# Constitutional Rights Have Limits



## Viktor (Mar 25, 2022)

The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.

The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.

The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.

These limits set forth in statutes or case law.


----------



## 1srelluc (Mar 25, 2022)

I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


----------



## Viktor (Mar 25, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


Polygamy was common in the ancient world, but not anymore. I suspect its a morals question.


----------



## KissMy (Mar 25, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


So the elite get thousands of wives in their harem raising armies of children, so you don't get any & must pleasure yourself.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit (Mar 25, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.



By that measure, a woman should be able to have multiple husbands.....
I mean if she is womanly enough and can support them and the multiple children on her own dime then go for it. 

Equality eh ?


----------



## fncceo (Mar 25, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Private citizens may not own fighter jets



In fact, Americans CAN own fighter jets ... just not armed ones.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Mar 25, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> By that measure, a woman should be able to have multiple husbands.....
> I mean if she is womanly enough and can support them and the multiple children on her own dime then go for it.
> 
> Equality eh ?


What is a woman?


----------



## 1srelluc (Mar 25, 2022)

BasicHumanUnit said:


> By that measure, a woman should be able to have multiple husbands.....
> I mean if she is womanly enough and can support them and the multiple children on her own dime then go for it.
> 
> Equality eh ?


Yeah, go for it. Just as long as she gets at least one that can cook-n-clean so the rest can go off hunting and what not.


----------



## JoeBlow (Mar 25, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Polygamy was common in the ancient world, but not anymore. I suspect its a morals question.


Overpopulation made polygamy obsolete.


----------



## JoeMoma (Mar 28, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


And if the wives don't mind.........

And a woman should be able to have multiple husbands.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Mar 31, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


If people could get the word "Rights" out of their heads and concentrate on "Responsibilities", the world would be a much better place.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 31, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Polygamy was common in the ancient world, but not anymore. I suspect its a morals question.



So the government is pushing it's religious values on the citizenry?

As far as government is concerned marriage is nothing but a property contract therefore if more than 2 people want to enter into that contract it is none of the government's business.


----------



## BackAgain (Mar 31, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> What is a woman?


Shit. I didn’t know this would be on the test.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 31, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.
> These limits set forth in statutes or case law.


Just like the right to an abortion - it is neither unlimited or absolute, as set forth by Roe v Wade and the cases that followed.


----------



## jwoodie (Mar 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> As far as government is concerned marriage is nothing but a property contract therefore if more than 2 people want to enter into that contract it is none of the government's business.


The basis for marriage laws used to be the welfare of children.  Now it is for the promotion of homosexuality.


----------



## Blues Man (Mar 31, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> The basis for marriage laws used to be the welfare of children.  Now it is for the promotion of homosexuality.


It's a property contract that's all it ever was.


----------



## jwoodie (Mar 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's a property contract that's all it ever was.


Do you consider children to be property?  Without them, adults can enter into any contract they want.  Why bother calling some a "marriage contract?"


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 1, 2022)

jwoodie said:


> Do you consider children to be property?  Without them, adults can enter into any contract they want.  Why bother calling some a "marriage contract?"



 you don;t have to be married to be held legally responsible for your children.

Most people marry before they have kids anyway so once again the only real issue is property 
More and more married people aren't having children as well.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 1, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the right to an abortion - it is neither unlimited or absolute, as set forth by Roe v Wade and the cases that followed.


But it is a right, with limitations and responsibilities like any other right.


----------



## Viktor (Apr 1, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the right to an abortion - it is neither unlimited or absolute, as set forth by Roe v Wade and the cases that followed.


Roe v Wade was a bad ruling. The Constitution does not even mention abortion. A Texas law which ignored it was upheld by the Supreme ct and a direct challenge to it is now before the court.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 4, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Roe v Wade was a bad ruling. The Constitution does not even mention abortion.


Whatever eyou may think of Roe, it is settled law.


Viktor said:


> A Texas law which ignored it was upheld by the Supreme ct and a direct challenge to it is now before the court.


You contradict yourself.
If the USSC upheld the TX abortion ban, then it the TX abortion ban would not be now before the court.
Unless, I suppose, some appeals court overturned the ban and the state appealed to the USSC - in which case, the court would overturn the appeals court.
But that's not the case.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 4, 2022)

Coyote said:


> But it is a right, with limitations and responsibilities like any other right.


With limitations placed on government prohibiting the state from interfering in personal, private matters – such as whether to have a child or not.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> With limitations placed on government prohibiting the state from interfering in personal, private matters – such as whether to have a child or not.


And yet, you agree the TX abortion law is constitutional.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 4, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


Well you're wrong on every point.  I can buy and legally possess anything other than a nuclear weapon, I just have to fill out the paperwork and pay the tax to do so.

Our right end only where they conflict with the rights of others, nothing in our constitution allows for any other position.

My owning firearms of any type and bearing them publicly does not infringe on anyone's rights.

My ownership of an M2 machinegun and shooting it off regularly on public or private ranges does not infringe on anyone's rights.

You are clueless boob and partisan hack.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 4, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


You can have as many wives as you want, but only one legally registered with the gov't at a time.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 4, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Polygamy was common in the ancient world, but not anymore. I suspect its a morals question.


Mostly it's a matter of transfer of titles and property.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, you agree the TX abortion law is constitutional.


On what basis would you claim that it is not?


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> With limitations placed on government prohibiting the state from interfering in personal, private matters – such as whether to have a child or not.


