The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

[ttwtt78640]

No, that is not what it says. At all.
The 9th says all the rights a person or a state could possibly have are still theirs unless delegated through this document as something the federal government can control.

That seems closer to the 10A than the 9A.

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

Ninth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Plasmaball]

The fertilization is when the sperm is literally already there. Wth? There is some very basic biology you're missing here.

I wasn't arguing that?

Good for you dodging the rest to focus on this.

Speaks volumes.

 

[mrjurrs]

It means much the same as the phrase “and other duties as assigned by supervisor” included in a job (position?) description means. The 9A states that in addition to the enumerated (listed) rights and there may be others.

The idea that a textless version of a “right to (reproductive only?) privacy” (surely?) always existed is a great theory, but has little basis outside of a handful of SCOTUS opinions.

I would welcome a “right to privacy” amendment with text being added (just as any other amendment was) to the Constitution, but do not see that as being a unilateral power of the SCOTUS.

I disagree. The 9th says there are other rights not recognized in the Constitution. Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional? SCOTUS.

 

[Cordelier]

There does exist another way of looking at it.

Rather than interpreting the term “or” as linking alternatives, i.e., one or the other, it is quite possible that the framers used it as introducing a synonym. An explanation, or descriptor, of the previous phrase. In other words, the state is the people. A reiteration, if you will, making clear the distinction between local and federal powers.

I think that's a bit of a stretch, given the fact that the link between the people and the state was established by Article IV §4's guarantee of a republican form of State Government. If your formulation was accurate, then why the need to restate it?

 

[csense]

I think that's a bit of a stretch, given the fact that the link between the people and the state was established by Article IV §4's guarantee of a republican form of State Government. If your formulation was accurate, then why the need to restate it?

I can’t speak to whether your argument is valid or not, nor do I want to. What I do know is that the Tenth Amendment speaks of powers, and powers are the sole domain of governments, just as Rights are the sole domain of individuals. Rights and Powers are not synonymous. They are fundamentally different. The framers understood this distinction very well.

I therefore do not see how one can interpret the Tenth Amendment as bestowing powers upon an unelected individual.

 

[Cordelier]

I can’t speak to whether your argument is valid or not, nor do I want to. What I do know is that the Tenth Amendment speaks of powers, and powers are the sole domain of governments, just as Rights are the sole domain of individuals. Rights and Powers are not synonymous. They are fundamentally different. The framers understood this distinction very well.

I therefore do not see how one can interpret the Tenth Amendment as bestowing powers upon an unelected individual.

Unless it is implied that in some cases, the people are intended to possess the power to decide for themselves. Seems to me that is an argument for a more expansive right to privacy, in contrast to the restricted one, as the Court decided in Dobbs.

 

[watsup]

The left also ne do to take back patriotism from the far right and religion from the fundamentalists.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I disagree. The 9th says there are other rights not recognized in the Constitution. Who is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional? SCOTUS.

OK, but that is obviously subject to change because the ‘text’ describing the (newly discovered?) right is whatever they say it (now) is.

 

[mrjurrs]

OK, but that is obviously subject to change because the ‘text’ describing the (newly discovered?) right is whatever they say it (now) is.

And that is why Dobbes is wrongly decided on many levels. The right was there. It was confirmed through another case (super precedent). And it was overturned by justices lying in confirmation hearings about the specific item they were asked about.

 

[csense]

Unless it is implied that in some cases, the people are intended to possess the power to decide for themselves.

Why would the framers imply a system, outside of representative government, that is inherently chaotic and anarchistic?

 

[Cordelier]

Why would the framers imply a system, outside of representative government, that is inherently chaotic and anarchistic?

Perhaps they had a more expansive view of personal freedom?

 

[Integrityrespec]

The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

A new book argues that the Constitution is best understood as a document calling for the unashamed struggle for equality.

www.thenation.com

This is one of those articles you don't need to read much of to get a sense of what it's about. So with that in mind, I'll only speak to the opening line:



... and , of course, the first case cited as an example of the pressure placed by the "conservative movement thumb" was Dobbs v Jackson.

This argument is, in a word, ridiculous. Let us understand how Dobbs is fundamentally different than Roe.

Roe decided the matter. It imposed a legal standard for abortion rights on all 50 states: no state could prohibit abortion before the third trimester, even if there was overwhelming political support for a different standard in any (or all) of those states.

Had the Dobbs majority taken the same approach as the Roe majority, i.e. had Dobbs imposed the will of the "conservative movement" as this author contends, then the decision would have moved Roe's viability standard to some earlier stage of development, maybe week 8, maybe conception. But Dobbs didn't do that. Dobbs literally sets no standard and returns the matter entirely to the electorate.

It is far more accurate to say that Roe was the political will of the "liberal movement." Dobbs, conversely, is apolitical. It does not attempt to decide the matter and instead leaves it to voters.

