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

[bomberfox]

I dont think the founders thought much about abortion.

 

[bomberfox]

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?

Seems to work for the president.

 

[watsup]

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?

What are these “other unenumerated rights” of which you speak?

 

[watsup]

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.

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.

You say that your opinion “matters not”, and yet you gave it (see first quote above). Then when I asked for more details, you both deflected and changed the goalposts all at once. Are you now saying that there IS a rationale that would allow for abortion in the first two semesters and that it depends wholly on the personal opinions of the legislators involved? I am just trying to get you to clarify two of your opposing claims.

 

[watsup]

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

That is truly hilarious when the fact of the matter is that five far right extremist judges on the SC used their personal religious opinions as the informal basis for the Dobbs ruling rather than the Constitutional principle of the right of privacy as established in Roe. Dobbs was one of the most “activist” rulings ever, with the far right jurists accomplishing by fiat what their far right buddies in red state legislatures could not do by legislation. Totally corrupt, totally activist.

 

[Luce]

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.

They benefit from it every day, but they hate it.

It gets in the way of their authoritarian porn.

 

[watsup]

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.

It’s wrong on its face. The Bill of Rights quotes in the OP clearly show that basic Constitutional rights could not be overridden by the states. That’s what the civil rights rulings of the mid-twentieth century finally got right. Read the ninth amendment again: states may not “deny or disparage” rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, that are “retained by the people”. Clearly, so-called “state’s rights” could not override INDIVIDUAL rights. That’s what the first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights is all about. That principle is the foundation of the civil rights cases of the mid-twentieth century, just as it was in Roe and was only overturned by far right extremists who trashed the Constitution in doing so.

 

[Tangmo]

We win, they lose.

 

[NatMorton]

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.

Roe v Wade. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution. More specifically, there is no prescribed legal definition of being human (with a right to life) that is binding on the states anywhere in that document. Legally speaking (not scientifically), the Roe majority plucked the boundary between the second and third trimester out of thin air and imposed it as a legal framework on the definition of human life for all 50 states.

 

[NatMorton]

It must be nice to be superior.

Omniscient.

MAGA !

You're easily impressed.

 

[NatMorton]

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.

Yes, I have. Even better, I understand it.

 

[NatMorton]

Seems to work for the president.

American civics not you strong suit?

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, I have. Even better, I understand it.

Then you know that it is the right of the Supreme court to enumerate rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Tangmo]

You're easily impressed.

Reading your posts is like Trump doing his "weave" after Trump said to "terminate" the Constitution then say he will be "dictator for a day."

Your posts "weave" right into that.

Trump thinks the "Founders" are a bunch of guys who started an iron works in Poughkeepsie.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Roe v Wade. There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

Why don't you just come out and say that you don't believes in unenumerated rights and the purpose of the 9th Amendment, because that's really the argument you're making here, using the thin veneer of the abortion question. Or, definitively assert the opposite. Either way it would be more honest and save a lot of time.

More specifically, there is no prescribed legal definition of being human (with a right to life) that is binding on the states anywhere in that document.

There is certainly one that can be inferred from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does the Constitution specify that a citizen must be a human being. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude but it doesn't specify human involuntary servitude. Are draft horses willing servants? Doesn't matter, because we infer that those passages refer to people, and not other species.

The 14th Amendment talks about citizenship, with all its priviledges for equal protection under the law, as beginning at birth. States are therefore bound to recognize the priviledges and protections afforded citizens (humans) no later than birth. Nowhere does the Constitution refer to fetuses as being citizens. If the Framers felt that such crucial citizenship status should have extended earlier than birth, they could easily have said so.

Legally speaking (not scientifically), the Roe majority plucked the boundary between the second and third trimester out of thin air and imposed it as a legal framework on the definition of human life for all 50 states.

I don't know how the majority decided on the boundary, but I don't agree with your framing. I think that it would be more accurate to say that they established a boundary between what individual states may have perceived to be the rights of the unborn, on the one hand, and the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy on the other.

 

[watsup]

There is no right to abortion in the Constitution.

*YAWN* We've been over this time and time again. There is a right to privacy. Read the OP again and try to understand it.

Legally speaking (not scientifically), the Roe majority plucked the boundary between the second and third trimester out of thin air and imposed it as a legal framework on the definition of human life for all 50 states.

Yes, there needs to be boundary. What would you make it? The common standard is viability, which usually happens around the end of the second semester. It is not the SC that said that, it is a biological fact, according to doctors and scientists who study the matter.

 

[watsup]

Yes, I have. Even better, I understand it.

The logical fallacy of appeal to (your own) authority. As such, your statement means exactly nothing.

 

[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?

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.

You say that your opinion “matters not”, and yet you gave it (see first quote above). Then when I asked for more details, you both deflected and changed the goalposts all at once. Are you now saying that there IS a rationale that would allow for abortion in the first two semesters and that it depends wholly on the personal opinions of the legislators involved? I am just trying to get you to clarify two of your opposing claims.