The time to decide is before you make a baby.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 4, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Just like the right to an abortion - it is neither unlimited or absolute, as set forth by Roe v Wade and the cases that followed.


There is no Constitutional  right to have an abortion. There is a SCOTUS decision “finding” the right. And sure. It’s right there in invisible ink penumbra clauses.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 5, 2022)

Desert Texan said:


> On what basis would you claim that it is not?


You'll have to ask Clayton.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Whatever eyou may think of Roe, it is settled law.


So was Dred Scott for a while. Bad case decisions aren’t immune from reconsideration. Seriously. When looked at in that light, the proper question might be: “WTF does ‘settled law’ even mean?” A legal issue got raised. It got litigated and argued.  A decision was rendered.  I guess it means, “ok, that’s settled., now.”

But it really isn’t, necessarily. Just like those who oppose the Roe v. Wade decision are hopeful that it will get repudiated soon, so too any number of liberals want a SCOTUS decision they disagree with to be overturned (consider Citizens United, for example).


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 5, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> There is no Constitutional  right to have an abortion. There is a SCOTUS decision “finding” the right. And sure. It’s right there in invisible ink penumbra clauses.


They couldn't find one no matter how far and wide they looked so they simply made it up.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 5, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Whatever eyou may think of Roe, it is settled law.
> 
> You contradict yourself.
> If the USSC upheld the TX abortion ban, then it the TX abortion ban would not be now before the court.
> ...



If it were "settled law" the dem's wouldn't make overturning RvW every time a seat opens up.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 5, 2022)

Desert Texan said:


> If it were "settled law" the dem's wouldn't make overturning RvW every time a seat opens up.


That it is "settled law" mostly comes fro the lips of the left.


----------



## Vastator (Apr 5, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> Yeah, go for it. Just as long as she gets at least one that can cook-n-clean so the rest can go off hunting and what not.


Happiness is having a woman who cooks, who cleans, and who fucks like the devil. As long as none of them find out about the others.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 5, 2022)

Desert Texan said:


> They couldn't find one no matter how far and wide they looked so they simply made it up.


Those penumbra clauses are tricky.


----------



## Batcat (Apr 5, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


As usual another gun grabber that has no idea of what he is talking about. 

There are machine gun shooting events in our nation. 


cannon shooting events.


civilians can own tanks.


and jet fighters. 


yes, you can own a flamethrower.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 5, 2022)

Batcat said:


> As usual another gun grabber that has no idea of what he is talking about.
> 
> There are machine gun shooting events in our nation.
> 
> ...


Their party is crowded with fools, liars and the developmentally disabled.


----------



## Brick Gold (Apr 11, 2022)

If the constitution was a recipe it would be a food you'll never get to eat.  You might be able to make variations and similar tasting dishes or meals but you'll never get to have the real thing.

Thats what being American is like.  You got this shit scrap of paper with a bunch of words on it but it doesn't really mean shit and doesn't really do anything for you.  Thats the dream part of being American.  That's why they call it the American dream.  It's a fairy tale and it can't come true.

You fairies can keep on believin, but I'm gonna move on.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Roe v Wade was a bad ruling. The Constitution does not even mention abortion. A Texas law which ignored it was upheld by the Supreme ct and a direct challenge to it is now before the court.


The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things which is the reason for the Ninth Amendment


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> There is no Constitutional  right to have an abortion. There is a SCOTUS decision “finding” the right. And sure. It’s right there in invisible ink penumbra clauses.


Read the Ninth Amendment


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Read the Ninth Amendment


I did. It’s not in there.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I did. It’s not in there.


Read it again for comprehension.

It clearly states the rights enumerated in the Constitution are NOT the ONLY rights people have.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Read it again for comprehension.
> 
> It clearly states the rights enumerated in the Constitution are NOT the ONLY rights people have.


That is categorically different than the claim that the alleged “right” to have an abortion is a Constitutional right.  So, you’re still wrong.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> That is categorically different than the claim that the alleged “right” to have an abortion is a Constitutional right.  So, you’re still wrong.


It doesn't matter.

the Constitution doesn't grant rights it never has it never will.  Our entire system is based on the premise that rights are inherent in the person and not granted by the government.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It doesn't matter.
> 
> the Constitution doesn't grant rights it never has it never will.  Our entire system is based on the premise that rights are inherent in the person and not granted by the government.


We aren’t discussing “granting” rights. We are talking about Constitutionally *protected* rights. There is *no* _Constitutionally_ _protected_ “right” to have an abortion in the US Constitution.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> We aren’t discussing “granting” rights. We are talking about Constitutionally *protected* rights. There is *no* _Constitutionally_ _protected_ “right” to have an abortion in the US Constitution.



ALL rights are Constitutionally protected.  

That's the whole purpose of the 9th Amendment.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> ALL rights are Constitutionally protected.
> 
> That's the whole purpose of the 9th Amendment.


Not true. The rights *enumerated* by the US Constitution are “protected” by the U.S. That’s why they *distinguish* the rights which _are_ enumerated *from* _other_ rights which may be addressed by the States or the People.

The real purpose of the 9th Amendment was to make it explicitly clear that just because the States (and the People) were agreeing to form our Union, they could not (on the basis of such agreement) be denied the rights they already had.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 11, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Not true. The rights *enumerated* by the US Constitution are “protected” by the U.S. That’s why they *distinguish* the rights which _are_ enumerated *from* _other_ rights which may be addressed by the States or the People.
> 
> The real purpose of the 9th Amendment was to make it explicitly clear that just because the States (and the People) were agreeing to form our Union, they could not (on the basis of such agreement) be denied the rights they already had.


BUT they are not the only rights people have and are NOT the only rights protected by the Constitution 

This is 8th grade civics


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 11, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> BUT they are not the only rights people have and are NOT the only rights protected by the Constitution
> 
> This is 8th grade civics


Then you had a problem in your school. Because your claim is incorrect. The US, in fact, offers *no* Constitutional protection for any of your rights beyond the ones which are enumerated IN the Constitution.

I’ll give a “fer instance:”

You have a dispute with your neighbor. You say he is violating your right to the “quiet enjoyment” of your home. You may indeed have such a right. But don’t bother trying to sue him in a Federal court. It’s not a right protected by the US Constitution.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Then you had a problem in your school. Because your claim is incorrect. The US, in fact, offers *no* Constitutional protection for any of your rights beyond the ones which are enumerated IN the Constitution.
> 
> I’ll give a “fer instance:”
> 
> You have a dispute with your neighbor. You say he is violating your right to the “quiet enjoyment” of your home. You may indeed have such a right. But don’t bother trying to sue him in a Federal court. It’s not a right protected by the US Constitution.




For one noise complaints are a state matter not a federal one.  the federasl government doesn;t enforce state laws BUT all state laws are subject to SCOTUS rulings and there have been many instances where state laws have been found unconstitutional.









						What Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights Does an American Have?
					

United States citizens enjoy written Constitutional rights and unwritten rights. What enumerated and unenumerated rights does an American have?




					constitutionus.com


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> For one noise complaints are a state matter not a federal one.  the federasl government doesn;t enforce state laws BUT all state laws are subject to SCOTUS rulings and there have been many instances where state laws have been found unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Make up your mind. It’s a right.  You said that the US Constitution guarantees all rights. I showed you that it doesn’t.

That doesn’t mean that if a state somehow violates one of the US Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a person that the US can’t intercede.  Two different notions.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Apr 12, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


Agreed. Especially since the taxpayers regularly support the children of men with multiple baby mammas who are NOT man enough to take care of their kids.

Polygamy will never be fought for by the left because they associate it with Mormons. It won't be supported by conservatives because they don't get that an attack on freedom anywhere threatens all freedom.

Only libertarians would advocate for multi spouse marriage.


----------



## 1srelluc (Apr 12, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Agreed. Especially since the taxpayers regularly support the children of men with multiple baby mammas who are NOT man enough to take care of their kids.
> 
> Polygamy will never be fought for by the left *because they associate it with Mormons*. It won't be supported by conservatives because they don't get that an attack on freedom anywhere threatens all freedom.
> 
> Only libertarians would advocate for multi spouse marriage.


If they think all Mormons are like Romney they might find common cause with them.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Make up your mind. It’s a right.  You said that the US Constitution guarantees all rights. I showed you that it doesn’t.
> 
> That doesn’t mean that if a state somehow violates one of the US Constitutionally guaranteed rights of a person that the US can’t intercede.  Two different notions.


I said the Constitution clearly states in the 9th Amendment that there are more rights than those enumerated in its text. 

And all those rights are just as protected as any other.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I said the Constitution clearly states in the 9th Amendment that there are more rights than those enumerated in its text.
> 
> And all those rights are just as protected as any other.


I know what you said. That’s why I responded to exactly that. If a state recognizes that you have a right (one not enumerated in the US Constitution), the Federal government *doesn’t* Constitutionally protect that right. That would be a State matter.

Now if the State denies you the same protection of that right as it accords to other people, you might be able to take the State to Federal court for the denial of the US Constitutionally guaranteed right of Equal Protection

Either way, you need to point to an enumerated right which the US Constitution protects if you want to claim that it is a U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed right.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 12, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I know what you said. That’s why I responded to exactly that. If a state recognizes that you have a right (one not enumerated in the US Constitution), the Federal government *doesn’t* Constitutionally protect that right. That would be a State matter.
> 
> Now if the State denies you the same protection of that right as it accords to other people, you might be able to take the State to Federal court for the denial of the US Constitutionally guaranteed right of Equal Protection
> 
> Either way, you need to point to an enumerated right which the US Constitution protects if you want to claim that it is a U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed right.


The federal government is bound to protect that right by the 9th amendment because the Constitution protects all rights not just those listed in its text.  ANYONE can run a case through the state courts right up to SCOTUS no matter what state they live in then SCOTUS will rule whether or not that law was Constitutional.

If that isn't protection of rights by the federal government then what is?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 12, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The federal government is bound to protect that right by the 9th amendment because the Constitution protects all rights not just those listed in its text.  ANYONE can run a case through the state courts right up to SCOTUS no matter what state they live in then SCOTUS will rule whether or not that law was Constitutional.
> 
> If that isn't protection of rights by the federal government then what is?


Nope. Absent a denial of equal protection (or some other _*proper*_ basis), no litigant can run a case right up to SCOTUS.  It’s called “jurisdiction.”  This is why SCOTUS wouldn’t hear a case involving a mere disgruntled litigant’s state court outcome absent a valid federal jurisdictional basis.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 14, 2022)

You're both overlooking the idea (and viability) of implied rights. 

Every government has inherent rights (intrinsic to being a government, the right to make laws and so on), express rights (clearly spelled out), and implied rights, which are not expressly stated but are understood as basic concepts upon which the more specific laws are based.  

One of these implied rights is body autonomy, the idea that no one can take ownership and make demands on your personal self but you.  It isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but it the basis for the protection against illegal seizure, the right not to self-incriminate, habeas corpus, and lots of others.  

It's also the basis for, among other things, a case in Pittsburgh a few years back where a terminally ill man sued his cousin because he wouldn't donate half his liver for a transplant that would save his life.  The case failed because the government could not violate the cousin's body autonomy, and the sick man died.  This concept has been supported in jurisprudence at all levels for centuries, and just because it's implied rather than expressed doesn't make it any less binding.  

The argument for legal abortion is based on the mother's body autonomy.  Whether you agree with the conclusion or not, the basis for the argument is actually a real Constitutional thing.


----------



## San Souci (Apr 15, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


Yes. It does. But the CONSEQUENCES of free speech are a PERSONAL Responsibility. If your speech harms or threatens ,you can be sued or Jailed.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 16, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It doesn't matter.
> 
> the Constitution doesn't grant rights it never has it never will.  Our entire system is based on the premise that rights are inherent in the person and not granted by the government.


Your rights end when they conflict with the rights of others.

Every successful abortion kills at least one human being.  The "RIght to Abortion" was completely fabricated by an activist court.


----------



## Big Bend Texas (Apr 16, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> You're both overlooking the idea (and viability) of implied rights.
> 
> Every government has inherent rights (intrinsic to being a government, the right to make laws and so on), express rights (clearly spelled out), and implied rights, which are not expressly stated but are understood as basic concepts upon which the more specific laws are based.
> 
> ...


The gov't has responsibilities and duties and is prohibited from certain acts, Rights belong only to The People.,


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 16, 2022)

Desert Texan said:


> The gov't has responsibilities and duties and is prohibited from certain acts, Rights belong only to The People.,


Absolutely.  The whole beauty of our Constitution is that our rights under it are granted to us by Our Creator, not by any person or government who could later take them away.


----------



## Blues Man (Apr 17, 2022)

Desert Texan said:


> Your rights end when they conflict with the rights of others.
> 
> Every successful abortion kills at least one human being.  The "RIght to Abortion" was completely fabricated by an activist court.


This goes beyond abortion

Personally I have no problem with abortion in the first trimester.  When the fetus nears viability outside the womb is a different matter


----------



## DGS49 (Apr 17, 2022)

It is only a question of time before anti-polygamy and anti-incest laws are deemed unconstitutional.

The justification is exactly the same as for nullifying sodomy laws and sanctioning gay marriage.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 17, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> And yet, you agree the TX abortion law is constitutional.


The hypocritical right is of course inconsistent with the application of limited government dogma – seeking more government, bigger government at the expense of individual rights concerning that which they oppose.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 17, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> There is no Constitutional  right to have an abortion. There is a SCOTUS decision “finding” the right. And sure. It’s right there in invisible ink penumbra clauses.


Wrong.

There is a Constitutional right to privacy – prohibiting government excess and overreach concerning personal, private matters; again, such as deciding whether to have a child or not.

Such decisions are not within the scope of government regulatory authority.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 17, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> It isn't spelled out in the Constitution, but it the basis for the protection against illegal seizure, the right not to self-incriminate, habeas corpus, and lots of others.


The 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, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

To compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law is the epitome of unreasonable government intrusion.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 17, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> There is no Constitutional  right to have an abortion. There is a SCOTUS decision “finding” the right. And sure. It’s right there in invisible ink penumbra clauses.


It’s true. The SCOTUS made it up.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> There is a Constitutional right to privacy – prohibiting government excess and overreach concerning personal, private matters; again, such as deciding whether to have a child or not.
> 
> Such decisions are not within the scope of government regulatory authority.


Wrong. There is an implied right to privacy as determined by — yep — SCOTUS. I’m okay with that bit if fiction up to a point. But to then extract the right to an abortion as an adjunct of the right to choose as a corollary of  a right to privacy means the SCOTUS has been legislating. It’s not in the Constitution.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. There is an implied right to privacy as determined by — yep — SCOTUS. I’m okay with that bit if fiction up to a point. But to then extract the right to an abortion as an adjunct of the right to choose as a corollary of  a right to privacy means the SCOTUS has been legislating. It’s not in the Constitution.


Determined by a significant majority, by Justices nominated by both Ds and Rs, for three different justifications, more than fifty years ago, with a ton of rulings supporting it since.  Good luck getting that overturned.

Also, one of those justifications was the Ninth Amendment, which says that just because a right isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't a right "retained by the people."  The Founding Fathers deliberately included a clear reference to implied, also called unenumerated, rights.

It wasn't just made up.  Implied rights have always been a real thing.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It’s true. The SCOTUS made it up.


9th amendment


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Determined by a significant majority, by Justices nominated by both Ds and Rs, for three different justifications, more than fifty years ago, with a ton of rulings supporting it since.  Good luck getting that overturned.
> 
> Also, one of those justifications was the Ninth Amendment, which says that just because a right isn't specifically enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't a right "retained by the people."  The Founding Fathers deliberately included a clear reference to implied, also called unenumerated, rights.
> 
> It wasn't just made up.  Implied rights have always been a real thing.


I am not making predictions. But bad rulings aren’t immune from reconsideration. And Roe v. Wade was a shabbily decided decision.

