Mike Pence gives finger to Constitution during Republican debate

[johnwk]

During last night’s debate, after whining and dinning our ears to how loyal he is to the Constitution, with reference to President Trump and the 2020 election, Mike Pence went on to take a dump on the Constitution by indicating he wants Congressional legislation banning abortion.

Pence stated:

“When the Supreme Court returned this question to the American people, they didn't just send it to the states only. It's not a states-only issue. It's a moral issue, Pence said. He argued that there should be a minimum standard for abortion to be banned at 15 weeks of pregnancy." SOURCE

First of all, the S. C. did not return the issue of abortion regulation, if any, to the States. It was always within those powers reserved by the states and people therein. The S.C. merely confirmed what our Constitution stated from the beginning.

The irrefutable fact is, there is not a syllable in the Constitution delegating a power to Congress to enter the States and impose Mike Pence’s personal predilections upon the people therein. In fact, the Tenth Amendment codifies into the constitution the supremacy of powers reserve by the states and people therein which are eloquently summarized in Federalist No 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Mike Pence needs to take his sanctimonious dog and pony show elsewhere, especially now that he has openly taken a dump on our Constitution.

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

 

[samiam5211]

I mean, TBH if we were going to have a strict reading of the constitution, half of what the federal government does would be unconstitutional.

We had a civil war because the Constitution gives too much power to the states, we should have really limited states rights more than we did during reconstruction.

 

[johnwk]

I mean, TBH if we were going to have a strict reading of the constitution, half of what the federal government does would be unconstitutional.

We had a civil war because the Constitution gives too much power to the states, we should have really limited states rights more than we did during reconstruction.

Spoken like a true, unapologetic, authoritarian.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

 

[samiam5211]

Spoken like a true, unapologetic, authoritarian.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

Yes, i think the federal government should have been given the authority by the constitution to ban slavery.

I guess to you, that makes me an authoritarian.

 

[TheGoverness]

Spoken like a true, unapologetic, authoritarian.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

You don't know what authoritarian means.

 

[johnwk]

Yes, i think the federal government should have been given the authority by the constitution to ban slavery.

Think it should have? In case you missed it, it does ban slavery.

 

[johnwk]

You don't know what authoritarian means.

According to you.

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

 

[Napoleon]

I mean, TBH if we were going to have a strict reading of the constitution, half of what the federal government does would be unconstitutional.

We had a civil war because the Constitution gives too much power to the states, we should have really limited states rights more than we did during reconstruction.

The United States was not necessarily envisaged as a country unto itself. It was sovereign independent States which established an entity to serve more or less as an arbiter between them to resolve disputes and establish consistent rules (laws) to maintain relations.

The civil war turned that idea on its head and the States were subjugated. It would be as if the United Nations came out and said, okay United States we own you and if you say otherwise we’ll blow your head off.

 

[tshade]

During last night’s debate, after whining and dinning our ears to how loyal he is to the Constitution, with reference to President Trump and the 2020 election, Mike Pence went on to take a dump on the Constitution by indicating he wants Congressional legislation banning abortion.

Pence stated:

“When the Supreme Court returned this question to the American people, they didn't just send it to the states only. It's not a states-only issue. It's a moral issue, Pence said. He argued that there should be a minimum standard for abortion to be banned at 15 weeks of pregnancy." SOURCE

First of all, the S. C. did not return the issue of abortion regulation, if any, to the States. It was always within those powers reserved by the states and people therein. The S.C. merely confirmed what our Constitution stated from the beginning.

The irrefutable fact is, there is not a syllable in the Constitution delegating a power to Congress to enter the States and impose Mike Pence’s personal predilections upon the people therein. In fact, the Tenth Amendment codifies into the constitution the supremacy of powers reserve by the states and people therein which are eloquently summarized in Federalist No 45:



Mike Pence needs to take his sanctimonious dog and pony show elsewhere, especially now that he has openly taken a dump on our Constitution.

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

???????????? that is not "dumping" on the constitution

 

[samiam5211]

The United States was not necessarily envisaged as a country unto itself. It was sovereign independent States which established an entity to serve more or less as an arbiter between them to resolve disputes and establish consistent rules (laws) to maintain relations.

