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

[NatMorton]

*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.

And there is no right in the Constitution that, when exercised, is free from restriction when it harms another.

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.

Excellent. You understand that a woman's right to privacy is not absolute, and that her right to bodily autonomy may be infringed upon by the state after the point of viability.

Now, here's the key question. Even if we agree viability is a reasonable standard, by what authority does SCOTUS impose that standard on a state that wants a different standard?

 

[L88]

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.

The Supreme Court didn't limit anything. They did remove very poorly written bench legislation that's needed replacement for decades. Both sides are pushing what should be solely the mother's decision and who she wishes to consult with, deeper and deeper into government control.

 

[watsup]

Both sides are pushing what should be solely the mother's decision and who she wishes to consult with, deeper and deeper into government control.

?????????????

 

[Tangmo]

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

I see you arguing always and all the time with critics of Trump.

Certainly I don't follow your posts but anytime I see your posts you're challenging and arguing with posters who are critical of Trump. I'm referencing certain posters some of whom click "Like' to my posts and whose posts are compatible with my own. These posters don't 'Like' your posts and neither do I.

So if you're claiming to be a Constitutional Conservative and not a MAGA you're not exactly praising Constitutionalists such as Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and that group of dedicated conservative Constitutional Republicans. You probably didn't care much for our former governor Charlie Baker who was a critic of Trump and with other Constitutional Republican conservatives such as Larry Hogan staked out some measure of an alternative Republican party to the current anti Constitutional one of Putin-MAGA-Trump. Your posts pretty much ignore and give a Free Ride to Putin besides. Trump is a general alarm fire against the Constitution yet your posts focus against posters who are critics of that and Trump -- while ignoring Trump.

Indeed, the whole thing with the Supreme MAGA Court and immunity is to establish an anti Constitutional dictatorial chief executive of the federal government. Project 2025 is the means to establish an anti Constitutional almighty federal executive branch which I don't see you posting against. Socioculturally Project 2025 is in its actuality Project 1955 or maybe Project 1935 Germany. Your posts that challenge only the critics of Trump pretend this and more does not exist. We know that sometimes it's not so much what a person says and does as much as it's what the person does not say and not do, as in your posts. Which makes your pretentiousness about the Constitution transparent I'm afraid. And a deflection as if all were normal when it absolutely is not.

Busted.

 

[NatMorton]

I see you arguing always and all the time with critics of Trump.

Certainly I don't follow your posts but anytime I see your posts you're challenging and arguing with posters who are critical of Trump. I'm referencing certain posters some of whom click "Like' to my posts and whose posts are compatible with my own. These posters don't 'Like' your posts and neither do I.

So if you're claiming to be a Constitutional Conservative and not a MAGA you're not exactly praising Constitutionalists such as Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger and that group of dedicated conservative Constitutional Republicans. You probably didn't care much for our former governor Charlie Baker who was a critic of Trump and with other Constitutional Republican conservatives such as Larry Hogan staked out some measure of an alternative Republican party to the current anti Constitutional one of Putin-MAGA-Trump. Your posts pretty much ignore and give a Free Ride to Putin besides. Trump is a general alarm fire against the Constitution yet your posts focus against posters who are critics of that and Trump -- while ignoring Trump.

Indeed, the whole thing with the Supreme MAGA Court and immunity is to establish an anti Constitutional dictatorial chief executive of the federal government. Project 2025 is the means to establish an anti Constitutional almighty federal executive branch which I don't see you posting against. Socioculturally Project 2025 is in its actuality Project 1955 or maybe Project 1935 Germany. Your posts that challenge only the critics of Trump pretend this and more does not exist. We know that sometimes it's not so much what a person says and does as much as it's what the person does not say and not do, as in your posts. Which makes your pretentiousness about the Constitution transparent I'm afraid. And a deflection as if all were normal when it absolutely is not.

Busted.

This will surprise no one, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me or my positions.

If the truth interests you, which is doubtful, it's this:

• I have never supported Trump nor ever voted for him.
• I happen to think the world of Charley Baker and even know members of his family.
• I think highly of Liz Cheney, too.
• I think the justices Trump appointed to the court are nothing short of outstanding, and their appointments were easily the biggest success of his administration.
• I am a conservative, so it should not be a surprise to anyone who is not a gainsaying yahoo that I would oppose policies of Trump's opponents, i.e., the policies of Democrats.

Now you have the facts about the matters you've raised. What you do with them is up to you.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

That is the opposite of what the 9th amendment says. It says nothing about leaving things to states.

 

[iguanaman]

This will surprise no one, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me or my positions.

If the truth interests you, which is doubtful, it's this:

• I have never supported Trump nor ever voted for him.
• I happen to think the world of Charley Baker and even know members of his family.
• I think highly of Liz Cheney, too.
• I think the justices Trump appointed to the court are nothing short of outstanding, and their appointments were easily the biggest success of his administration.
• I am a conservative, so it should not be a surprise to anyone who is not a gainsaying yahoo that I would oppose policies of Trump's opponents, i.e., the policies of Democrats.