Rights exist even outside of the Constitution and laws. I congratulate you on knowing that. In other words, the 9th Amendment recognizes that just because the Constitution was being ratified didn’t mean that the people would give up any of their rights. And?  Are you now claiming that this means that the protection of the US government is given to people for all those other rights?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> 9th amendment


Has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Has nothing to do with it.


If you read the roe decision you would know differently


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> If you read the roe decision you would know differently


I did. That’s why I know you’re wrong. The bases  for the Roe v. Wade decision were the right to choose and the right to privacy. They were found in the penumbras. You really should do more than read the decision. You should try to understand it.

While there were some references made to the Ninth Amendment, the fundamental bases of the decision were as I noted above. Privacy and choice.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I did. That’s why I know you’re wrong. The bases  for the Roe v. Wade decision were the right to choose and the right to privacy. They were found in the penumbras. You really should do more than read the decision. You should try to understand it.
> 
> While there were some references made to the Ninth Amendment, the fundamental bases of the decision were as I noted above. Privacy and choice.


I want you to claim the majority opinion did not name the 9th amendment 


HAHAHAHA


----------



## miketx (Apr 21, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> What is a woman?


You.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> I want you to claim the majority opinion did not name the 9th amendment
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHA


I already acknowledge they did. Ty to keep up.


----------



## miketx (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I did. That’s why I know you’re wrong. The bases  for the Roe v. Wade decision were the right to choose and the right to privacy. They were found in the penumbras. You really should do more than read the decision. You should try to understand it.
> 
> While there were some references made to the Ninth Amendment, the fundamental bases of the decision were as I noted above. Privacy and choice.


Bidens illegal invaders give an all new definition to row vs wade.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I am not making predictions. But bad rulings aren’t immune from reconsideration. And Roe v. Wade was a shabbily decided decision.
> 
> Rights exist even outside of the Constitution and laws. I congratulate you on knowing that. In other words, the 9th Amendment recognizes that just because the Constitution was being ratified didn’t mean that the people would give up any of their rights. And?  Are you now claiming that this means that the protection of the US government is given to people for all those other rights?


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  It's also what the Supreme Court has been saying for generations, and what the First Congress said when they ratified the Ninth Amendment.


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


By the text itself, the word "others" is in contrast to "enumerated" rights, meaning unenumerated rights.  Implied rights are, by definition, unenumerated.  They're not listed; they're implied.  It's exactly what we're talking about.  

As it turns out, I wasn't talking about Roe v Wade (though I can understand the confusion), but Griswold v Connecticut from the 1960s, which had to do with a married couple's right to use contraception.  One of its multiple concurrent reasons was the Ninth Amendment, because it protects exactly what it says it does.  They went back to Common Law, tradition, and everything the United States has done since founding and determined that, yes, an implied right to privacy is an undercurrent that forms the base of so many other statutes and decisions that it definitely exists.  

Also, in answer to your last question, yes, the protection of the US Government extends to people's implied rights.  The Constitution also does not express grant us the right to vote, and yet we each have it because it is implied.  Same goes with our right to interstate travel, our rights to get married and have children, and to choose how to raise those children.  Those are all rights that we have and are protected, and yet none of them are expressly enumerated in the Constitution.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 21, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.  It's also what the Supreme Court has been saying for generations, and what the First Congress said when they ratified the Ninth Amendment.
> 
> By the text itself, the word "others" is in contrast to "enumerated" rights, meaning unenumerated rights.  Implied rights are, by definition, unenumerated.  They're not listed; they're implied.  It's exactly what we're talking about.
> 
> ...


Griswold was a major foundation for Roe.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision does make some reference to the 9th, I don’t mind conceding that point. In fact, I already did. But I see no evidence that it’s the basis of the decision. The simply SCOTUS made up the law. The SCOTUS isn’t the legislature. It’s not supposed to make up law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 21, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. There is an implied right to privacy as determined by — yep — SCOTUS. I’m okay with that bit if fiction up to a point. But to then extract the right to an abortion as an adjunct of the right to choose as a corollary of  a right to privacy means the SCOTUS has been legislating. It’s not in the Constitution.


There is a Constitutional right to privacy, whether the neo-fascist authoritarian right likes it or not.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Then you had a problem in your school. Because your claim is incorrect. The US, in fact, offers *no* Constitutional protection for any of your rights beyond the ones which are enumerated IN the Constitution.
> 
> I’ll give a “fer instance:”
> 
> You have a dispute with your neighbor. You say he is violating your right to the “quiet enjoyment” of your home. You may indeed have such a right. But don’t bother trying to sue him in a Federal court. It’s not a right protected by the US Constitution.


Tranquility is protected by the US Constitution.


----------



## frigidweirdo (Apr 22, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.



In the past the more children you had, the more workers you had. In South Africa some wanted to pass a law so a woman could have multiple husbands. The men (who can have multiple wives) were shocked.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Apr 22, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> I never understood the more than one wife thing.....I mean if you are manly enough and can support them and the multiple children on your own dime then go for it.


Except most mormons (same for the muslims and their multiple wives) are welfare HO's using the taxpayer to not just subsidize their lifestyle but to profit off their breeding cattle aka wives.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

KissMy said:


> Tranquility is protected by the US Constitution.


No. It’s not.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. It’s not.


Yeah, no, it isn't. 

But other things are.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Yeah, no, it isn't.
> 
> But other things are.


I know. It even says so. And I’ve *seen* some of those rights protected.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.

At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper *government* acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.

