Why the Founding Fatthers are rolling over in their graves due to Alito’s Dobbs decision

[watsup]

The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of unenumerated rights, especially in the area of civil rights, until the far right extremists on the present SC severely limited the right to privacy upon which the Roe decision was based.

Let’s take a look at a couple of the central themes of the Bill if Rights:

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,………

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

While the term “privacy” was not used, it quickly becomes quite clear that it was fully intended as an “unenumerated” right, that the people should be legally “secure in their persons”. It thus became the foundation of the Roe decision that a woman’s privacy should not be invaded by the state as regards her decision about terminating her pregnancy. That is, until the far right extremists on the SC allowed their personal religious biases to override a principle of the Constitution, namely the right to personal privacy, in favor of making a woman a ward of the state at the instant of pregnancy. Yes, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the injustice towards the privacy of certain citizens, namely women, by what is clearly a religious-based POLITICAL faction on the SC.

 

[choiceone]

I especially like Tim Walz' Minnesota formulation: "Mind your own damn business."

 

[NatMorton]

The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of unenumerated rights, especially in the area of civil rights, until the far right extremists on the present SC severely limited the right to privacy upon which the Roe decision was based.

Let’s take a look at a couple of the central themes of the Bill if Rights:

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,………

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

While the term “privacy” was not used, it quickly becomes quite clear that it was fully intended as an “unenumerated” right, that the people should be legally “secure in their persons”. It thus became the foundation of the Roe decision that a woman’s privacy should not be invaded by the state as regards her decision about terminating her pregnancy. That is, until the far right extremists on the SC allowed their personal religious biases to override a principle of the Constitution, namely the right to personal privacy, in favor of making a woman a ward of the state at the instant of pregnancy. Yes, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the injustice towards the privacy of certain citizens, namely women, by what is clearly a religious-based POLITICAL faction on the SC.

I assert the people's right to vote, either directly or indirectly through their elected state legislatures, and define the abortion laws within the jurisdiction of their state is an "unenumerated right" and thus those laws cannot be prohibited by the federal government per the 10th Amendment.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

 

[Rogue Valley]

 

[j brown's body]

I assert the people's right to vote, either directly or indirectly through their elected state legislatures, and define the abortion laws within the jurisdiction of their state is an "unenumerated right" and thus those laws cannot be prohibited by the federal government per the 10th Amendment.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

Does this mean the states should be able to bring back racial segregation?

 

[j brown's body]

I would be interested in the founder's view of the Court giving the president immunity in using his administration to falsely overturn an election.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I assert the people's right to vote, either directly or indirectly through their elected state legislatures, and define the abortion laws within the jurisdiction of their state is an "unenumerated right" and thus those laws cannot be prohibited by the federal government per the 10th Amendment.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

I assert the right of people to vote, either directly or indirectly through elected state legislatures, to forbid by law that any person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

(I assume you won't because you apparently do not believe in substantive due process)

 

[NatMorton]

Does this mean the states should be able to bring back racial segregation?

Not to anyone who has an even rudimentary understanding of the Constitution, no.

 

[NatMorton]

I assert the right of people to vote, either directly or indirectly through elected state legislatures, to forbid by law that any person, individually or as a teacher, shall, in any private, denominational, parochial or public school, teach any subject to any person in any language other than the English language.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

(I assume you won't because you apparently do not believe in substantive due process)

I would not challenge that assertion nor would such an act run afoul of substantive due process. The expense of multilingual public education alone creates the substantive rationale for such a law.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

I would not challenge that assertion nor would such an act run afoul of substantive due process. The expense of multilingual public education alone creates the substantive rationale for such a law.

As predicted.

Weird that you think parents have no right to instruct their grade school children, or have schools instruct them, in whatever language they choose but you people are odd when it comes to so-called rights.

Want to do interracial marriage next? Contraception is on deck!