Now you have the facts about the matters you've raised. What you do with them is up to you.

Either you are voting for Harris or you are a traitor to America. Which is it?

 

[NatMorton]

That is the opposite of what the 9th amendment says. It says nothing about leaving things to states.

Suggest you read up on the history of the 9th and 10th. They were written specifically to prohibit the federal government from ruling on matters not enumerated in the Constitution.

Whereas the Ninth Amendment provides that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage other unenumerated rights retained by the people, the Tenth Amendment clearly reserves to the states those powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the federal government nor prohibits to the states.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tenth-Amendment

They are checks on federal authority, not state.

 

[NatMorton]

Either you are voting for Harris or you are a traitor to America. Which is it?

I am not voting for Harris nor am I voting for Trump, and your hash of fallacies is childish.

 

[iguanaman]

I am not voting for Harris nor am I voting for Trump, and your hash of fallacies is childish.

You will regret that decision the rest of your life.

 

[iguanaman]

Suggest you read up on the history of the 9th and 10th. They were written specifically to prohibit the federal government from ruling on matters not enumerated in the Constitution.


Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Tenth-Amendment

They are checks on federal authority, not state.

No the 9th was written because many of the founders wanted more rights enumerated. Look it up.
Here is what you link said about the 10th....

It merely indicates that the states may establish and maintain their own laws and policies so long as they do not conflict with the authority of the federal government.

 

[Tangmo]

This will surprise no one, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when it comes to me or my positions.

If the truth interests you, which is doubtful, it's this: I have never supported Trump nor ever voted for him.

I didn't say or suggest you ever voted for Trump. Your posts are too slippery for any prudent poster to make that assertion absent a direct statement by you which I haven't ever seen. And as I posted, I do not follow your posts nor do I see them that often.

Voting third party or sitting out the election does not stop Putin-MAGA-Trump. Neither do Trump & MAGA get stopped by voting but passing on the Potus/VP line on the ballot.

The only way to stop Trump is by voting for Harris-Walz. There's no way electorally to stop Trump except to vote for Harris.

Not voting for Harris means you can accept Trump should he again be elected to the presidency which Trump will quickly turn into a tyrannical dictatorship that will put Putin green with envy. Not voting for Harris means you fundamentally and at bottom have no problems with Trump in the WH again. It means you are prepared to go along with the MAGA program. Project 2025 for instance would create a powerful, all encompassing and unaccountable presidency that mangles the Constitution. It would mean your posts about the meaning of the Constitution are worthless because they are either baloney or unknowing and oblivious about this.

If you wanted to stop Trump which you do not want to do you would vote for Harris because it is the only way to stop Trump. As expected, you haven't said you will do that, vote for Harris. Will you change your mind?

I haven't even said anything yet about Putin-MAGA-Trump shredding the Constitution that Trump has already said he wants "terminated.' Indeed, your posts about the Constitution and your pretended normalcy of it deflect from all reality.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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

Which he really means unless we're talking about an actual business.

 

[Tangmo]

You will regret that decision the rest of your life.

No he will not.

As I've posted, not voting for Harris means the person is accepting of Trump as Potus should Trump win. It means the person does not oppose Trump when it matters most, ie, by his vote. Everyone knows what we'd be getting if Trump becomes Potus/C'nC again. Not voting for Harris means the person has no problem with it.

 

[NatMorton]

You will regret that decision the rest of your life.

That's really a dumb comment when you consider where I live.

 

[NatMorton]

No the 9th was written because many of the founders wanted more rights enumerated. Look it up.

Prove it.

Though before you make what will be a fruitless effort, ask yourself this important question. If the framers, who were literally in the process of enumerating federally protected rights, wanted additional rights enumerated, why didn't they ...

... get ready for it ...

... drum roll, please ...

... here it comes ...

... simply enumerate those additional rights when they had quill and ink in hand?

You really say the most amazing things sometimes.

 

[NatMorton]

I didn't say or suggest you ever voted for Trump. Your posts are too slippery for any prudent poster to make that assertion absent a direct statement by you which I haven't ever seen. And as I posted, I do not follow your posts nor do I see them that often.

Voting third party or sitting out the election does not stop Putin-MAGA-Trump. Neither do Trump & MAGA get stopped by voting but passing on the Potus/VP line on the ballot.

The only way to stop Trump is by voting for Harris-Walz. There's no way electorally to stop Trump except to vote for Harris.