Interesting that you suddenly drop out after I asked you to clarify your previous statements. Guess you realized that you were arguing against yourself. Good decision to just walk away rather than embarrassing yourself even further.

 

[NatMorton]

What are these “other unenumerated rights” of which you speak?

Yes, that’s exactly the point. Nobody knows.

 

[NatMorton]

You say that your opinion “matters not”, and yet you gave it (see first quote above). Then when I asked for more details, you both deflected and changed the goalposts all at once. Are you now saying that there IS a rationale that would allow for abortion in the first two semesters and that it depends wholly on the personal opinions of the legislators involved? I am just trying to get you to clarify two of your opposing claims.

I am saying neither my personal opinion on abortion, nor yours, matters when it comes to a state’s voters deciding (or having their elected officials decide) the abortion laws they wish to have in their state.

 

[NatMorton]

That is truly hilarious when the fact of the matter is that five far right extremist judges on the SC used their personal religious opinions as the informal basis for the Dobbs ruling rather than the Constitutional principle of the right of privacy as established in Roe. Dobbs was one of the most “activist” rulings ever, with the far right jurists accomplishing by fiat what their far right buddies in red state legislatures could not do by legislation. Totally corrupt, totally activist.

Nope. Roe was the decision that imposed abortion policy on the states. Dobbs gave the decision back to the states. Roe was judicial activism. Dobbs was judicial restraint.

 

[NatMorton]

It’s wrong on its face. The Bill of Rights quotes in the OP clearly show that basic Constitutional rights could not be overridden by the states. That’s what the civil rights rulings of the mid-twentieth century finally got right. Read the ninth amendment again: states may not “deny or disparage” rights, both enumerated and unenumerated, that are “retained by the people”. Clearly, so-called “state’s rights” could not override INDIVIDUAL rights. That’s what the first nine amendments of the Bill of Rights is all about. That principle is the foundation of the civil rights cases of the mid-twentieth century, just as it was in Roe and was only overturned by far right extremists who trashed the Constitution in doing so.

And I am claiming state’s voters have an unenumerated right to vote in the abortion laws they favor and you are seeking to have that right denied to them. How can you justify that?

 

[NatMorton]

Then you know that it is the right of the Supreme court to enumerate rights not mentioned in the Constitution.

And with that you’ve proven you have no idea what the 9th is for. It’s most certainly not to give the federal government the power to create new Constitutional law out of thin air.

In fact, the purpose of the 9th and 10th is precisely the opposite. It’s meant to limit the federal government — all three branches — to enumerated rights and powers. Where a matter is not enumerated, the federal government has absolutely no say in it. It’s meant to be left to the states.

 

[NatMorton]

Reading your posts is like Trump doing his "weave" after Trump said to "terminate" the Constitution then say he will be "dictator for a day."

Your posts "weave" right into that.

Trump thinks the "Founders" are a bunch of guys who started an iron works in Poughkeepsie.

You need to find a Trump supporter to argue with. That's not me.

 

[NatMorton]

Why don't you just come out and say that you don't believes in unenumerated rights and the purpose of the 9th Amendment, because that's really the argument you're making here, using the thin veneer of the abortion question. Or, definitively assert the opposite. Either way it would be more honest and save a lot of time.

Legally, unenumerated rights at the federal level do not exist. If a state wishes to enumerate in its own laws a right that is not in the Constitution (like a right to abortion) a state is free to do that. That is my position, and any claim to the contrary is a lie.

There is certainly one that can be inferred from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Nowhere does the Constitution specify that a citizen must be a human being. The 13th Amendment prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude but it doesn't specify human involuntary servitude. Are draft horses willing servants? Doesn't matter, because we infer that those passages refer to people, and not other species.

That is a credible argument that being born is a requirement to have rights under federal law. Nowhere in that passage is it said or implied the federal government has the authority to define "human" and overrule state law. MA can decide a human has a right to life at 20 weeks of development and AL can decide that right begins at the moment of conception.

The 14th Amendment talks about citizenship, with all its priviledges for equal protection under the law, as beginning at birth. States are therefore bound to recognize the priviledges and protections afforded citizens (humans) no later than birth. Nowhere does the Constitution refer to fetuses as being citizens. If the Framers felt that such crucial citizenship status should have extended earlier than birth, they could easily have said so.

No later than birth, yes, but they are not prohibited from protecting rights before birth.

I don't know how the majority decided on the boundary, but I don't agree with your framing. I think that it would be more accurate to say that they established a boundary between what individual states may have perceived to be the rights of the unborn, on the one hand, and the rights of the mother to bodily autonomy on the other.

The Roe majority claimed to be using scientific data, and for argument's sake let's take them at their word. Nowhere in the Constitution is the court granted the authority to define, legally, what is human -- even if it's a good standard -- and impose that standard on the 50 states.

It all comes down to a matter of authority, and when it comes to unenumerated authority, the feds lack it.