The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

[The Mark]

What specific abortion policy did Dobbs impose on the states?

That's a weird question.
Changing the law doesn't just mean adding to it. Removal also changes it.

But if you want, it imposed the consequences of Roe removal on the states who have state laws protecting choice which are near those who do not.

 

[weaver2]

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

It's fair for you to believe that the Dobbs document suits your religious and cultural beliefs better than Roe does but don't try to tell us that Dobbs is the better document because it is more honest than the Roe document.

The scholarly knowledge, historical and cultural knowledge, the philosophical reasoning and the research of the justices of the Roe decision produced an intellectually honest document. The propagandistic ramblings and misinterpretations of historical facts of Alito on the Dobbs document are not honest.

 

[watsup]

It's fair for you to believe that the Dobbs document suits your religious and cultural beliefs better than Roe does but don't try to tell us that Dobbs is the better document because it is more honest than the Roe document.

The scholarly knowledge, historical and cultural knowledge, the philosophical reasoning and the research of the justices of the Roe decision produced an intellectually honest document. The propagandistic ramblings and misinterpretations of historical facts of Alito on the Dobbs document are not honest.

The Alito decision contained a whole lot of far right sound bites but very little actual Constitutional reasoning. It sounded like to was written by Rush Limbaugh, given all the far right rants. It was ridiculous.

 

[weaver2]

Step one: first, dehumanize.

Step one: play the same game

 

[VanceMack]

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?

The states have the power to pass laws over issues NOT specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The people elect their state representatives. A GREAT example of the issue you cite is Kansas, just a few mere months ago. The people spoke...abortion was kept protected.

You know...the way its supposed to work.

 

[watsup]

The states have the power to pass laws over issues NOT specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The people elect their state representatives. A GREAT example of the issue you cite is Kansas, just a few mere months ago. The people spoke...abortion was kept protected.

You know...the way its supposed to work.

The Republicans are already working to find a way to overturn that particular “will of the people”, just like they do all the time.

 

[Cordelier]

The states have the power to pass laws over issues NOT specifically enumerated in the Constitution. The people elect their state representatives. A GREAT example of the issue you cite is Kansas, just a few mere months ago. The people spoke...abortion was kept protected.

You know...the way its supposed to work.

The right of the people to participate in a republican form of State governance was guaranteed by Article IV §4 of the Constitution. If the 10th Amendment's delegation of reserved powers "to the people" were nothing more than this, then there wouldn't have been any need to restate it, would there? And there especially wouldn't be any need to differentiate the reserved powers of the people from those of the State that the use of the word "or" implies in the 10th Amendment. Don't you think the word "or" implies one or the other rather than one and the same?

 

[VanceMack]

The right of the people to participate in a republican form of State governance was guaranteed by Article IV §4 of the Constitution. If the 10th Amendment's delegation of reserved powers "to the people" were nothing more than this, then there wouldn't have been any need to restate it, would there? And there especially wouldn't be any need to differentiate the reserved powers of the people from those of the State that the use of the word "or" implies in the 10th Amendment. Don't you think the word "or" implies one or the other rather than one and the same?

Obviously there was a need as 1-leftists continue to attack the enumerated rights they dont like and 2-leftists continue to try to bastardize the document to fit their causes.

 

[Cordelier]

Obviously there was a need as 1-leftists continue to attack the enumerated rights they dont like and 2-leftists continue to try to bastardize the document to fit their causes.

Your side is the only one bastardizing anything... all I'm doing is parsing the language of the text as it was written and ratified. Like I said to you at the start... whether you read it as a conservative or as a liberal, it's the same text and deserves the same respect, doesn't it? The word "or" is pretty unambiguous... I don't think it's meaning has changed all that much since the Bill of Rights was ratified. I think the intent is pretty obvious. Why can't you acknowledge that?

Jesus, if we can't agree on the meaning of the word "or", then what the hell can we agree on?

 

[uptower]

You’re just not seeing things clearly. Had they a “religious agenda” Dobbs would have been a very different decision.

Obviously, they can't come out and admit they're making formal decisions based on a book of fairy tales so they have to come up with other excuses like 'States' rights'.

 

[Glitch]

More psychology projection. Actually, the Tenth Amendment does not override the ability of the federal government to acknowledge additional rights in addition to those that are “enumerated”. If that were true, the states could still demand that blacks sit at the back of the bus. You clearly haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about. See post #401.

Yes, it does. But you will never comprehend it because you lack the education, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

 

[Glitch]

You expected a polite response to this?

I'm surprised you are able to respond at all, given your obvious lack of education. Shouldn't you be pretending to read another picture book or posting yet another meme?

 

[watsup]

Yes, it does. But you will never comprehend it because you lack the education, as has been repeatedly demonstrated.

More psychological projection. All you have is rant and ad hom because you are unable to actually debate in a serious and thoughtful manner.

 

[watsup]

I'm surprised you are able to respond at all, given your obvious lack of education. Shouldn't you be pretending to read another picture book or posting yet another meme?

More ad hom.

 

[Glitch]

It's fair for you to believe that the Dobbs document suits your religious and cultural beliefs better than Roe does but don't try to tell us that Dobbs is the better document because it is more honest than the Roe document.

The scholarly knowledge, historical and cultural knowledge, the philosophical reasoning and the research of the justices of the Roe decision produced an intellectually honest document. The propagandistic ramblings and misinterpretations of historical facts of Alito on the Dobbs document are not honest.