 

[LostInSeattle]

I assert the people's right to vote, either directly or indirectly through their elected state legislatures, and define the abortion laws within the jurisdiction of their state is an "unenumerated right" and thus those laws cannot be prohibited by the federal government per the 10th Amendment.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

By that reasoning, aren't you asserting that State laws supersede federal laws if they disagree? What couldn't you throw out by that logic? Or are you just arguing against unenumerated rights (why the parentheses?) in general?

 

[NatMorton]

As predicted.

Weird that you think parents have no right to instruct their grade school children, or have schools instruct them, in whatever language they choose but you people are odd when it comes to so-called rights.

Want to do interracial marriage next? Contraception is on deck!

Ah, no. I assert states have the right to pass laws mandating English-only education in their public schools. I also assert states have the right to pass laws that require all courses be taught in five languages, or ten, or fifty. It's up to them.

I similarly assert that states have the right to enact the abortion laws they think best, and not only laws that suit the political preference of activist judges, liberal or conservative

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Ah, no. I assert states have the right to pass laws mandating English-only education in their public schools. I also assert states have the right to pass laws that require all courses be taught in five languages, or ten, or fifty. It's up to them.

I similarly assert that states have the right to enact the abortion laws they think best, and not only laws that suit the political preference of activist judges, liberal or conservative

Public schools? Who said **** all about public schools?

So, you oppose making such laws for private schools and home schooling? I am surprised (not really ... hypocrisy is foundational to your political philosophy).

While you are searching the Constitution for enumerated rights, but sure to put "marriage" and "contraception" in that search bar. It's going to come up later.

 

[NatMorton]

Public schools? Who said **** all about public schools?

So, you oppose making such laws for private schools and home schooling? I am surprised (not really ... hypocrisy is foundational to your political philosophy).

If you mean truly private schools, then yes, I think that could run into a substantive due process issue. Regardless, that does not refute the claim I made in my original post in this thread. Abortion restrictions have never run aground of substantive due process, and even Roe acknowledged the state's compelling interest in human life after the second trimester. There is no rationale that demands such an interest is, pe se, invalid during the first two trimesters.

While you are searching the Constitution for enumerated rights, but sure to put "marriage" and "contraception" in that search bar. It's going to come up later.

You're avoiding the point I made in my first post. Let's see if you can get back there.

 

[watsup]

even Roe acknowledged the state's compelling interest in human life after the second trimester. There is no rationale that demands such an interest is, pe se, invalid during the first two trimesters.

So once a woman becomes pregnant, that’s it? At that point, she must then carry the pregnancy to term? Why?

 

[Gordy327]

If you mean truly private schools, then yes, I think that could run into a substantive due process issue. Regardless, that does not refute the claim I made in my original post in this thread. Abortion restrictions have never run aground of substantive due process, and even Roe acknowledged the state's compelling interest in human life after the second trimester. There is no rationale that demands such an interest is, pe se, invalid during the first two trimesters.


You're avoiding the point I made in my first post. Let's see if you can get back there.

What is the state's "compelling interest?" Why should the state be concerned over one's reproduction? The state certainly doesn't care if one chooses to not reproduce. What legal basis is there for the state to deprive a woman of her bodily autonomy for a non-person and/or force her to have her body used to support another?

 

[Gordy327]

So once a woman becomes pregnant, that’s it? At that point, she must then carry the pregnancy to term? Why?

Some seem to seriously think that. It shows a total lack of respect for individual rights and autonomy.

 

[LostInSeattle]

I assert the people's right to vote, either directly or indirectly through their elected state legislatures, and define the abortion laws within the jurisdiction of their state is an "unenumerated right" and thus those laws cannot be prohibited by the federal government per the 10th Amendment.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

By definition, an unenumerated Constitutional right is recognized as such only when so designated by the Supreme Court. Such as the right to attend a desegregated public school or marry interracially.

I could assert an unenumerated right to put jam on my toast but I wouldn't have Constitutional protection from a state law against jam unless and until it was recognized by the Court.

