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

[Glitch]

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.

As far as the federal government is concerned, that is correct. If it is not contained within the US Constitution then it is beyond the authority of the federal government. As Justice Scalia once put it in his dissenting opinion in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 91 (2000), “the Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” As the Tenth Amendment makes perfectly clear, if it is not contained within the US Constitution it is not within the power of the federal government.

However, since the US Constitution does not prohibit the States, the States are the only government body with the constitutional authority to adopt powers not specifically granted to them by the US Constitution. Providing, of course, that the US Constitution does not specifically prohibit the States from exercising that power. Which includes unenumerated rights.

With regards to the Ninth Amendment, Madison was concerned that by enumerating certain rights within the US Constitution all other rights not enumerated would be assumed to fall under the authority of the government. This is what Madison actually proposed for the Ninth Amendment:

The exceptions [to power] here or elsewhere in the constitution made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations on such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

The congressional committee gave us the Ninth Amendment as it is written in the US Constitution instead.

Hamilton tried to argue that if the US Constitution didn't authorize the federal government the authority they couldn't presume to exercise such authority, so no Bill of Rights would be necessary. Hamilton was a complete idiot, of course.

 

[Glitch]

People have been trying to abuse the Ninth Amendment even before Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). For example:

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft in United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 (1970);
• The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered sub-machinegun in United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (1976);
• The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana in United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 (1986); and
• The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment in Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 (1992).

All their efforts were misplaced, since the federal government cannot create or acknowledge a new right. Only the States have that constitutional authority.

 

[Lursa]

In other words you will not believe actual incontrovertible proof but prefer instead to feed you own biases and bigotry.

The actual proof is in your posts...and their inevitable and consistent lack of critical thinking and accurate information.

 

[Lursa]

The words are not mine, they are the words of prominent scientists and the Constitution, and I draw a logical conclusion from the two.

It's not logical. You stated the definitions...you did not draw a logical conclusion WHY current law should be changed.

Why should it be changed based just on word definitions? The definitions have existed for a very long time...the judicial community was aware of them...where is your explanation why they did not recognize "your logical conclusion?" When are you going to justify YOUR logical conclusions other than posting definitions?

You refuse to accept that logical conclusion apparently because of your firmly held beliefs and a reliance purely on current law, when laws have and continue to be shown flawed all over the world. Face facts, you are using the state and it's laws as a metric for morality/right and wrong, and history has shown repeatedly what a monumental mistake that truly is, your reluctance to accept that fact is just plain sad. I certainly hope you're not much over the age of 30 and still thinking like this, if so I urge you to attempt a modicum of objectivity and take a look at reality.

Where did morality enter into this? Post some quote numbers. Where do your definitions address morality?

 

[Paul191145]

It's not logical. You stated the definitions...you did not draw a logical conclusion WHY current law should be changed.

Why should it be changed based just on word definitions? The definitions have existed for a very long time...the judicial community was aware of them...where is your explanation why they did not recognize "your logical conclusion?" When are you going to justify YOUR logical conclusions other than posting definitions?




Where did morality enter into this? Post some quote numbers. Where do your definitions address morality?

You have ceased to amuse me, goodbye.

 

[Lursa]

You have ceased to amuse me, goodbye.

You are quitting, and that's fine...your attempt at debate was no more than "because I said so."

It took you a very long time to realize you had no argument, even tho I tried to constructively extract one from you. As it is, sadly you dont even seem to have learned anything...because your mind was so closed.

Post 544 for one reference.

 

[mac]

Actually that is exactly what the 9th amendment says we need to do. The right to an abortion is based on the right to privacy between a citizen and her doctor and was not "made up out of thin air". Abortions were completely legal in Madison's time too.

The right to privacy is an implied right. So then abortion would be an implied right based on an implied right. So, a doubly implied right that gives another person the right to commit a homicide. Sounds fishy....and weak. Which is why it was overturned. Besides, the RvW decision created law. It is not the SCOTUS' role to create law.

