codify Roe v Wade as a federal law ? Can they succeed?

Who gets to decide? For the third time, the federal government - namely Congress - can also decide whether abortion is legal or not. Dobbs did not say that abortion laws are left exclusively to the states. That was not the holding of the court. Dobbs simply held that the answer to “who gets to decide” is “not the individual.”

 

[Glitch]

Constitutionally speaking, and medical personnel aside, there is only one person involved in any abortion, is there not?

Incorrect. Abortion always involves more than one individual.