The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

[ttwtt78640]

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?

The importance of the 10A was not to differentiate between the rights of individuals and the powers of their state‘s elected representatives, but to specifically emphasize the fixed limits of the Constitutional federal government powers. The 14A empathized the need for equal protection (regardless of the level of government) of the laws to ensure that individual Constitutional rights remain protected.

 

[American]

Who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional? The SCOTUS. Almost two generations ago SCOTUS determined there was a Constitutional right that had not previously been enumerated. Since then that right has been affirmed based on Roe and additional case law,

"In Griswold, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy, derived from penumbras of other explicitly stated constitutional protections. The Court used the personal protections expressly stated in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments to find that there is an implied right to privacy in the Constitution. The Court found that when one takes the penumbras together, the Constitution creates a “zone of privacy.” The right to privacy established in Griswold was then narrowly used to find a right to privacy for married couples, regarding the right to purchase contraceptives."

What does the 9th mean if it doesn't mean this?

Dobbs said it's not a privacy issue, which is the primary problem with Roe, which apparently didn't even prove privacy.

 

[American]

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?

Bill Clinton questioned the definition of the word "is".

 

[Cordelier]

Exactly, we do not have agreement on what is and what is not an unenumerated right. And without that agreement, by what authority does a judge, or group of judges, have the authority to pluck one out of the thin air and have it treated like an enumerated, Constitutional right?

The entire point of the 9th and 10th was to prevent the federal government from engaging in capricious law making; not enable it.

Curious point of view you have there.... from my perspective, the Federal Government engages in capricious law making when it tramples individual rights - not when it recognizes them.

 

[Cordelier]

No, you would not. Scott's owner was not deprived of his property without due process of law because there was a law on the books in both Illinois and the Wisconsin territory that made slavery illegal. By way of example, marijuana is legal in my state, but that doesn't prevent my dime bag from being confiscated if I travel to a state where it is illegal.

Taney's argument was activism because he decided to ignore the due process of state law in order to achieve a desired political outcome.

Article IV §2 cl. 3 of the Constitution (as it stood in 1857):
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Taney's hands were tied by the literal text of the Constitution as it existed at that time. To decide other than he did would have been activism.

 

[Cordelier]

So what? My point stands. You get the rights your government protects. Did the Bill of Rights mean anything to blacks in the deep south before 1865?

Until the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the subsequent incorporation of the Bill of Rights, did it really mean anything to anyone in any State?

 

[Cordelier]

Sorry, no, Dobbs did not fail to acknowledge the right to privacy. Suggest you read the decision.

Sure, they left it's shell... but they took all the meat. They could come back at any time and on any issue - gay marriage, birth control, elective surgery- you name it. All they've got to do is decide it's not "an historical right" in their judgment, and it's gone.

 

[eman623]

In other news, the court that has allegedly abandoned interpreting the law and become a willing tool of the GOP just rejected Mike Lindell's 2020 election appeal.

MyPillow’s Mike Lindell Rejected by Supreme Court on Defamation Suit

(Bloomberg) -- The US Supreme Court turned away a bid by MyPillow Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mike Lindell to derail a lawsuit accusing him of defaming a voting technology company with his claims that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.Most Read from BloombergTrump...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Cordelier]

The importance of the 10A was not to differentiate between the rights of individuals and the powers of their state‘s elected representatives, but to specifically emphasize the fixed limits of the Constitutional federal government powers. The 14A empathized the need for equal protection (regardless of the level of government) of the laws to ensure that individual Constitutional rights remain protected.

Be that as it may, the 10th Amendment also clearly states that reserved powers aren't the exclusive domain of the States. They also properly belong to the people themselves. Not derived from their participation in a constitutionally-guaranteed republican form of State Government, not by abeyance in cases where the States don't exercise their powers... but directly, as a matter of right, and as a separate and unique grant of Constitutional power. Reserved powers are to go to the States OR to the people. One or the other.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Until the ratification of the 14th Amendment and the subsequent incorporation of the Bill of Rights, did it really mean anything to anyone in any State?

The same could be said for voting rights of women. The 14A should have made the 19A completely unnecessary, yet it obviously didn’t manage to do so. States (and even cities) still manage to have “gun control” laws which are more restrictive than federal regulations - that somehow (apparently) doesn’t violate either the 2A or the 14A.

 

[Cordelier]

Bill Clinton questioned the definition of the word "is".

Yeah, well, Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony wasn't exactly the Constitution of the United States, was it?

 

[American]

Yeah, well, Bill Clinton's grand jury testimony wasn't exactly the Constitution of the United States, was it?

Y'all didn't think his shit stank back then.

 

[Cordelier]

The same could be said for voting rights of women. The 14A should have made the 19A completely unnecessary, yet it obviously didn’t manage to do so. States (and even cities) still manage to have “gun control” laws which are more restrictive than federal regulations - that somehow (apparently) doesn’t violate either the 2A or the 14A.