The civil war turned that idea on its head and the States were subjugated. It would be as if the United Nations came out and said, okay United States we own you and if you say otherwise we’ll blow your head off.

The federal government established by the founders was too weak. Their failures became evident less than a century later.

 

[Tigerace117]

The United States was not necessarily envisaged as a country unto itself. It was sovereign independent States which established an entity to serve more or less as an arbiter between them to resolve disputes and establish consistent rules (laws) to maintain relations.

The civil war turned that idea on its head and the States were subjugated. It would be as if the United Nations came out and said, okay United States we own you and if you say otherwise we’ll blow your head off.

Nope, that interpretation was rejected long before the civil war, because the US couldn’t function if every state acted as an independent nation.

The South went to war to protect slavery and got crushed.

 

[johnwk]

???????????? that is not "dumping" on the constitution

According to you!

Roe v. Wade was not in harmony with our Constitution. The regulation of abortion, if any, is within those powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment. How can the S.C. return a power to the states which was always within their powers?

Last time I looked, Congress is bound by the terms of our Constitution, and that includes adhering to federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system in which the States and people therein, and not Congress, get to decide on those matters which ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Mike Pence took a dump on our Constitution when stating he wants federal legislation regulating abortion.

 

[samiam5211]

According to you!

Roe v. Wade was not in harmony with our Constitution. The regulation of abortion, if any, is within those powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment. How can the S.C. return a power to the states which was always within their powers?

Last time I looked, Congress is bound by the terms of our Constitution, and that includes adhering to federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system in which the States and people therein, and not Congress, get to decide on those matters which ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Mike Pence took a dump on our Constitution when stating he wants federal legislation regulating abortion.

The country set up by the founders failed in February of 1861.

In May of 1865 after the United States conquered the Confederacy, a new Country was established. One where the 14th amendment exists.

 

[Lursa]

During last night’s debate, after whining and dinning our ears to how loyal he is to the Constitution, with reference to President Trump and the 2020 election, Mike Pence went on to take a dump on the Constitution by indicating he wants Congressional legislation banning abortion.

Pence stated:

“When the Supreme Court returned this question to the American people, they didn't just send it to the states only. It's not a states-only issue. It's a moral issue, Pence said. He argued that there should be a minimum standard for abortion to be banned at 15 weeks of pregnancy." SOURCE

First of all, the S. C. did not return the issue of abortion regulation, if any, to the States. It was always within those powers reserved by the states and people therein. The S.C. merely confirmed what our Constitution stated from the beginning.

The irrefutable fact is, there is not a syllable in the Constitution delegating a power to Congress to enter the States and impose Mike Pence’s personal predilections upon the people therein. In fact, the Tenth Amendment codifies into the constitution the supremacy of powers reserve by the states and people therein which are eloquently summarized in Federalist No 45:



Mike Pence needs to take his sanctimonious dog and pony show elsewhere, especially now that he has openly taken a dump on our Constitution.

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

That's more flexibility than I expected from Pence on that. I was pretty happy last night in the debate when he admitted that mango MAGAt magnet asked him to perform actions that were unconstitutional to help him maintain the presidency "He asked me to put him above the Constitution and I said no." (paraphrased)

That can be used in court!

 

[Spock]

During last night’s debate, after whining and dinning our ears to how loyal he is to the Constitution, with reference to President Trump and the 2020 election, Mike Pence went on to take a dump on the Constitution by indicating he wants Congressional legislation banning abortion.

Pence stated:

“When the Supreme Court returned this question to the American people, they didn't just send it to the states only. It's not a states-only issue. It's a moral issue, Pence said. He argued that there should be a minimum standard for abortion to be banned at 15 weeks of pregnancy." SOURCE

First of all, the S. C. did not return the issue of abortion regulation, if any, to the States. It was always within those powers reserved by the states and people therein. The S.C. merely confirmed what our Constitution stated from the beginning.

The irrefutable fact is, there is not a syllable in the Constitution delegating a power to Congress to enter the States and impose Mike Pence’s personal predilections upon the people therein. In fact, the Tenth Amendment codifies into the constitution the supremacy of powers reserve by the states and people therein which are eloquently summarized in Federalist No 45:



Mike Pence needs to take his sanctimonious dog and pony show elsewhere, especially now that he has openly taken a dump on our Constitution.