 

[iguanaman]

The right to privacy is an implied right. So then abortion would be an implied right based on an implied right. So, a doubly implied right that gives another person the right to commit a homicide. Sounds fishy....and weak. Which is why it was overturned. Besides, the RvW decision created law. It is not the SCOTUS' role to create law.

Constitutional Privacy Rights​

Even though the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, for cases such as Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that several Amendments imply these rights:

• First Amendment: Provides the freedom to choose any kind of religious belief and to keep that choice private.
• Third Amendment: Protects the zone of privacy of the home.
• Fourth Amendment: Protects the right of privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
• Fifth Amendment: Provides for the right against self-incrimination, which justifies the protection of private information.
• Ninth Amendment: This amendment is interpreted to justify a broad reading the Bill of Rights to protect your fundamental right to privacy in ways not provided for in the first eight amendments.
• Fourteenth Amendment: Prohibits states from making laws that infringe upon the personal autonomy protections provided for in the first thirteen amendments. Prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, a state could make laws that violated freedom of speech, religion, etc.
• https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/is-there-a-right-to-privacy-amendment.html#:~:text=Fourth Amendment: Protects the right,the protection of private information.

The right to an abortion is part of the right to privacy between a person and their doctor. Please show me where in the Constitution it says an abortion is "homicide". That is what the Pope says but he does not make our laws does he? Do you want the State to monitor and control what happens between you and your doctor too?
Also the Supreme Courts job is to protect our Constitutional rights that is not making law. Alito thinks his job is to take away our rights and legislating his religious beliefs from the bench.

 

[NotreDame]

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category."​

You disingenuously edit and chop the full quote from your post. The full explanation of what the Court "rested" their decision on is well laid out, the "Constitution makes no reference to abortion" only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right . . . That's it, that's the end of the significance of the statement; why you feel the need to lie and keep deceiving yourself is not understandable.

Factually false.

What you’ve said above is factually incorrect based on the plain English of what Alito said. Your “The full explanation of what the Court "rested" their decision on is well laid out, the "Constitution makes no reference to abortion" only means the Court must look elsewhere for a mechanism to recognize and protect the claimed right” is contradicted by the plain English of the text you quote.

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

Do you know what the word “any” means? Do you?

He combined the word “ANY” with the phrase “constitutional provision, and when Alito did so, we arrive at the phrase Alito wrote of “ANY CONSTITUTIONAL provision.” Do you know what that phrase means?

Next, he added to the phrase “any constitutional provision” the phrase of “and no such right is implicitly protected by” resulting in “and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”

Do you know what “and no such right is implicitly protected by ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION” means? Do you?

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,”

Do you know what this means? The plain English says the Constitution does not expressly or explicitly reference abortion, and no such right is implied to be protected anywhere in the Constitution (“by any constitutional provision.”

That logically means it is also true the 9th doesn’t impliedly protect abortion as the 9th is a constitutional provision and comes within the phrase “no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision”

The bolded at the end doesn’t change the meaning of the plain English he said at the top.

I am right.

Now, Alito used a comma, and right after the comma he used the word “including.”

“no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including”

So, ALITO makes the broad declaration nowhere and not in any part of the Constitution is abortion a right, and that includes the 14th DPC.

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

So, Alito declares nowhere in the Constitution is abortion protected as a right, which logically includes the 9th amendment, and that INCLUDES the 14th amendment DPC.

I am right. You are wrong.

Do not ever accuse me of lying again or being disingenuous, especially when the false allegation is based on your inability to read the plain English correctly.

Your statement is false and deragatory.

 

[NotreDame]

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). The right to abortion does not fall within this category."

No shit. It is absurd and hilarious.

What’s absurd and hilarious is the above. Yes, your circular reasoning and begging the question of “only a statement of fact” is absurd and hilarious. It is comical. You pretend this is a “fact” just as 2+2=4, or gravity accelerates falling objects at 9.8 meters per second squared.

Next, the statement is important to the Holding.

He mentioned an incontrovertible fact

Your characterization of “incontrovertible fact” is as persuasive and compelling as when first graders do the same. That you can self declare what is an incontrovertible fact is as compelling when some John Doe on the street does it.

Second, once again, you obsess over the 14th amendment in respspne to my argument and ignore the plain English of Alito’s remark which is what I’m addressing. Alito’s remark is broader than the 14th amendment. I sm discussing X and you respond with Y.

“Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…”

The 14th amendment is not the Constitution and Alito said “Constitution,” thereby speaking broader and beyond the 14th amendment.

The issue of the thread and of my posts is that his broad declaration and underlying reasoning is inconsistent with 9th amendment.

I have little to no issue with Alito’s interpretation of the 14th amendment due process clause in relation to abortion. The 14th DPC has long been misused to identify rights, dating as far back as the Lochner decision. I’ve derided Roe and its reasoning many times here and elsewhere as inconsistent with the plain text of the 14th DPC and its original meaning.

; that is not a statement made by Alito.

Oh brother. It is quoted language from the syllabus of the opinion, hence the quotes. The quoted material is accurate as to what Alito said. I know because:

“The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…” Is a statement in the majority opinion written by Alito.

“And that privacy right, Roe observed, had been found to spring from no fewer than five different constitutional provisions—the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.”, is by Alito.

Perhaps you should put substance over form and if you had, you’d realize the quoted syllabus is accurately rooted in Alito’s own wording.

Regardless, the point is Alito made statements broader than the 14th by his use of the word “Constitution” and mentioned the “Ninth” and claimed the privacy right to an abortion is not mentioned in the “Constitution,” hence, the right isn’t protected. Such reasoning is contradictory to the plain text of the 9th. That’s the point.

The Dobb's decision doesn't "rest" on the fact the Constitution makes no reference to abortion

I did not say the Dobb’s decision did so “rest.”

 

[Paul191145]

You are quitting, and that's fine...your attempt at debate was no more than "because I said so."

It took you a very long time to realize you had no argument, even tho I tried to constructively extract one from you. As it is, sadly you dont even seem to have learned anything...because your mind was so closed.

Post 544 for one reference.

If only you could realize how abjectly irrelevant you are intellectually, you'd be embarrassed.

 

[Dayton3]

The actual proof is in your posts...and their inevitable and consistent lack of critical thinking and accurate information.

Everyone here's posts are subject to interpretation.

 

[Lursa]

If only you could realize how abjectly irrelevant you are intellectually, you'd be embarrassed.

I guess the only thing more abjectly irrelevant, stupid, and embarrassing would be posts continually responding to such. Like your posts.

 

[Lursa]

Everyone here's posts are subject to interpretation.

Your post is worthless and stupid. There's only one way to interpret that.

 

[Paul191145]

I guess the only thing more abjectly irrelevant, stupid, and embarrassing would be posts continually responding to such. Like your posts.

No, your lack of comprehension is outrageously pathetic, and denying the validity of synonyms is beyond stupid.

 

[Lursa]

No, your lack of comprehension is outrageously pathetic,

I guess the only thing more abjectly irrelevant, stupid, and embarrassing would be posts continually responding to such. Like your posts.

and denying the validity of synonyms is beyond stupid.

Dont lie:

I didnt say they werent accurate...I said many times that they do NOT apply in a legal argument regarding legal status. And I proved it many times.

Do you not understand that scientific definitions, legal definitions, colloquial definitions are applied differently as appropriate? That's called semantics. I'm sorry you dont comprehend this but if you dont, this discussion is beyond you. You are ill-prepared for an OP specifically about the law. See: OP title

 

[Paul191145]

Dont lie:

I hate to break it to you, but I've stated several times that I never presented this as a legal argument, you are wrapped around that axle. If you can't accept the premise as presented that's fine, and apparently you can't, then ignore it or whatever, but thus far you've been nothing short of a petulant child.

