The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

[watsup]

1. Those five cells are alive, and they exist in the world, so they have being. That makes it a living being.
2. Those cells compose the entirety of a human at that point in development, so it is a human being.
3. The life cycle of every human being starts at conception.
4. Those cells have never resulted in the birth of a different animal, which solidifies that it is, indeed, a human.

So what? It’s still five cells. A acorn isn’t an oak tree and a zygote isn’t a fully developed human being. That really is the point.

 

[NatMorton]

He dodged my question as well and acted like he accomplished something. Lots of typing but no content. He knows he doesn't have any standing so sticks to evasions.

Generally speaking, the dodging of questions marks the point in the debate when all sides realize one side of the argument is failing.

 

[watsup]

Generally speaking, the dodging of questions marks the point in the debate when all sides realize one side of the argument is failing.

Is that why you dodge questions so often?

 

[Fishking]

Maybe if you get angrier you'll come up with a better argument.

I don't need to come up with anything else.

 

[NatMorton]

You don't like the idea that the Constitutions (and are laws in general) are living, so you just refuse to accept it.

Refuse to accept it, are you serious? I have long asserted the "living document" argument is complete bullshit. It's a euphemism for judicial activism and I've long opposed it. Are you only just realizing this about my position?

 

[Fishking]

So what? It’s still five cells. A acorn isn’t an oak tree and a zygote isn’t a fully developed human being. That really is the point.

A toddler isn't a fully developed human being. So watsup wants to be able to just kill them, right?

 

[NatMorton]

A toddler isn't a fully developed human being. So watsup wants to be able to just kill them, right?

Step one: first, dehumanize.

 

[Fishking]

Step one: first, dehumanize.

And why they will never address points directly because they do not have either the facts, reason, or history on their side.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I have long asserted the "living document" argument is complete bullshit. It's a euphemism for judicial activism and I've long opposed it.

I know you've asserted, and you have failed to defend it every time it's come up.

Our Constitution is undeniably living, as it now stands to grant rights and privileges to groups previously excluded. This has been accomplished both through amendments (the 14th), legislation (Civil Rights Act), and yes, judicial review (Brown V Board). This includes the original Bill of Rights, which has not has its text altered nor the original intent changed, yet it has grown beyond both as society and America have changed.

 

[VanceMack]

Doesn't the 9th Amendment state plainly that individuals have rights beyond those which are enumerated within the Constitution?

Aaaaaaaaaand.....who determines the laws where those rights are not specifically enumerated?

You get that you just defended my position...right?

 

[VanceMack]

First, the government does NOT create new rights. The amendment process only recognizes by enumerating what a super majority of the States (3/4) ratify.

Which requires actual advancement of legislation and ratification by the states...and not a tortured effort to force fit anything they can into the 14th amendment.

 

[AGENT J]

Here are facts that you cannot deny:

Holy sweet irony

speaking of facts that can't be denied, your statement below still 100% factually wrong based on science and definition

Sorry, but your denials mean nothing to reality. Homicide is when one human being kills another. Every single abortion factually does that.

FACTS/SCIENCE

abortion =/= homicide
can you make an honest integrity based post and acknowledge that fact or will you keep posting lies denying definitions and science

 

[Cordelier]

Can you please provide us with the list of unenumerated rights? There seems to be some debate about what’s on it and what is not.

Well, that's kind of the whole point, isn't it?

We've got the fundamental enumerated rights... but there are legal areas in between those fundamental rights where overlap occurs and entirely new rights may be claimed. As the Court found in Griswold, the overlap between the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Amendments implied that a marital right to privacy existed. Similarly, I'd argue that there was overlap between the 2nd and 4th Amendments that implies a right to keep and bear arms for self defense exists. If I were on the Court, that's how I would have concurred on Heller. There was no call nor need for Justice Scalia to take the vast historical journey into the deeper meanings of the word "well regulated". Essentially, all he needed to say was this... damn right Americans have a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self defense. We've always had it under the 9th Amendment and the penumbra that exists between the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

So, no, there are not and never will be an exhaustive list of unenumerated rights. Personal freedom and liberty should always be an unexplored land stretching off into and beyond the horizon, from wherein we step to - as the Constitution compels us to do - form that more perfect union.

 

[Cordelier]

Precisely the justification Justice Taney used to keep Dred Scott and his family in chains, FWIW.

Well, truthfully, if you were being true to the wording of the Constitution as it existed in 1857 and not being an "activist" and putting what you believed to be morally right above the letter of the law, wouldn't you have decided against Dred Scott as well?

 

[Cordelier]

Lovely words, but they’re ultimately meaningless political poetry. You have the rights your government is willing to protect, and no others.

Spoken like a true Loyalist. Need I remind you that at the time those words were written, the balance of power was overwhelmingly against it's authors?

 

[Cordelier]

Plain English: Dobbs is consistent with an honest reading of the Constitution. Roe was not.

Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite, actually. The Court maintained there was no right to privacy, because one isn't enumerated within the Constitution. Well, by my reckoning, and following the example of Justice Goldberg in Griswold, non-enumeration is not - and should not ever be - a barrier to establishing the existence of a right. The right had been formally recognized in untold Supreme Court opinions going back to at least 1965. It was settled law. There certainly was no legitimate basis to overturn it, given the wording of the 9th Amendment.

But they went even further than that in their judicial vandalism....

Even if they did decide that it was a matter best left to the States under the 10th Amendment.... why decide it was in the purview of the State Legislatures to decide? Under the plain text reading of the 10th Amendment - not lawyerese in the slightest - reserved powers not delegated to the Federal Government properly belong to the States OR to the people. Not to the States AND to the people. Not to the States AND THEN to the people. It reads to the States OR to the people. One or the other, to the same level. I'm not suggesting the preponderance of those reserved powers don't properly belong to the States - of course they do. But surely to God some of them should go directly to the people. I can't, wont, nor ever will believe it was the intent of the Founders that the last four words of the last amendment of the Bill of Rights be considered some form of written ornamentation. So if something as intensely private and personal and intimate as deciding to keep or terminate a pregnancy doesn't properly belong to the people - on an individual basis - then I've got a hard time seeing what ever could.

 

[watsup]

A toddler isn't a fully developed human being. So watsup wants to be able to just kill them, right?

You know what I meant. Get back to me when you can have a serious and thoughtful discussion without tryIng to change the meanings of my words.
Until then, it’s still just five cells. So what?

 

[watsup]

Step one: first, dehumanize.

He was lying about me and you seconded his lie. Does that make you feel proud?

 

[watsup]

And why they will never address points directly because they do not have either the facts, reason, or history on their side.

Double down on your lie about me. And psychological projection to boot.

 

[mrjurrs]

That is true, but this SCOTUS majority allowed each state legislature to decide that clearly political matter. RvW (and later CvPP) did the opposite and declared that a SCOTUS majority could make that clearly political decision nationwide. There is no mention of abortion (or any elective medical procedure), trimesters or fetal viability in the Constitution.

Then what does the 9th Amendment mean?

 

[mrjurrs]

So did this:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This is not a crime against the unborn, it is an element of a crime. Just like a gun enhancement or a hate speech enhancement.

 

[Cordelier]

Aaaaaaaaaand.....who determines the laws where those rights are not specifically enumerated?

You get that you just defended my position...right?

So you maintain the State Government has the power to make such laws under the 10th Amendment? Because the way I read the 10th Amendment. reserved powers not given to the Federal Government belong to the States OR to the people. So if something as personal and intimate as deciding to carry a pregnancy to term doesn't properly lie with "the people", then what reserved powers do they actually possess under the 10th Amendment?

 

[watsup]

Not in the slightest. Quite the opposite, actually. The Court maintained there was no right to privacy, because one isn't enumerated within the Constitution. Well, by my reckoning, and following the example of Justice Goldberg in Griswold, non-enumeration is not - and should not - ever be a barrier to establishing the existence of a right. The right had been formally recognized in untold Supreme Court opinions going back to at least 1965. It was settled law. There certainly was no legitimate basis to overturn it, given the wording of the 9th Amendment.

But they went even further than that in their judicial vandalism....

Even if they did decide that it was a matter best left to the States under the 10th Amendment.... why decide it was in the purview of the State Legislatures to decide? Under the plain text reading of the 10th Amendment - not lawyerese in the slightest - reserved powers not delegated to the Federal Government properly belong to the States OR to the people. Not to the States AND to the people. Not to the States AND THEN to the people. It reads to the States OR to the people. One or the other, to the same level. I'm not suggesting the preponderance of those reserved powers don't properly belong to the States - of course they do. But surely to God some of them should go directly to the people. I can't, wont, nor ever will believe it was the intent of the Founders that the last four words of the last amendment of the Bill of Rights be considered some form of written ornamentation. So if something as intensely private and personal and intimate as deciding to keep or terminate a pregnancy doesn't properly belong to the people - on an individual basis - then I've got a hard time seeing what ever could.

Excellent!

 

[weaver2]

And you cannot harm another person when exercising your right to privacy or any other right in the Constitution.

That is why privacy is not the central issue with abortion. The central issue is a legal definition of a person so that we can (legally) answer the question when is an abortion harming someone other than the mother and when is it not.

You can make up your own laws, using your own word definitions based on your own version of science and force all the women in your church to follow those religious laws. That's a constitutional right you have in the United States. But others have the same right to that same religious freedom. They are free to believe and make up the laws of their religion completely free from what ever you are doing in your religion including the right to not have any religion at all.

Nobody has rights without responsibilities. Religious freedom is based on the right to privacy; the right to make personal decisions about one's religious life. That freedom comes with the responsibility not to interfere in other people's private lives. That includes the privacy to decide to abort a pregnancy that the mother believes will cause harm to others

 

[Hamish Howl]

Nothing demonstrates a lack of education better than a poster that can only communicate via memes.

You expected a polite response to this?

Leftists are indeed mentally-deranged sub-human pieces of shit, but "filth" is faster to type.

You post like a member of the SS.