]W:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

[Paul191145]

Nope...since the law doesnt recognize the scientific classification/definition for human being and explicitly calls it out in the US Code I provided...the 5th A doesnt apply.

Also, since the 14th A also says someone has to be born to be a person or have rights recognized...the 5th ALSO does not apply. You are attempting to use the Const to argue against the Const You have made no argument why the US should recognize the unborn as human beings with rights. None. All you do is point to a (irrelevant) scientific definition and try to link it to the 5th A...which the 14th A clearly dismisses.

So thus far, the argument you made failed and you've failed to come up with anything else.

For the last time, I never stated this was part of or representative of current law, it's a concept that bears consideration. As for the 14th amendment, once again, it addresses CITIZENSHIP status, and even reiterates the 5th amendment in that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified
12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

 

[Lursa]

For the last time, I never stated this was part of or representative of current law, it's a concept that bears consideration.

Yes we know that or the hundredth time. We want you to support your claim, justifying why there should be change to recognize rights for the unborn. So far, just a scientific definition for legal status and rights fails. Period. You have not explained WHY there should be any CHANGE to current law.

As for the 14th amendment, once again, it addresses CITIZENSHIP status, and even reiterates the 5th amendment in that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.

No...it discusses who has rights recognized in the US, period. You dont understand it. It's clear that only the BORN or naturalized citizens are entitled to due process, etc. You are wrong.

No matter what CHANGES you want, that does not change the actual meaning of the 14th A and it has continually been interpreted to exclude the unborn. The Amendment would need to be repealed. What would justify that? You need an explanation founded in law.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified
12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

Again, you have not explained why or how to CHANGE current law. You know the 5th does not apply to the unborn, since they are not persons or citizens. What is the justification to change that?

 

[Paul191145]

Yes we know that or the hundredth time. We want you to support your claim, justifying why there should be change to recognize rights for the unborn. So far, just a scientific definition for legal status and rights fails. Period. You have not explained WHY there should be any CHANGE to current law.



No...it discusses who has rights recognized in the US, period. You dont understand it. It's clear that only the BORN or naturalized citizens are entitled to due process, etc. You are wrong.

No matter what CHANGES you want, that does not change the actual meaning of the 14th A and it has continually been interpreted to exclude the unborn. The Amendment would need to be repealed. What would justify that? You need an explanation founded in law.



Again, you have not explained why or how to CHANGE current law. You know the 5th does not apply to the unborn, since they are not persons or citizens. What is the justification to change that?

Reading comprehension is obviously NOT your forte.

 

[Lursa]

Reading comprehension is obviously NOT your forte.

And managing to make a cogent debate with more than your unfounded beliefs is not yours. You failed to make an argument, you only made an unsupported claim that we dismantled.

posts 405, 433, 445, 458 demonstrate this clearly. You had zero ability to answer these in order articulate any reason for change.

 

[Paul191145]

And managing to make a cogent debate with more than your unfounded beliefs is not yours. You failed to make an argument, you only made an unsupported claim that we dismantled.

posts 405, 433, 445, 458 demonstrate this clearly. You had zero ability to answer these in order articulate any reason for change.

Your refusal to accept it does not negate its validity, and your effort to deflect in any way possible is indicative of a closed mind.

 

[Gordy327]

No, it's not, laws change all the time for various reasons, try reading Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws" sometime for a little enlightenment on the subject.

So now you're arguing what is essentially a "what if?" Might be good for an opinion, but not current fact.

Your refusal to accept it does not negate its validity, and your effort to deflect in any way possible is indicative of a closed mind.

It wasn't valid to begin with!

 

[NatMorton]

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained​

At the heart of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminates the constitutional right to abortion, is Alito's objection that "the Constitution makes no mention of abortion." For Alito and the many legal conservatives who think like him, unenumerated constitutional rights are inherently suspect. When a court recognizes an unenumerated right, these conservatives say, that court is almost certainly guilty of judicial activism.

But this conservative mindset is at odds with constitutional text and history, both of which make clear that unenumerated rights are entitled to the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists.

Remember that when the Constitution was first ratified, it did not yet contain its famous first 10 amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. Those amendments arrived a few years later. They were added in response to the fierce criticism leveled against the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification on several grounds, one of which was that the document lacked a bill of rights, and therefore, in their view, left a number of key rights unprotected (because unmentioned).
The Federalists, who labored on behalf of the Constitution's ratification, rejected this argument. Why? Because, explained James Wilson, one of the leading figures at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, "if we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given." And the consequence of that, Wilson told the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, "is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."

James Iredell, a future justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made the same argument at the North Carolina Ratification Convention. "It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up," he said. That is "because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation." Furthermore, Iredell added, "it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."

James Madison, one of the principal architects of the new Constitution, closely followed this debate. On June 8, 1789, he gave a speech to Congress proposing the group of amendments that would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. While doing so, he directly addressed the Anti-Federalist/Federalist debate. "It has been observed also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration," he said, "and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." Madison acknowledged that "this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; But, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it."

Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alito...urning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

My question is this. Why did Alito use the "it's not in the Constitution" as the major reason why the court can take away a Constitutional right? Does he think we don't know about the 9th amendment or does he think it is wrong too? Do we really want a Justice who can't follow even the first 10 amendments?

I claim that citizens have an unenumerated right to determine abortion policy and law in their own communities, and that the Roe decision violated this right, a right that "deserves the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists."

 

[Paul191145]

So now you're arguing what is essentially a "what if?" Might be good for an opinion, but not current fact.

It wasn't valid to begin with!

That's your opinion, surely I don't need to tell you how little value I place on it.

 

[Gordy327]

That's your opinion, surely I don't need to tell you how little value I place on it.

No, still fact. You're the one who's offered nothing but opinion.

 

[Paul191145]

No, still fact. You're the one who's offered nothing but opinion.

False, I presented a scientific paper and Constitutional quote, you simply don't like the logical conclusion drawn.

 

[Gordy327]

False, I presented a scientific paper and Constitutional quote, you simply don't like the logical conclusion drawn.

But still no fact, much less anything trumping actual law.

 

[Paul191145]

But still no fact, much less anything trumping actual law.

The scientific analysis and Constitution are both factual, I never even mentioned law, you are wrapped around that axle.

 

[Gordy327]

The scientific analysis and Constitution are both factual, I never even mentioned law, you are wrapped around that axle.

You've ignored law in favor of your own opinion. Lursa called you out on it too.

 

[Paul191145]

You've ignored law in favor of your own opinion. Lursa called you out on it

And you think displaying that same lack of comprehension makes you correct, that's just pathetic.

 

[Lursa]

False, I presented a scientific paper and Constitutional quote, you simply don't like the logical conclusion drawn.

Why is it "logical" to conclude that the scientific classification of a species, a definition that holds no legal standing or recognizes any rights for that species, means that definition provides legal status or rights per the 5th or 14th Amendments?

Please explain...your posts are generally empty of explanation...it's a discussion...arguments require explanation. (At this point you really should understand this)

 

[Lursa]

I claim that citizens have an unenumerated right to determine abortion policy and law in their own communities, and that the Roe decision violated this right, a right that "deserves the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists."

The 9th A applies to individual rights. Please post examples of any that apply to a group of people or 'citizens' exercising a group consensus. I'm pretty sure I posted a list elsewhere in this thread...didnt see any.

 

[Dayton3]

So it's rather silly to say they are not constitutionally binding.

Not at all. Neither did I imply that.

Nope...since the law doesnt recognize the scientific classification/definition for human being and explicitly calls it out in the US Code I provided...the 5th A doesnt apply.

Also, since the 14th A also says someone has to be born to be a person or have rights recognized...the 5th ALSO does not apply. You are attempting to use the Const to argue against the Const You have made no argument why the US should recognize the unborn as human beings with rights. None. All you do is point to a (irrelevant) scientific definition and try to link it to the 5th A...which the 14th A clearly dismisses.

So thus far, the argument you made failed and you've failed to come up with anything else.

The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to the issue of abortion.

Neither was the 9th.

 

[Lursa]

The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to the issue of abortion.

Neither was the 9th.

How do you know? Please provide sources.

(They're both very broad in their text, intentionally so esp. for the 9th, so your post is pretty stupid. But please, prove otherwise.)

 

[dockside]

The US Constitution does go further than the Magna Carta, but it cannot - by definition - include rights that are not enumerated. All rights listed within the US Constitution are enumerated rights. Do you even know what "enumerated" means? Your lack of education is showing, again.

Are you saying that only enumerated rights are constitutional and can be enforced? If so, why even mention rights in the 9th Amendment? What's the point? My take on it is that even non-enumerated rights, recognized by the citizens, are capable of being enforced.

 

[Dayton3]

How do you know? Please provide sources.

(They're both very broad in their text, intentionally so esp. for the 9th, so your post is pretty stupid. But please, prove otherwise.)

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

[dockside]

The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to the issue of abortion.

Neither was the 9th.

And you, somehow, know this how?

 

[dockside]

The burden of proof is on you, not me.

You are making the allegation. It's your burden to prove it.

 

[Dayton3]

And you, somehow, know this how?

I taught American Government.

 

[Paul191145]

Why is it "logical" to conclude that the scientific classification of a species, a definition that holds no legal standing or recognizes any rights for that species, means that definition provides legal status or rights per the 5th or 14th Amendments?

Please explain...your posts are generally empty of explanation...it's a discussion...arguments require explanation. (At this point you really should understand this)

Because "humans" "people" and "persons" all mean the same thing as in "We the people" and "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property with due process". For the last time, the 14th amendment addresses CITIZENSHIP, you brought it up, not me.

 

[iguanaman]

If you're going to repeatedly "infer" a right to privacy even though the word "privacy" is never mentioned at all in the Constitution, then I can just as easily infer that a fetus (or baby) has an inherent right not to be killed in the womb.

So you believe the Govt. should have a say in all medical treatments and patient/doctor privacy is not a right? A fetus has no rights under the Constitution or they would have said so. It's a clump of cells how can it have any rights?