I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!
I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!
Does eman926 even have the slightest clue of how the constitution works.... I'll give you a hint.... he doesn't!
1.)The existence of marriage and abortion both predate the American colonies.
2.) The US was not created as a christian country and no version of the Bible is the foundation of our law.
3. The very existence of the right of freedom means that we can act as we wish to do until the state can prove a compelling interest to prevent us from doing do.
4.) The fact that the 4th amendment exists means that we have the inherent right of privacy because the 4th says that the government must obtain a warrant signed by an impartial judge to violet out privacy and enter our homes and search our belo9mngings.
5.) We all have equal religious rights to believe or not to believe and to act as we choose with regard to religious belief or the lack there of. Those religious rights belong to all religions equally as well as infidels of all sorts, as per some guy named Tommy Jefferson. You cannot force others to live by your mythology.
Take your theocratic dreams and kindly put it when it belongs, on the trash heap of human mistakes.
I’ve read the Constitution! Have you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How did you not learn these very basic civics concepts before you earned a high school, diploma. You did graduate from HS, didn't you?The Constitution doesn’t mention any specific religion or even God. In the beginning of the country, they didn’t even give out marriage certificates by government entities of the newly formed US government. And yes, I know abortion existed before the Constitution. Doesn’t mean the Constitution said it should be legal across the country.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just because you read the words doesn't mean that you understand the ideas involved. The US Constitution was never meant to be interpreted word for word, literalist manner. It is a statement of ideas to be interpreted by the federal courts up to and including the Supreme Court.
I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!
I’ve read the Constitution! Have you?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
doesn't mention nuclear weapons, either
must be a game to identify words not found within the Constitution
what did i win?!
Yes i have read it. You obviously have not read it or simply have not comprehended what you have read. Otherwise you would know that the constitution itself states that not everything you can do is mentioned ion the constitution.
News flash for you lefties. The Constitution isn’t a “living document” like you guys claim it to be!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes i have read it. You obviously have not read it or simply have not comprehended what you have read. Otherwise you would know that the constitution itself states that not everything you can do is mentioned ion the constitution.
News flash for you lefties. The Constitution isn’t a “living document” like you guys claim it to be!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then it must be a dead, out of date and worthless to todays society document.
The US Constitution must be a living document. It has the amendment process and the US Supreme Court as proof that is must be able to change and adapt. It would have been obsolete before the US Civil war if it wasn't a living document.
The US Constitution must be a living document. It has the amendment process and the US Supreme Court as proof that is must be able to change and adapt. It would have been obsolete before the US Civil war if it wasn't a living document.
You’re talking about ACTIVIST JUDGES, not Constitutional judges. And yes, it was supposed to be read literally. No, the Constitution was NEVER a “living document” like lefties claim! I still doubt you’ve read much of the Constitution anyways.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
By the way, if you mention the Civil War, that’s why we have the AMENDMENT PROCESS. If you want “abortion” and “marriage” in the Constitution, AMEND the Constitution damn it!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
All judges are activist in the eyes of somebody. Chief Justice John Marshal was a radical because there was no precedent for him to rule in Marbury but he did and that legal precedent of Marbury v. Madison stands as the cornerstone of juridical review. Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Adams were all involved in that case and they didn't have a problem with how the SCOTUS performed or they would have amended the US Constitution to prevent it from happening again.
If you were half as intelligent as you appeared to be convinced that you are you would close your mouth and learn instead of shooting it off about what you clearly do not understand.
There is no reason to amendment it because they were never banned prior to Roe. Abortion was a gray area before Roe and the SCOTUS said that our medical decisions were inherent in our right of privacy from government intervention.
For marriage it was not banned prior to Reynolds v. US, Skinner, Griswold or Loving v. Virginia.
If you read the Constitution it allows for the AMENDMENT PROCESS. The Founding Fathers intended that. Judges are supposed to INTERPRET the law, NOT MAKE the law. An activist judge makes laws that aren’t even existing laws, or in the Constitution! A Constitutional judge says what the Constitution actually says. Geez, learn a little about the Founding Fathers and not from sources like Howard Zinn or similar!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!
Most states actually had it banned. Even leftist Wikipedia shows that!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What Getting An Abortion Was Like In The '60s, '70s, And '80's Compared To NowAlthough 17 states had legal abortion, before Roe v. Wade in 1973, which made it legal nationwide, for those women who didn't live in those states, back alley abortions, in addition to women trying to abort their fetus on their own was a serious problem.
No, I go by it’s original intent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Constitution doesn’t mention the Air Force either.