• 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!

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

iguanaman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
watsup said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
 
NatMorton said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
watsup said:
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.
Click to expand...
I repeat it because no one here on your side has been able to challenge it, you included.
 
NatMorton said:
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
Click to expand...

The Constitution. Are you still claiming that those elected legislators can make laws to segregate schools by race?
 
NatMorton said:
I repeat it because no one here on your side has been able to challenge it, you included.
Click to expand...

Another lie, of course. See post #69 which you have yet to challenge with sources or citations beyond saying “NUH-UH”.
 
NatMorton said:
You're the second one to make this rather clumsy assertion today.

Look at my profile, and notice where I live.
Click to expand...
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.
 
watsup said:
The Constitution. Are you still claiming that those elected legislators can make laws to segregate schools by race?
Click to expand...

Funny how quickly Nat Morton drops out when certain questions are asked.
 
@watsup and @iguanaman, this will be my last post on this point with you, and since I'm sure you'll bring up your grossly distorted views of the 9th and 10th again, I'll be sure to bookmark it so I can refresh your memories on why you're so wrong on this.

Both of you are making the claim that SCOTUS is free to select unenumerated rights and, for all intents and purposes, turn them into enumerated Constitutional rights through case law. Whether you realize it or not, such a political framework would give as few as five Justices, each with lifetime tenure, unlimited political power. They could pick and choose any legal matter they wish and impose a federal restriction on that matter, and only two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states could overturn such a ruling, which is effectively impossible on contentious issues that split the country.

Anyone who knows anything about the history of the Constitution knows we came perilously close to not having it. There was a great debate between Federalists and Anti-federalists on how much power the states would retain. The idea that their compromise was to give the Federal government the unlimited political power you claim they have is beyond ridiculous. It goes against everything the framers stood for. A generation that fought a revolution to get out from under one form of government with unlimited power would not willingly craft another.

Your arguments on this matter are nonsense.

End of discussion.
 
Tangmo said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

If you want the long version of this, here it is:

A few first thoughts on the new race for President

Okay, now that race is come into focus, and there's little doubt about who will be facing whom, and after thinking it over for a few days, it's time to put a stake in the ground. As I've said before, in 2016 I didn't find either candidate qualified for office, both for ethical reasons. So I...
debatepolitics.com debatepolitics.com
 
NatMorton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Men received rights automatically from the Constitution. Why should we have to vote on allowing women those same rights?
 
weaver2 said:
Men received rights automatically from the Constitution. Why should we have to vote on allowing women those same rights?
Click to expand...
Men do not have a Constitutional right to abortion, either. Did you not know that?
 
NatMorton said:
I repeat it because no one here on your side has been able to challenge it
Click to expand...
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.
 
NatMorton said:
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.
Click to expand...
Abortion is an unenumerated right and thus cannot be restricted by any level of government per the 9th amendment.
 
NatMorton said:
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
Click to expand...
Who are you to deny my right to vote away your rights?
 
NatMorton said:
How many more times are you going to prove me right about your compulsion for rash presumptions?
Click to expand...
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.
 
watsup said:
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.
Click to expand...
MAGAs don't care.

MAGAs have never cared.

Never will care.

They are MAGAs
 
Tangmo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, I am a constructionist, and I have been one long before the dawn of “MAGA.”
 
Deuce said:
Abortion is an unenumerated right and thus cannot be restricted by any level of government per the 9th amendment.
Click to expand...

Of course it can, when it comes into conflict with another unenumerated right.
 
Tangmo said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you’re trying to say.
 
NatMorton said:
Yes, and those individuals elect legislators who enact abortion restrictions (or protections). Who are you to deny them that right?
Click to expand...

What a truly ridiculous post. We are talking about the individual rights of the common American citizen. It has nothing at all to do with voting in a state legislature to DENY rights to others. And you still won’t answer as to whether the Brown decision to integrate schools was wrong because no right to do so was listed, per se, in the Constitution. What are you so afraid of?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom