Nope. The 9th and 10th speak to checks on federal authority.So you know better that James Madison. You do know that the Bill of Rights was to protect American citizens from ANYONE who would take away their rights. States included.
How many more times are you going to prove me right about your compulsion for rash presumptions?So you will vote for Magas but not Trump? How can you justify that?
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?An ultimate projection! Iguanaman takes the time to post a very complete discussion of the manner in which the Ninth Amendment is meant to protect the freedoms of INDIVIDUALS, and Nat Morton basically answers NUH-UH with no cited explanation of his claim.
And so it goes. Almost always. Expanded information versus the logical fallacy of (his own) authority from Nat Morton. This is why he has so little credibility.
Nope. The 9th and 10th speak to checks on federal authority.
I assert once again that the people in any state have an unenumerated right to enact abortion restrictions. You've yet to explain how the federal government can infringe on that unenumerated right.
I repeat it because no one here on your side has been able to challenge it, you included.You can “assert” anything that you want and as often as you want, but you have evidently still not learned that repetition of an inaccurate claim does not in any way change that.
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
I repeat it because no one here on your side has been able to challenge it, you included.
Alas some time ago I noticed your location that is the "Greater Boston Area" because I know it very well from having been born and raised in MA. I lived in the Fenway-Kenmore with Fenway Park over my shoulder, off exciting Boylston St and a stone's throw from the Boston Common and the State House/Beacon Hill. At one point I took the Green Line of the T five stops to my position at the JKF and then the newer Tip O'Neil Federal Buildings in City Hall Plaza. I spent some time in Charlestown which is the original Boston, at Bunker Hill and where the USS Constitution is drydocked. Fortunately I was in Washington DC during the Big Dig.You're the second one to make this rather clumsy assertion today.
Look at my profile, and notice where I live.
The Constitution. Are you still claiming that those elected legislators can make laws to segregate schools by race?
The popular vote means absolutely nothing in a race for President, and I decided long ago I would never vote for someone whom I believe unqualified for office.Alas some time ago I noticed your location that is the "Greater Boston Area" because I know it very well from having been born and raised in MA. I lived in the Fenway-Kenmore with Fenway Park over my shoulder, off exciting Boylston St and a stone's throw from the Boston Common and the State House/Beacon Hill. At one point I took the Green Line of the T five stops to my position at the JKF and then the newer Tip O'Neil Federal Buildings in City Hall Plaza. I spent some time in Charlestown which is the original Boston, at Bunker Hill and where the USS Constitution is drydocked. Fortunately I was in Washington DC during the Big Dig.
Now that I got all that out and there's so very much more, I'm talking to you the voter not to the Greater Boston Area. The same as you are talking to me the voter and not the Florida Panhandle (represented by Matt Gaetz). There's the national popular vote factor that has its own significance outside of the Electoral College.
If you're talking about voting third party then you'd be talking about the fly by night one day every fourth November parties who spring in then out for that one day with their only effect if any being to shit our political bed. Third parties have changed nothing except for the worse -- these hustlers and vote rustlers won't ever be any different.
Men received rights automatically from the Constitution. Why should we have to vote on allowing women those same rights?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.
Men do not have a Constitutional right to abortion, either. Did you not know that?Men received rights automatically from the Constitution. Why should we have to vote on allowing women those same rights?
Your arguments on this matter are nonsense.
End of discussion.
As I said at the outset, heads you win, tails we lose.I repeat it because no one here on your side has been able to challenge it
Abortion is an unenumerated right and thus cannot be restricted by any level of government per the 9th amendment.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.
Who are you to deny my right to vote away your rights?Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
As many times as you like. Which is in each reply post to you. Being right as an absolute is endless innit. There's just no rest for the weary is there.How many more times are you going to prove me right about your compulsion for rash presumptions?
MAGAs don't care.You can “assert” anything that you want and as often as you want, but you have evidently still not learned that repetition of an inaccurate claim does not in any way change that.
Yes, I am a constructionist, and I have been one long before the dawn of “MAGA.”As I said at the outset, heads you win, tails we lose.
It's built into your predetermined and rigid proposition.
Your posts are no compromise and no adjustments and no modifications. They are absolute and forever so. This is called dogma not debate.
Your posts are consistent with the "Strict Constructionist" views held by MAGAs and MAGA judges. Neither you nor they can recognize or are willing to accept what the greenhouse of unenumerated rights can and does produce. Indeed, MAGAs to include the MAGA judges oppose the legitimate and ontological enumeration of previously unenumerated Constitutional rights, one step at a time and over time. Which is why your beloved MAGAs on the Supreme MAGA Court are butchering 'em as they also twist the Constitution to make Trump unaccountable.
Abortion is an unenumerated right and thus cannot be restricted by any level of government per the 9th amendment.
You’re confused. I have never claimed to have that authority.Who are you to deny my right to vote away your rights?
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.As many times as you like. Which is in each reply post to you. Being right as an absolute is endless innit. There's just no rest for the weary is there.
Because in your MAGA dogma your posts are never wrong.
Your premise when you posed your "challenge" to prove you wrong has its built in heads you win tails we lose. Every time.
How many more times are you going to prove me right about your compulsion for rash presumptions?
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?