• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

Re: Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

Yeah, but judges aren't supposed to be activists and make the law be whatever they want it to be.

SCOTUS doesnt make laws. It interprets the Const and it examines laws to see if they are Const. It examines court cases to determine their Constitutionality.

Re: 'activism', for example the Roe vs Wade decision was not judicial activism. It was a 7-2 decision from a mostly Conservative bench.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Last edited:
Even if abortion was LEGAL in every state it’s still a state issue. And even even the 5th and 14th Amendments say that you cannot deprive “LIFE, liberty, and property without due process of law”. I’m a straight man and I have no Constitutional right to marriage as I’ve said SEVERAL TIMES. It’s a state issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What are the first words of the 14th Amendment and why do you keep leaving them out?
 
What are the first words of the 14th Amendment and why do you keep leaving them out?

Inorite? I posted the entire thing for him.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
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 always find it curious when people deny any connection to the founding of the United States, the founding fathers and the Constitution to organized Christian religion and its influence.
The following excerpts are from a work by Mark David Hall, Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science, and Herbert Hoover Distinguished Professor of Political Science at George Fox University. A link to the complete work is included at the end.

Did America have a Christian Founding? This disputed question, far from being only of historical interest, has important implications for how we conceive of the role of religion in the American republic. Mark David Hall begins by considering two popular answers to the query—“Of course not!” and “Absolutely!”—both of which distort the Founders’ views. After showing that Christian ideas were one of the important intellectual influences on the Founders, he discusses three major areas of agreement with respect to religious liberty and church–state relations at the time of the Founding: Religious liberty is a right and must be protected; the national government should not create an established church, and states should have them only if they encourage and assist Christianity; and religion belongs in the public square. In short, while America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions.
I believe that this is the most reasonable way to approach the question “Did America have a Christian Founding?” In doing so, it is important to note that nominal Christians might be influenced by Christian ideas, just as it is possible for an orthodox Christian to be influenced by non-Christian ideas. I believe that an excellent case can be made that Christianity had a profound influence on the Founders.[6]
If one is to understand the story of the United States of America, it is important to have a proper appreciation for its Christian colonial roots. By almost any measure, colonists of European descent who settled in the New World were serious Christians whose constitutions, laws, and practices reflected the influence of Christianity. Although some authors refer to this “planting” as a “founding,” such a designation is rare among scholars. Instead, most scholars consider America to have been founded in the late 18th century around one of, or some combination of, two major events: the War for Independence and the creation of America’s constitutional order.

Did America Have a Christian Founding? | The Heritage Foundation
 
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.

1. So what? We're talking about the United States and the US Constitution, what it covers and what it leaves to the states.

2. Again, so what? That doesn't change the point made above.

3. The case has already been made that the state has a compelling interest to protect life. They do this constantly with laws, law enforcement, the justice system and the penal system. The ONLY difference between the people benefiting from these laws and those getting no protection is whether they have been born. Yet, they are ALL human beings, with brains, beating hearts and human DNA. If we make a claim that humans born have a greater right, or an exclusive right, under the Constitution or law generally that unborn humans do not possess, then it must be shown why this is true and what fundamental difference exists between these two classes of human beings to compel us to this conclusion. Either both deserve the protection of the state or neither does.

4. The 4th amendment is very specific. Any use of it to argue that an inherent right exists to kill off the unborn, is legalistic contortion used to reach a desired result.

5. The right to believe or not believe is tangential to the abortion argument. One can make a strong argument against unfettered abortion with no reference to religion whatever.
 
I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!
Fun fact - The Constitution doesn’t need to explicitly address abortion or marriage.

Also - Your signature line is deliberately misleading. Very misleading.
Sangers full remarks in context.
E2A38C53-1057-4771-A3DE-D45D9D74EDEB.webp
Margaret Sanger – Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C.J. Gamble | Genius | Margaret sanger, Gambling, Know the truth

Factually, Sanger was very highly regarded by a number of prominent African Americans including W.E. Dubois and MLK jr.
 