This is akin to the right to free speech. The *Government* isn’t allowed to deny us our right to free speech (with some very limited exceptions). But that doesn’t mean that the idiots at Twitter can’t deny you free speech on their service.

So, let’s get back to abortion “rights.”  To the extent that it is largely predicated on a “right” to “privacy,” and the right to privacy is part of some penumbra of our right to be secure in our persons and in our our homes, then do we have a right to murder a person in the privacy of our own homes?  (By the way, the answer of clearly “no.”)


----------



## KissMy (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No. It’s not.


You are clueless & can't even read the preamble.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

KissMy said:


> You are clueless & can't even read the preamble.


You’re such a complete douche bag maggot moron, you think the Preamble is authoritative.

Fuck off libtard. You’re completely stupid and utterly worthless.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.
> 
> At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper *government* acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.
> 
> ...


There is no person other than the mother in a abortion


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> There is no person other than the mother in a abortion


That’s your absolutely ignorant and erroneous belief. However, your denial of the other person doesn’t change the math.  You intentionally and erroneously omit the preborn child.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> That’s your absolutely ignorant and erroneous belief. However, your denial of the other person doesn’t change the math.  You intentionally and erroneously omit the preborn child.


You mean fetus which has no rights of personhood.


You must first declare a fetus is a person with all the rights of personhood 


Ignorant.  Lol


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> You mean fetus which has no rights of personhood.
> 
> 
> You must first declare a fetus is a person with all the rights of personhood
> ...


Yes. Fetus. Zygote. Preborn child. All persons. Your ignorance remains very pathetic. And you remain completely unpersuasive.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Yes. Fetus. Zygote. Preborn child. All persons. Your ignorance remains very pathetic. And you remain completely unpersuasive.


Not in the US.  You are factually lying.


Personhood is a legal concept


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Not in the US.  You are factually lying.
> 
> 
> Personhood is a legal concept


At conception a genetically distinct new person has come into existence.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...





Sure the 2nd does.  When it was written the only cannons in the US belonged to a private organization.

You're not just wrong, but epically wrong.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2022)

fncceo said:


> In fact, Americans CAN own fighter jets ... just not armed ones.
> 
> View attachment 620924




Not true.  You CAN arm them.  The guy who owned Dillon reloading had a fully armed P-51 Mustang, as well as a  UH-1 gunship.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> At conception a genetically distinct new person has come into existence.


That's nice


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If people could get the word "Rights" out of their heads and concentrate on "Responsibilities", the world would be a much better place.





Nah, that leads to governments killing mass quantities of people for the "good of the few"


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> That's nice


A genetically distinct new person that has never existed before and will never exist again.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> A genetically distinct new person that has never existed before and will never exist again.


Okay dokey pokey


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

I think a abortion kills a human....but I prefer to call it killing gods little miracle


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Not in the US.  You are factually lying.
> 
> 
> Personhood is a legal concept


Nope. Personhood means what it means. You are lying. And I’ve been through this entire debate recently so I can tell you for sure that you are absolutely wrong. Not just wrong, but dishonest. Willfully dishonest.

I understand why you so urgently wish to deny the status of “person” to a zygote or a fetus at any stage of life prior to birth.  But you wishing won’t make it so.

As I noted very recently, you can look to Idaho. if Idaho defines “murder” as the taking of the life of a human being and specifically include a fetus, then by the simplest of definitions, a person includes a fetus. Nothing more need be said to establish that you are wrong.






						Section 18-4001 – Idaho State Legislature
					






					legislature.idaho.gov
				




Helpful hint, vegomatic: When you are doing the lying, it is stupid of you to try to call someone else a liar.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Nope. Personhood means what it means. You are lying. And I’ve been through this entire debate recently so I can tell you for sure that you are absolutely wrong. Not just wrong, but dishonest. Willfully dishonest.
> 
> I understand why you so urgently wish to deny the status of “person” to a zygote or a fetus at any stage of life prior to birth.  But you wishing won’t make it so.
> 
> ...


It has a federal definition 


Idaho can do whatever it likes.....but notice they never arrest anyone getting an abortion for murder


Why?  Lol


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> I think a abortion kills a human....but I prefer to call it killing gods little miracle


Look at the vegetable ^ bragging about being an abhorrent scumbag cockbite.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Look at the vegetable ^ bragging about being an abhorrent scumbag cockbite.


Get em ranger


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> It has a federal definition
> 
> 
> Idaho can do whatever it likes.....but notice they never arrest anyone getting an abortion for murder
> ...


The US definition doesn’t bing the States, you asshole. If Idaho says it’s a murder, it’s a murder in Idaho. And one can only commit murder against a person. Not a dog. Not a wolf. Not a whale. Those you can kill. But murder can only be committed against a human being.


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> I think a abortion kills a human....but I prefer to call it killing gods little miracle


That's nice that you can be so nonchalant about it.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> That's nice that you can be so nonchalant about it.


Its freaking great


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> The US definition doesn’t bing the States, you asshole. If Idaho says it’s a murder, it’s a murder in Idaho. And one can only commit murder against a person. Not a dog. Not a wolf. Not a whale. Those you can kill. But murder can only be committed against a human being.


And yet idaho does not arrest people getting an abortion for murder


Why?



HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Its freaking great


That's a hard heart you got there.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> That's a hard heart you got there.


The best kind.  Lol


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Get em ranger




You’re  worthless. You can’t debate worth shit. And you suck ar banter too.  Meanwhile, a person is a person.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You’re  worthless. You can’t debate worth shit. And you suck ar banter too.  Meanwhile, a person is a person.