Not voting for Harris means you can accept Trump should he again be elected to the presidency which Trump will quickly turn into a tyrannical dictatorship that will put Putin green with envy. Not voting for Harris means you fundamentally and at bottom have no problems with Trump in the WH again. It means you are prepared to go along with the MAGA program. Project 2025 for instance would create a powerful, all encompassing and unaccountable presidency that mangles the Constitution. It would mean your posts about the meaning of the Constitution are worthless because they are either baloney or unknowing and oblivious about this.

If you wanted to stop Trump which you do not want to do you would vote for Harris because it is the only way to stop Trump. As expected, you haven't said you will do that, vote for Harris. Will you change your mind?

I haven't even said anything yet about Putin-MAGA-Trump shredding the Constitution that Trump has already said he wants "terminated.' Indeed, your posts about the Constitution and your pretended normalcy of it deflect from all reality.

You're the second one to make this rather clumsy assertion today.

Look at my profile, and notice where I live.

 

[iguanaman]

That's really a dumb comment when you consider where I live.

Voting is a privilege. This election is the most important in all our lifetimes and you failed yourself and America by not participating.

 

[iguanaman]

Prove it.

Though before you make what will be a fruitless effort, ask yourself this important question. If the framers, who were literally in the process of enumerating federally protected rights, wanted additional rights enumerated, why didn't they ...

... get ready for it ...

... drum roll, please ...

... here it comes ...

... simply enumerate those additional rights when they had quill and ink in hand?

You really say the most amazing things sometimes.

Yes James Madison and me were and are pretty amazing people... We both agree that the 9th amendment was needed because the Bill of Rights is a living and incomplete document and i was "introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others." And yes I am calling you perverse. How amazing is that?

In contrast to the first eight amendments to the Constitution, which protect substantive rights, the Ninth Amendment sought to address Federalist fears that expressly protecting certain rights might implicitly sanction the infringement of other rights.6 James Madison responded to that argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives:

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system.7

Madison suggested, however, that that concern may be guarded against by the text that became the Ninth Amendment.8

Madison’s statement and the text of the Ninth Amendment both indicate that the Amendment itself does not guarantee any substantive rights.9 Instead, it states a rule of construction, making clear that the Bill of Rights may not be construed to limit rights in areas not enumerated. As Justice Joseph Story explained, the clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others.10

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/

 

[watsup]

Yes James Madison and me were and are pretty amazing people... We both agree that the 9th amendment was needed because the Bill of Rights is a living and incomplete document and i was "introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others." And yes I am calling you perverse. How amazing is that?

In contrast to the first eight amendments to the Constitution, which protect substantive rights, the Ninth Amendment sought to address Federalist fears that expressly protecting certain rights might implicitly sanction the infringement of other rights.6 James Madison responded to that argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives:


Madison suggested, however, that that concern may be guarded against by the text that became the Ninth Amendment.8

Madison’s statement and the text of the Ninth Amendment both indicate that the Amendment itself does not guarantee any substantive rights.9 Instead, it states a rule of construction, making clear that the Bill of Rights may not be construed to limit rights in areas not enumerated. As Justice Joseph Story explained, the clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others.10

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/

Thank you for showing that once again Nat Morton had no idea as to what he was talking about. What a strange and inaccurate interpretation it was to claim that it was about the states rather than individuals.

 

[NatMorton]

Voting is a privilege. This election is the most important in all our lifetimes and you failed yourself and America by not participating.

Never said I wasn't going to vote.

You make a habit of rash presumptions.

 

[NatMorton]

Yes James Madison and me were and are pretty amazing people... We both agree that the 9th amendment was needed because the Bill of Rights is a living and incomplete document and i was "introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others." And yes I am calling you perverse. How amazing is that?

In contrast to the first eight amendments to the Constitution, which protect substantive rights, the Ninth Amendment sought to address Federalist fears that expressly protecting certain rights might implicitly sanction the infringement of other rights.6 James Madison responded to that argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives:


Madison suggested, however, that that concern may be guarded against by the text that became the Ninth Amendment.8

Madison’s statement and the text of the Ninth Amendment both indicate that the Amendment itself does not guarantee any substantive rights.9 Instead, it states a rule of construction, making clear that the Bill of Rights may not be construed to limit rights in areas not enumerated. As Justice Joseph Story explained, the clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others.10

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/

And it was to protect those rights from the federal government, and not from the people and their elected state representatives.

You and and @watsup remain completely off base on this. You can't see past your politics.

 

[iguanaman]

And it was to protect those rights from the federal government, and not from the people and their elected state representatives.

You and and @watsup remain completely off base on this. You can't see past your politics.

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.

 

[iguanaman]

Never said I wasn't going to vote.

You make a habit of rash presumptions.

So you will vote for Magas but not Trump? How can you justify that?

 

[watsup]

And it was to protect those rights from the federal government, and not from the people and their elected state representatives.

You and and @watsup remain completely off base on this. You can't see past your politics.

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.