1. So what? We're talking about the United States and the US Constitution, what it covers and what it leaves to the states.

2. Again, so what? That doesn't change the point made above.

3. The case has already been made that the state has a compelling interest to protect life. They do this constantly with laws, law enforcement, the justice system and the penal system. The ONLY difference between the people benefiting from these laws and those getting no protection is whether they have been born. Yet, they are ALL human beings, with brains, beating hearts and human DNA. If we make a claim that humans born have a greater right, or an exclusive right, under the Constitution or law generally that unborn humans do not possess, then it must be shown why this is true and what fundamental difference exists between these two classes of human beings to compel us to this conclusion. Either both deserve the protection of the state or neither does.

4. The 4th amendment is very specific. Any use of it to argue that an inherent right exists to kill off the unborn, is legalistic contortion used to reach a desired result.

5. The right to believe or not believe is tangential to the abortion argument. One can make a strong argument against unfettered abortion with no reference to religion whatever.

The 14th is also very specific:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Yes. And what does this have to do with anything?

If you have no rights, the govt is under no obligation to protect them.

Certainly not at the expense of someone who's rights they are obligated to protect.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!

Does the U.S. Constitution mention anything about an Air Force? Nope!

Does the U.S. Constitution mention anything about having Congressional Districts? Not one word!

Does the U.S. Constitution mention anything about Executive Orders? No, it does not!

So, what's your point, eman?

It doesn't seem as though you have one.
 
If you have no rights, the govt is under no obligation to protect them.

Certainly not at the expense of someone who's rights they are obligated to protect.

Your assumption is that the unborn have no rights yet you cannot explain why that should be unless you are claiming that the unborn are not human until after birth, a clearly specious and pernicious claim. You also assume that there is some right to abortion under the Constitution yet that is nowhere and in no sense evident. The "right to privacy" was made up out of whole cloth to achieve a desired result. The real truth is that the Constitution is quite limited in its scope and makes reference to neither marriage nor abortion. That being so, both are the province of the states and its laws.
 
Does the U.S. Constitution mention anything about an Air Force? Nope!

Does the U.S. Constitution mention anything about having Congressional Districts? Not one word!

Does the U.S. Constitution mention anything about Executive Orders? No, it does not!

So, what's your point, eman?

It doesn't seem as though you have one.

Murder also is not a crime directly under the constitution. I suppose murder also needs to be added in an amendment?

I think eman struggles with the 10th amendment and how the supreme court upholds states' rights to, in some cases, extend to the union of the states.
 
Your assumption is that the unborn have no rights yet you cannot explain why that should be unless you are claiming that the unborn are not human until after birth, a clearly specious and pernicious claim. You also assume that there is some right to abortion under the Constitution yet that is nowhere and in no sense evident. The "right to privacy" was made up out of whole cloth to achieve a desired result. The real truth is that the Constitution is quite limited in its scope and makes reference to neither marriage nor abortion. That being so, both are the province of the states and its laws.
Sure I can. I just didnt since it wasnt part of this conversation.

And we're all explaining to the OP why there doesnt need to be 'a right to abortion' in the Const....why dont you keep reading and then get back to me? :lol:

Your 'opinions' on a right to privacy are not generally accepted and that right protects a crapload more that women and abortion.



This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
 
Sure I can. I just didnt since it wasnt part of this conversation.

And we're all explaining to the OP why there doesnt need to be 'a right to abortion' in the Const....why dont you keep reading and then get back to me? :lol:

Your 'opinions' on a right to privacy are not generally accepted and that right protects a crapload more that women and abortion.

If there was no need to establish a right to abortion then there was no need for Roe. The phony right to privacy they dreamed up was simply used as a broad brush to claim that everything the left wants is somehow a Constitutional right. Any claim that the 4th amendment protects unfettered abortion is the worst sort of shameless legal contortion.

Oh, and please explain how a baby one day before delivery is not a human being. I'm all ears.
 
Your assumption is that the unborn have no rights yet you cannot explain why that should be unless you are claiming that the unborn are not human until after birth, a clearly specious and pernicious claim. You also assume that there is some right to abortion under the Constitution yet that is nowhere and in no sense evident. The "right to privacy" was made up out of whole cloth to achieve a desired result. The real truth is that the Constitution is quite limited in its scope and makes reference to neither marriage nor abortion. That being so, both are the province of the states and its laws.

It is hardly an assumption when the constitution maintains that only those born in america have constitutional rights. as well

Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy :: Justia

The U.S Constitution safeguards the rights of Americans to privacy and personal autonomy. Although the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution protect these rights, specifically in the areas of marriage, procreation, abortion, private consensual homosexual activity, and medical treatment.

No one can force you to donate a kidney just as no one can force a woman to have a child.
 
Re: Where in the US Constitution does it mention "abortion" or "marriage"?

Can anyone tell me what the purpose of this thread is? Except to demonstrate the OP's lack of understanding of the Constitution.
 
I'll give you a hint.... It doesn't!
Abortion is a medical issue, not a political one, so hence would not be mentioned.

True marriage is not mentioned, but the Federal government made it a legal issue by tieing thousands of rules, regulations and laws to marriage.
 
If there was no need to establish a right to abortion then there was no need for Roe. The phony right to privacy they dreamed up was simply used as a broad brush to claim that everything the left wants is somehow a Constitutional right. Any claim that the 4th amendment protects unfettered abortion is the worst sort of shameless legal contortion.

Oh, and please explain how a baby one day before delivery is not a human being. I'm all ears.

Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion. So don't have one.
 
It is hardly an assumption when the constitution maintains that only those born in america have constitutional rights. as well

Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy :: Justia



No one can force you to donate a kidney just as no one can force a woman to have a child.

That's funny considering that illegal aliens have been found to have Constitutional rights while on our soil. Are the innocent unborn less worthy of protection than illegal aliens who have broken our laws? Is this actually your argument and the one you are using to justify the killing of unborn babies weeks or days from birth? Is this where the "compassionate" left has gone? Or is this where they always were? It seems that's more likely.
 
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
Completely wrong.

“In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.”
The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Nobody is forcing you to have an abortion. So don't have one.

That's a stupid statement. If you think any society can kill off its most vulnerable by the millions and claim to be civilized, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't oppose abortion in all cases but the unfettered, no limits abortion the left wants is little more than legalized murder. Some of the left even tries to justify infanticide. It's sick.
 
That's a stupid statement. If you think any society can kill off its most vulnerable by the millions and claim to be civilized, then you are sadly mistaken. I don't oppose abortion in all cases but the unfettered, no limits abortion the left wants is little more than legalized murder. Some of the left even tries to justify infanticide. It's sick.

Nobody is forcing you to get an abortion. Fact. So why you do concern yourself with what others do?

Do you also worry about people who donate kidneys, have unprotected sex with porn stars, don't brush their teeth, etc.? It's a medical procedure that you can have if you choose to, but if you don't want one, nobody will force you to get one.
 
Abortion is a medical issue, not a political one, so hence would not be mentioned.

True marriage is not mentioned, but the Federal government made it a legal issue by tieing thousands of rules, regulations and laws to marriage.

Marriage was always licensed and performed by the states. The Feds only established tax policy based on it but they never decided what state policy must be.
 
Nobody is forcing you to get an abortion. Fact. So why you do concern yourself with what others do?

Do you also worry about people who donate kidneys, have unprotected sex with porn stars, don't brush their teeth, etc.? It's a medical procedure that you can have if you choose to, but if you don't want one, nobody will force you to get one.

Right, a medical procedure that ALWAYS results in a death. It's pretty pathetic that you would so cavalierly treat this as to compare it to brushing your teeth. No. I don't worry about people brushing their teeth but I do worry about state sponsored genocide as a convenience to people who can't figure out how to avoid pregnancy.
 
Back
Top Bottom