 

[Lursa]

I hate to break it to you, but I've stated several times that I never presented this as a legal argument, you are wrapped around that axle. If you can't accept the premise as presented that's fine, and apparently you can't, then ignore it or whatever,

I didnt say they werent accurate...I said many times that they do NOT apply in a legal argument regarding legal status. And I proved it many times.

Do you not understand that scientific definitions, legal definitions, colloquial definitions are applied differently as appropriate? That's called semantics. I'm sorry you dont comprehend this but if you dont, this discussion is beyond you. You are ill-prepared for an OP specifically about the law. See: OP title

but thus far you've been nothing short of a petulant child.

I guess the only thing more abjectly irrelevant, stupid, and embarrassing would be posts continually responding to such. Like your posts.

 

[Paul191145]

Once again, semantics and synonyms are not the same thing, please learn their definitions as well as the word "segue".

 

[Lursa]

Once again, semantics and synonyms are not the same thing, please learn their definitions as well as the word "segue".

Once again, never wrote that. And you never ever had the conviction or integrity to post what your argument re: "synonyms" was about, if not the law. After being asked to explain many times. So you failed miserably to make 'any' argument or point.

And now your post doesnt even demonstrate the moral courage to quote me...or anyone...when responding.

 

[Paul191145]

Once again, never wrote that. And you never ever had the conviction or integrity to post what your argument re: "synonyms" was about, if not the law. After being asked to explain many times. So you failed miserably to make 'any' argument or point.

And now your post doesnt even demonstrate the moral courage to quote me...or anyone...when responding.

I made an observation based on scientific analysis and the Constitution, you made it an argument. Blame yourself for the failure, then grow up.

 

[Lursa]

I made an observation based on scientific analysis and the Constitution, you made it an argument. Blame yourself for the failure, then grow up.

And your 'observation' failed. As proven & sourced many times by more than just me. And I'm happy to take credit for your failure.

Pretending a scientific definition using a colloquial term is 'scientific analysis' is hilarious! Btw, the only official scientific Linnaean classification for humans is Homo sapiens and anything else...human, human being, person, etc is ONLY a colloquial term.

Another example: Puma concolor is also known as a cougar, puma, catamount, panther, mountain lion Just noting the different names doesnt mean anything without context...it's not debate, it's not discussion, it's certainly not an argument.

You "observed" that Homo sapiens has other colloquial names.

 

[Mustachio]

People have been trying to abuse the Ninth Amendment even before Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). For example:

• The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft in United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 (1970);
• The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered sub-machinegun in United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (1976);
• The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana in United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 (1986); and
• The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment in Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 (1992).

All their efforts were misplaced, since the federal government cannot create or acknowledge a new right. Only the States have that constitutional authority.

Yeah, so you know who wrote the dissent on that one?

The guy who you think is the only man in history who is a supreme being capable of interpreting the constitution. 100+ justices = wrong
current scotus = correct

Opinion of all others = wrong

Your opinion = for some reason right? I don't understand that one at all

 

[Paul191145]

And your 'observation' failed. As proven & sourced many times by more than just me. And I'm happy to take credit for your failure.

Pretending a scientific definition using a colloquial term is 'scientific analysis' is hilarious! Btw, the only official scientific Linnaean classification for humans is Homo sapiens and anything else...human, human being, person, etc is ONLY a colloquial term.

Another example: Puma concolor is also known as a cougar, puma, catamount, mountain lion.

Observations are not subject to failure. But you've shown without a doubt that you lack requisite articulation to comprehend such things already.

 

[Lursa]

Observations are not subject to failure. But you've shown without a doubt that you lack requisite articulation to comprehend such things already.

Yeah but I'm having fun. And of course 'observations' are subject to failure...observing a counterfeit bill and believing it's real is...failure, for example. Observing a weather balloon and believing it's a UFO is a failure, for another ex.

In your case, your 'observation' attempted to make a connection with legal status. And failed.

Btw, you didnt use the bolded words properly. That sentence makes no sense. See: dictionary