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

I don't think this is a discussion about abortion. Anticipate that @johnwk will make this about federalism (the most ironically named "ism" concerned with reducing federal powers).
If this does turn out to be about abortion, the central question should be why is ANY point in pregnancy different from any other point in pregnancy?

 

[Spock]

The federal government established by the founders was too weak. Their failures became evident less than a century later.

Four score and seven, of so.

 

[Spock]

According to you!

Roe v. Wade was not in harmony with our Constitution. The regulation of abortion, if any, is within those powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment. How can the S.C. return a power to the states which was always within their powers?

Last time I looked, Congress is bound by the terms of our Constitution, and that includes adhering to federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system in which the States and people therein, and not Congress, get to decide on those matters which ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Mike Pence took a dump on our Constitution when stating he wants federal legislation regulating abortion.

Originalists want narrow judgments when it suits them and expansive SCOTUS decisions when it advances their reactionary, conservative agenda. There is sufficient room in due process clause of the 14th considerations to protect personal decisions people make about their medical care, sexuality, and affiliations.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

You don't know what authoritarian means.

He doesn't HAVE to .... he's John Wick!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The country set up by the founders failed in February of 1861.

In May of 1865 after the United States conquered the Confederacy, a new Country was established. One where the 14th amendment exists.

You're up against a Tenther position which says that everything AFTER the 10A is to be considered illegitimate.
According to Tenthers, the states are all sovereign republics and the only job of Fed Gov is to run the military.

 

[tshade]

According to you!

Roe v. Wade was not in harmony with our Constitution. The regulation of abortion, if any, is within those powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment. How can the S.C. return a power to the states which was always within their powers?

For 50 years it was part of the constitution-----so what the heck are YOU talking about.
The 14th amendment was used to allow abortion and for a woman to choose

Last time I looked, Congress is bound by the terms of our Constitution, and that includes adhering to federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system in which the States and people therein, and not Congress, get to decide on those matters which ". . . in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

How did Mike Pence go against this??? He was just saying he would support banning abortion

Mike Pence took a dump on our Constitution when stating he wants federal legislation regulating abortion.

All of our rights are regulated----so what is your beef??

 

[johnwk]

johnwk said:
According to you!

Roe v. Wade was not in harmony with our Constitution. The regulation of abortion, if any, is within those powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment. How can the S.C. return a power to the states which was always within their powers?

For 50 years it was part of the constitution-----so what the heck are YOU talking about.

No. Roe vs Wade was a subjugation of our Constitution.

 

[johnwk]

johnwk said:
Mike Pence took a dump on our Constitution when stating he wants federal legislation regulating abortion.

All of our rights are regulated----so what is your beef??

What's your beef with abiding by the Tenth Amendment, which limits the federal governments regulatory authority within the various United States?

JWK

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.

 

[tshade]

What's your beef with abiding by the Tenth Amendment, which limits the federal governments regulatory authority within the various United States?

JWK

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.

Nothing---me and the 10th are old buddies--------------it allows regulation, but limits it. The SCOTUS ruling on abortion was decided largely on the 14th amendment in 1973. But any president can try to his heart's delight to change the constitution------nothing wrong with that. If the courts agree, then okay.

 

[johnwk]

The SCOTUS ruling on abortion was decided largely on the 14th amendment in 1973.

No. It was based on a perversion of the 14th Amendment, and totally subverted the Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system, under which each state, and the people therein, are in charge of those "... objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

 

[tshade]

No. It was based on a perversion of the 14th Amendment, and totally subverted the Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution's big-tent system, under which each state, and the people therein, are in charge of those "... objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

JWK

When a Republican Legislator demands a national ban on abortions, or a Democrat Legislator demands a total unregulated access to abortion, both are domestic enemies of Federalism, our Constitution’s plan, and need to be excoriated for the traitors they are in wanting to exercise authoritarian power over the states and people therein.

well------I can see your side, but this "Trump affected" court erased 50 years of precedent----it was wrong in my eye...................DJT is the worst president in history by nearly all standards of our most outstanding historians, and he picked these people..................enough said