Why does my question scare you so much?  Lol


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> The best kind.  Lol


Time will tell.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Time will tell.


It has for 50 years.  Lol


----------



## Batcat (Apr 22, 2022)

Brick Gold said:


> If the constitution was a recipe it would be a food you'll never get to eat.  You might be able to make variations and similar tasting dishes or meals but you'll never get to have the real thing.
> 
> Thats what being American is like.  You got this shit scrap of paper with a bunch of words on it but it doesn't really mean shit and doesn't really do anything for you.  Thats the dream part of being American.  That's why they call it the American dream.  It's a fairy tale and it can't come true.
> 
> You fairies can keep on believin, but I'm gonna move on.


Many consider what you refer to as a “shit” document as the longest lasting constitution in the world. You probably thought the USSR had the better constitution but that socialist workers paradise is long gone today. 

In my opinion the pepole who wrote the Constitution were a hell of a lot more intelligent than the people we have elected to represent us today in Washington D.C. 









						10 Oldest Constitutions In The World (Updated 2021) - Oldest.org
					

Discover the 10 Oldest Constitutions In The World (Updated 2021) here. Prepare to be transported into a rich & fascinating history on the oldest constitutions that exist.




					www.oldest.org
				




***snip***

_While the Constitution of San Marino is nearly 200 years older, the United States Constitution is often considered the oldest constitution in the world because not all of San Marino’s Constitution is codified.

Additionally, the United States Constitution was the first permanent constitution of its kind and influenced the constitutions of several other countries.

The United States Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788 after nine of the 13 original states signed.

The Constitution went into effect the following March and a new government was established. Since then, the United States Constitution has been amended 27 times, with the first ten amendments collectively known as the Bill of Rights_


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> And yet idaho does not arrest people getting an abortion for murder
> 
> 
> Why?
> ...


What you attempted to grunt out, you incoherent shithead, Was that they don’t arrest people for murder because of the commission of an abortion.

The why is a political decision. But if a woman doesn’t seek an abortion but some asshole stabs her in the uterus thereby snuffing out the life of the fetus, that criminal could be and likely would be charged with murder. Why?  Because Idaho law recognizes the personhood of that tiny victim.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What you attempted to grunt out, you incoherent shithead, Was that they don’t arrest people for murder because of the commission of an abortion.
> 
> The why is a political decision. But if a woman doesn’t seek an abortion but some asshole stabs her in the uterus thereby snuffing out the life of the fetus, that criminal could be and likely would be charged with murder. Why?  Because Idaho law recognizes the personhood of that tiny victim.


Yeah did you know that law specifically in writing exempts abortion 


HAHAHAHAHA 


Dude you make this too easy


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

Here comes the

Yeah but you're a poopyhead.   Lol


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> It has for 50 years.  Lol


Patience is a virtue.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Patience is a virtue.


Flippitty bippitty


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Why does my question scare you so much?  Lol


Nothing you’ve ever said scares me. You don’t have any such power, skill or intellect.

I’ve exposed you as wrong. And I easily dismissed your “question.” *More importantly, I also showed that your insistence that a fetus isn’t considered a “person” in the United States is wrong. *


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Nothing you’ve ever said scares me. You don’t have any such powers kill or intellect.
> 
> I’ve exposed you as wrong. And I easily dismissed your “question.” *More importantly, I also showed that your insistence that a fetus isn’t considered a “person” in the United States is wrong. *


Great.  So where are the arrests for murder of this person


I'll wait.  Lol


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Flippitty bippitty


Everything happens for a reason.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Yeah did you know that law specifically in writing exempts abortion
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA
> ...



yes. In the prior thread I explicitly noted it in fact. But that wasn’t the point. The point was that IN the United States (specifically in one example) a fetus *is* legally considered a person.

I disproved your false claim. It *was* easy.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Everything happens for a reason.


Scooby doo


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> yes. In the prior thread I explicitly noted it in fact. But that wasn’t the point. The point was that IN the United States (specifically in one example) a fetus *is* legally considered a person.
> 
> I disproved your false claim. It *was* easy.


Great.  So where are the arrests for the murder of these persons 


I'm waiting


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Scooby doo


Standards exist for logical reasons.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> Standards exist for logical reasons.


That's some jibber jabber


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> That's some jibber jabber


When the standard isn't met the reason the standard existed in the first place is discovered.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

ding said:


> When the standard isn't met the reason the standard existed in the first place is discovered.


Circles have 360 degrees


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Great.  So where are the arrests for murder of this person
> 
> 
> I'll wait.  Lol


Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s *your* burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.


----------



## ding (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Circles have 360 degrees


The reason it's discovered is because error cannot stand.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s *your* burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.
> 
> Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.


Hmmm.  You cant name any?  Really?


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Hmmm.  You cant name any?  Really?
> 
> 
> HAHAHAHAHA


Still irrelvant. And your claim was false and stands exposed as false.

_*Is*_ it your claim that nobody has been convicted of murder for causing the death of the fetus? Accept your own burden. Prove it.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Still irrelvant. And your claim was false and stands exposed as false.
> 
> _*Is*_ it your claim that nobody has been convicted or murder for causing the death of the fetus? Accept your own burden. Prove it.


There must be thousands.  There are certainly thousands of abortions


You want me to prove a negative?


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA 


HAHAHAHAHA


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> There must be thousands.  There are certainly thousands of abortions
> 
> 
> You want me to prove a negative?