Roe established a Constitutional protection for a woman's right to choose an abortion up to a certain phase in pregnancy based on the 4th and 14th Amendments. I understand that you don't find the freedom for an individual to choose their course of medical care to be compelling, and I can't persuade you otherwise. But the Court did.

Moreover, it seems to me that your "unenumerated right" of citizens in the states to express their will through their legislatures must take a back seat to the "unenumerated right" of citizens of the United States to express their will through their elected representatives in Congress.

 

[NatMorton]

So once a woman becomes pregnant, that’s it? At that point, she must then carry the pregnancy to term? Why?

That now depends on the law in the state where that woman is at the moment. My opinion on the matter matters not, and neither does yours.

 

[NatMorton]

By definition, an unenumerated Constitutional right is recognized as such only when so designated by the Supreme Court. Such as the right to attend a desegregated public school or marry interracially.

I could assert an unenumerated right to put jam on my toast but I wouldn't have Constitutional protection from a state law against jam unless and until it was recognized by the Court.

Roe established a Constitutional protection for a woman's right to choose an abortion up to a certain phase in pregnancy based on the 4th and 14th Amendments. I understand that you don't find the freedom for an individual to choose their course of medical care to be compelling, and I can't persuade you otherwise. But the Court did.

Moreover, it seems to me that your "unenumerated right" of citizens in the states to express their will through their legislatures must take a back seat to the "unenumerated right" of citizens of the United States to express their will through their elected representatives in Congress.

So basically what you're saying is that the Supreme Court has the authority to pluck an unenumerated right out of the ether and impose federal requirements to protect it just as if it were an enumerated right, even at the expense of other unenumerated rights, yes?

 

[LostInSeattle]

So basically what you're saying is that the Supreme Court has the authority to pluck an unenumerated right out of the ether and impose federal requirements to protect it just as if it were an enumerated right, even at the expense of other unenumerated rights, yes?

You'll have to give me a concrete example, because I can't think of a time when the SCOTUS has decreed an unenumerated right to take precedence over another.

 

[Tangmo]

Not to anyone who has an even rudimentary understanding of the Constitution, no.

It must be nice to be superior.

Omniscient.

MAGA !

 

[MAGAnificent]

The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of unenumerated rights, especially in the area of civil rights, until the far right extremists on the present SC severely limited the right to privacy upon which the Roe decision was based.

Let’s take a look at a couple of the central themes of the Bill if Rights:

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,………

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

While the term “privacy” was not used, it quickly becomes quite clear that it was fully intended as an “unenumerated” right, that the people should be legally “secure in their persons”. It thus became the foundation of the Roe decision that a woman’s privacy should not be invaded by the state as regards her decision about terminating her pregnancy. That is, until the far right extremists on the SC allowed their personal religious biases to override a principle of the Constitution, namely the right to personal privacy, in favor of making a woman a ward of the state at the instant of pregnancy. Yes, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the injustice towards the privacy of certain citizens, namely women, by what is clearly a religious-based POLITICAL faction on the SC.

Very silly op. I dount that the founding fathers gave the abortion issue much thought.

 

[Tangmo]

I assert the people's right to vote, either directly or indirectly through their elected state legislatures, and define the abortion laws within the jurisdiction of their state is an "unenumerated right" and thus those laws cannot be prohibited by the federal government per the 10th Amendment.

Feel free to try and prove that assertion wrong.

Heads you win, tails we lose.

MAGA !

 

[iguanaman]

So basically what you're saying is that the Supreme Court has the authority to pluck an unenumerated right out of the ether and impose federal requirements to protect it just as if it were an enumerated right, even at the expense of other unenumerated rights, yes?

Have you ever heard of the 9th amendment?


The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the Constitution's enumeration of certain rights does not deny or disparage other rights that people retain. It was ratified on December 15, 1791 and is part of the Bill of Rights.