The very idea that the left needs to take back control of the Constitution implies they don't like the Constitution. For instance, they want to ban personal ownership of firearms even though the Constitution specifically gives that right to the people. The left doesn't agree, so therefore they need to take control. In other words impose their crazy left wing socialist, marxist views on the country. They want abortion on demand and without any restriction. How do we know this? They say so every time the debate of come restrictions comes up. A woman's right to determine for herself. In other words if they choose to end the life of a baby in the womb, that's OK. It's not OK but they have been told it's not even a human being so no problem. When offered compromise to set a date limiting the time period in which an abortion may take place, even when the compromise is including rape, incest, mothers health and fetal abnormality they balk at these because they don't want any restrictions. Yet, nowhere, not ever, does the Constitution mention abortion or the right of anyone to take the life of a baby in the womb. But, they want to take control of the Constitution because the court isn't ruling correctly. Well, the job is to determine what the Constitution actually says and not what a bunch of left wing radicals wish it meant because of some fictitious notion of what American history is .

 

[Integrityrespec]

Spare me your copy + pasted platitudes.

The Court's decision that they can carve out specific rights and abilities from citizens under the guise that the circumstances are "unique" should be problematic to anyone with common sense, but since it accomplished the right wing goal of overturning Roe V Wade, there is predictably zero expressions of concern from conservatives.

Rights are either explicitly spelled out or they belong to the states and the people to determine. Abortion isn't mentioned leaving it to be determined by the states, which is what Dobbs does. That wasn't what they wanted and they scream that rights were taken away. Problem is the right was never given in the Constitution but by a Supreme Court that misinterpreted the Constitution by saying is said or meant something it simply doesn't say.
Now the states, which clearly have differing views on abortion, have the clear authority to determine in their state what the law with be governing abortion. That too is not good enough, the states shouldn't get to decide. Of course when it comes to gun rights the left is willing to ignore the Constitution which clearly gives that as a right of the people.

 

[Integrityrespec]

So did this:

Unborn Victims of Violence Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thankyou. The left only sees this as law when they want it. Their position is that a mother to be has the right to kill her baby.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Some on the left, I suspect many, are even ok with partial birth abortion. There may not be a more sadistic and brutal form of abortion. Delivery of the child by breech birth up to the neck and then using forceps to mutilate the baby and cause death. That's inexcusable.The child is roughly 80% delivered and then killed.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Rights are either explicitly spelled out or they belong to the states and the people to determine. Abortion isn't mentioned leaving it to be determined by the states, which is what Dobbs does.
.

Which is a terrible idea.

 

[NatMorton]

Which is a terrible idea.

You'll need to take that up with the framers.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You'll need to take that up with the framers.

No I don't, because they're all dead.

And even so, a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of whether the framers believed in it or not.

 

[NatMorton]

No I don't, because they're all dead.

And even so, a bad idea is a bad idea regardless of whether the framers believed in it or not.

What purpose, if any, do you believe states serve?

 

[Jredbaron96]

What purpose, if any, do you believe states serve?

The same purpose that every administrative subdivision has served since the inception of the concept: ease of administration.

That's not also not entirely relevant. The reason abortion shouldn't be left to the states is letting the constituent states of a Federation have such stark differences in laws is grounds for a political and social nightmare.

You seem to prefer to only observe this issue thought an isolated legal lens rather than the much deeper social matter that it presents.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Which is a terrible idea.

It's a federal system with divided power. Prevents the federal government from over reach. It's a very sensible idea. The USA is only here because British citizens separated themselves from an abusive government.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It's a federal system with divided power. Prevents the federal government from over reach. It's a very sensible idea.

Federalism is a sensible idea. Letting abortion be left to the states is not.

The funny thing is it was a conservative on this website that first pointed this out to me. For some reason a lot of right wingers today prefer not to share that sentiment.

 

[NatMorton]

The same purpose that every administrative subdivision has served since the inception of the concept: ease of administration.

That's not also not entirely relevant. The reason abortion shouldn't be left to the states is letting the constituent states of a Federation have such stark differences in laws is grounds for a political and social nightmare.

You seem to prefer to only observe this issue thought an isolated legal lens rather than the much deeper social matter that it presents.

No, not an isolated lens, more an overriding respect for two things:

1. A state's right to govern itself.
2. That our Constitution requires the authority from a supermajority of other states to override any one state's democratically elected officials.

IMO, both of these considerations are more important than my views on abortion and also more important than yours.

 

[eman623]

Federalism is a sensible idea. Letting abortion be left to the states is not.

Seeing as how support for abortion varies greatly from one state to another, it seems like precisely the kind of issue that should be left up to them.

Abortion is not inherently an issue conducive to a one-size-fits-all solution.

But even if you think it is, just get Roe enacted as a federal law. Most people think abortion should be legal up to some point, just not the entire 9 month. Seems like a bipartisan compromise bill could be crafted that could easily get a majority.

 

[Jredbaron96]

No, not an isolated lens, more an overriding respect for two things:

1. A state's right to govern itself.
2. That our Constitution requires the authority from a supermajority of other states to override any one state's democratically elected officials.

Neither of these conditions are applicable when the matter is one of life and death.

Which is ultimately what the debate about abortion is, especially from the prolife side, which is why we've already seen plenty of noise about punishing cross state abortion efforts.