Dobbs is more honest that Roe ever was. It also has nothing to do with religious or cultural beliefs. The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated right. They are subject to the exact same restrictions as the rest of the federal government, which is prohibited from exercising any power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. The States, on the other hand, only have certain powers prohibited by the US Constitution. Those powers the US Constitution does not prohibit to the States are the exclusive powers of the States, and/or the people respectively.

Only the States can choose to recognize an unenumerated right, not the Supreme Court or anyone else in the federal government.

 

[Cordelier]

Dobbs is more honest that Roe ever was. It also has nothing to do with religious or cultural beliefs. The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated right. They are subject to the exact same restrictions as the rest of the federal government, which is prohibited from exercising any power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. The States, on the other hand, only have certain powers prohibited by the US Constitution. Those powers the US Constitution does not prohibit to the States are the exclusive powers of the States, and/or the people respectively.

Only the States can choose to recognize an unenumerated right, not the Supreme Court or anyone else in the federal government.

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

Seems pretty clear to me... if the Federal Government has the obligation to recognize enumerated rights, it must also do so - and to the same extent - for unenumerated rights. To do otherwise would be to deny or disparage those rights retained by the people, would it not?

 

[American]

Well, slavery was perfectly constitutional at one point as well, was it not?

A lot of people - justifiably - were morally offended by that fact. But it didn't change the letter of the law, did it?

And?

 

[American]

The right doesn't exist. It wasn't even at issue in Dobbs. Like I said, it's a moral argument, not a legal one.

The issue is if women have a right to privacy or not.

Where does Dobbs discuss privacy?

 

[watsup]

Dobbs is more honest that Roe ever was. It also has nothing to do with religious or cultural beliefs. The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated right. They are subject to the exact same restrictions as the rest of the federal government, which is prohibited from exercising any power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. The States, on the other hand, only have certain powers prohibited by the US Constitution. Those powers the US Constitution does not prohibit to the States are the exclusive powers of the States, and/or the people respectively.

Only the States can choose to recognize an unenumerated right, not the Supreme Court or anyone else in the federal government.

That’s not what the Constitution says. Nowhere does it say that the federal government cannot recognize unenumerated rights. As a matter of fact, Amendment IX implies the exact opposite, namely that the federal government can indeed recognize those rights that were not “enumerated.”. In addition, the SC is on solid ground to ACKNOWLEDGE rights that were not enumerated. That’s part of their job, as a matter of fact.
Are you saying that the SC was wrong in their decision to segregate schools? The Southern states claimed that it was “only” a state’s right, just like you do. Was Eisenhower wrong in sending troops to accompany the students who integrated both high schools and colleges? Why are you so afraid to answer these questions?

 

[Cordelier]

And?

And... I await your response.

 

[Cordelier]

Where does Dobbs discuss privacy?

A text search of the decision reveals 13 instances of the word used. I suggest you check it out for yourself.

 

[weaver2]

Dobbs is more honest that Roe ever was. It also has nothing to do with religious or cultural beliefs. The Supreme Court does not have the constitutional authority to acknowledge an unenumerated right. They are subject to the exact same restrictions as the rest of the federal government, which is prohibited from exercising any power not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. The States, on the other hand, only have certain powers prohibited by the US Constitution. Those powers the US Constitution does not prohibit to the States are the exclusive powers of the States, and/or the people respectively.

Only the States can choose to recognize an unenumerated right, not the Supreme Court or anyone else in the federal government.

There are 10 year olds with more sophisticated and intelligent logic than Alito. Dobbs did what you wanted it to do. Be happy in your victory. Dress up your made to pander decision in festive jubilation . Just don't try to tell us it was honest or fair.

 

[Cordelier]

There are 10 year olds with more sophisticated and intelligent logic than Alito. Dobbs did what you wanted it to do. Be happy in your victory. Dress up your made to pander decision in festive jubilation . Just don't try to tell us it was honest or fair.

Alito definitely isn't in Scalia's league, that's for sure. With Scalia, I disagreed with about 90%+ of his decisions, but it was rare I could summon what I felt to be a better argument.

With Alito I'd feel like a moron to even attempt to defend his "logic".

 

[Captain Adverse]

The right of the people to participate in a republican form of State governance was guaranteed by Article IV §4 of the Constitution. If the 10th Amendment's delegation of reserved powers "to the people" were nothing more than this, then there wouldn't have been any need to restate it, would there? And there especially wouldn't be any need to differentiate the reserved powers of the people from those of the State that the use of the word "or" implies in the 10th Amendment. Don't you think the word "or" implies one or the other rather than one and the same?

Apparently, since this issue has been a matter of State law pre-Roe and pre-Casey, and the current SCOTUS has overturned both decisions, then the power to decide the LAW in regards to this issue per the 10th Amendment would rightly revert to State legislatures. Not the individual.

This has been pointed out to you several times. It is now a matter of Constitutional law.

So stop asserting it is an individual right and start organizing to change State laws.

As I have already said, the right to privacy does not allow one to do harm to another just because it is done "in private." Your only reply is to deny the rights of the unborn, asserting they should not have any simply because (per normal human biology) it is occurring inside a woman. That remains the issue, and that like any other protection from harm provided by law for any other "person" can be legislated.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Then what does the 9th Amendment mean?

Apparently whatever the SCOTUS says that it does. What it doesn’t mean is that the SCOTUS can make laws or supply (additional) text to tthe 9A via majority opinions.