Did you read the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment? "But when the right to vote... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

 

[Cordelier]

Y'all didn't think his shit stank back then.

C'mon... that whole Starr investigation was a tabloid sham. It ought to have ended with Whitewater - not some never-ending quest to find whatever real or imagined dirt we can find.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Did you read the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment? "But when the right to vote... is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."

Yep, couldn’t let that equal protection apply to all people (inhabitants or residents?) even if they are taxpaying citizens.

 

[Cordelier]

Yep, couldn’t let that equal protection apply to all people (inhabitants or residents?) even if they are taxpaying citizens.

Hey, I'm with you... but what do you do when you have a Constitutionally ignorant Supreme Court? You get decisions like Minor v. Happersett... or Dobbs v. Jackson.

It's all about keeping the women in their place.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hey, I'm with you... but what do you do when you have a Constitutionally ignorant Supreme Court? You get decisions like Minor v. Happersett... or Dobbs v. Jackson.

It's all about keeping the women in their place.

Perhaps, but even RvW and CvPP allowed the possibility of states granting the right to life to an unborn child after what it deemed to be ‘sufficient’ fetal development (based on nothing at all the Constitution, BTW). Treating an unborn child as simply part of it’s mother is also not without moral and legal problems.

After all, an unborn child either has or does not have a right to life and protection from violence. Is the following federal law unconstitutional or OK snce it contains an exception for abortion, yet has no distinction based on the level of fetal development?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cordelier]

Perhaps, but even RvW and CvPP allowed the possibility of states granting the right to life to an unborn child after what it deemed to be ‘sufficient’ fetal development (based on nothing at all the Constitution, BTW). Treating an unborn child as simply part of it’s mother is also not without moral and legal problems.

After all, an unborn child either has or does not have a right to life and protection from violence. Is the following federal law unconstitutional or OK snce it contains an exception for abortion, yet has no distinction based on the level of fetal development?

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But where does that "right" come from? There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a fetus has any rights. The mother obviously has rights - if she is able, she has the right to be pregnant if she wants to, does she not?

 

[watsup]

Horseshit. It is the left that constantly tries to torture their causes and the Constitution to gain acceptance for the shit policies that the public wont accept and you cant get passed. Stop clowning yourself...its ****ing embarrassing`.

More psychological projection.

 

[Cordelier]

Horseshit. It is the left that constantly tries to torture their causes and the Constitution to gain acceptance for the shit policies that the public wont accept and you cant get passed. Stop clowning yourself...its ****ing embarrassing`.

You're talking in imaginary partisan-based stereotypes. I'm talking in specific facts. No wonder you can't tell what the meaning of the word "or" is. Facts don't seem to fit your agenda.

 

[ttwtt78640]

But where does that "right" come from? There's nothing in the Constitution to suggest that a fetus has any rights. The mother obviously has rights - if she is able, she has the right to be pregnant if she wants to, does she not?

The RvW and CvPP SCOTUS created ‘laws’ both added the possibility of the states creating that right - based on a ‘sufficient’ level of fetal development. That was also not supported by anything within the Constitution.

You completely ignored the quoted federal law. How can one be additionally charged with injuring or killing a separate human being (entity?) which lacks individual rights?

 

[watsup]

Dobbs said it's not a privacy issue, which is the primary problem with Roe, which apparently didn't even prove privacy.

Political extremism instead of Constitutional merit by a far right SC in the Dobbs decision.

 

[Cordelier]

The RvW and CvPP SCOTUS created ‘laws’ both added the possibility of the states creating that right - based on a ‘sufficient’ level of fetal development. That was also not supported by anything within the Constitution.

You completely ignored the quoted federal law. How can one be additionally charged with injuring or killing a separate human being (entity?) which lacks individual rights?

Any rights the fetus is held to have are necessarily derived upon it from it's mother. They don't exist on their own merits any more than the fetus exists on it's own merits.

 

[VanceMack]

You're talking in imaginary partisan-based stereotypes. I'm talking in specific facts. No wonder you can't tell what the meaning of the word "or" is. Facts don't seem to fit your agenda.

I'm very specifically talking about the actions of the left. Gay marriage, health care, Trans rights, abortion, on and on. Causes that failed to pass legislative muster shoehorned into an amendment that doesnt fit.

 

[mrjurrs]

What is and is not covered by this recently SCOTUS discovered, yet “narrowly used”, (Constitutional?) “right to privacy”? It seems to me that this is simply a back door method to allow the federal government the (new?) power to challenge or override state laws.

Keep in mind that many stated that RvW was “the law of the land”, yet for that to have been true then the SCOTUS had (given itself?) the power to make law.

I don't disagree with you, but you still haven't told me what you think the 9th means. Surely you don't want Congress legislating new rights do you?