No, you absolute retard. I want you to stop making claims you can’t support.  Damn, you’re stupid.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No, you absolute retard. I want you to stop making claims you can’t support.  Damn, you’re stupid.


Awwwwww.  You seem upset you lost a debate.  Lol


----------



## Viktor (Apr 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> Sure the 2nd does.  When it was written the only cannons in the US belonged to a private organization.
> 
> You're not just wrong, but epically wrong.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

There *is* also a federal Law recognizing the personhood of a fetus. PUBLIC LAW 108–212


> The bill defines an "unborn child" as a child in utero, which means "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."











						Bush Signs 'Laci and Conner's Law'
					

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act (search) makes it a crime to harm a fetus during an assault on a pregnant woman. Bush was signing the bill, which took five years to get through Congress, in an elaborate Rose Garden ceremony.




					www.foxnews.com
				












						Man Allegedly Tried Murdering Unborn Baby
					

State police said 33 year-old Ibrahim T. Beidari was charged with attempted homicide of an unborn child, aggravated assault of an unborn child, simple assault, and recklessly endangering another person.




					www.ibtimes.com
				




Further research:  Is killing a fetus murder? I don’t know how that case turned out yet. But the charge was lodged just the same.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Awwwwww.  You seem upset you lost a debate.  Lol


I don’t. You did. And now you’re unwilling to admit it. I told you you were a liar.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I don’t. You did. And now you’re unwilling to admit it. I told you you were a liar.


Are you crying?  Lol


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Now that I’ve proved that veggie has zero credibility, we can get in with the actual discussion.  

What are the projections? Will the SCOTUS revisit Roe v. Wade? Obviously they should. Preborn humans deserve the protection of their Constitutional level right to life.  

But will they?  And if they do, will they finally overturn that abortion of a decision?


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Are you crying?  Lol


Why would I cry over defeating you so soundly?  You make no sense.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Why would I cry over defeating you so soundly?  You make no sense.


You are crying!!!!  Lol


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> You are crying!!!!  Lol


It’s ok. You got mugged. You actually deserved it. Bested at every turn. You ended up where you started. Zero for life. Don’t fret. It’s unlikely you’ll ever experience the thrill of victory. Get used to it. You’re a complete fail.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> It’s ok. You got mugged. You actually deserved it. Bested at every turn. You ended up where you started. Zero for life. Don’t fret. It’s unlikely you’ll ever experience the thrill of victory. Her used to it. You’re a complete fail.


Dont cry sweetie


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Dont cry sweetie


If you want a tissue, go ask someone who values your fails.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If you want a tissue, go ask someone who values your fails.


You're just boring now.  Lol


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You’re  worthless. You can’t debate worth shit. And you suck ar banter too.  Meanwhile, a person is a person.





Vag is a troll.  Don't feed it.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I don’t. You did. And now you’re unwilling to admit it. I told you you were a liar.


I see you're up to your usual bag of tricks.
I searched and found that indeed it is not likely (by lack of data) that anyone has been charged with "murder" for the death of a fetus.  Instead there have been 1,200 or so convictions for "manslaughter" of a fetus.

So you've been proven wrong, and calling him a liar is clearly unwarranted.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> Vag is a troll.  Don't feed it.


That guy sucks


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> That guy sucks


Backagain has been doing this all over the forum.  Calling people liars and then ignoring any proofs they post.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Backagain has been doing this all over the forum.  Calling people liars and then ignoring any proofs they post.


If he would just stick to the debate that's fine but he loses and then makes it personal


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s *your* burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.
> 
> Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.


As they say, you can't prove a negative, but the next best thing is to "google" the positive, and if no matches are found, to presume the negative has been proved.

And in this case of a murder charge for killing a fetus has no matches.

You can do your own search or accept the current  conclusions of no murder convictions for killing a fetus.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> You're just boring now.  Lol


You always were boring and evidently choose to remain forever boring. If you ever choose to admit that I proved you wrong at every turn, maybe I’ll agree to chat with you further. Or maybe not.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You always were boring and evidently choose to remain forever boring. If you ever choose to admit that I proved you wrong at every turn, maybe I’ll agree to chat with you further. Or maybe not.


Yawn


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> If he would just stick to the debate that's fine but he loses and then makes it personal


I destroyed every argument you offered. As you know. And if you seek refuge in the arms of a loser like meager, that’s on you vegetable.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> If he would just stick to the debate that's fine but he loses and then makes it personal



He doesn't want to actually debate, since most of the debates he has lost.  
He's argued that the dictionary definitions of words are "WRONG".   And that the definition he made up is the correct one.

The guy just likes to argue, but is short on the facts to win a debate.


----------



## Vegasgiants (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> He doesn't want to actually debate, since most of the debates he has lost.
> He's argued that the dictionary definitions of words are "WRONG".   And that the definition he made up is the correct one.
> 
> The guy just likes to argue, but is short on the facts to win a debate.


He argues like a baby.  Lol


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

westwall said:


> Vag is a troll.  Don't feed it.


Good point.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You always were boring and evidently choose to remain forever boring. If you ever choose to admit that I proved you wrong at every turn, maybe I’ll agree to chat with you further. Or maybe not.


You didn't prove him wrong, in fact, I proved you wrong.  At least according to "google" finding zero results for fetus murder convictions.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

Don't let facts stop you from continuing to claim victory.


----------



## westwall (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You always were boring and evidently choose to remain forever boring. If you ever choose to admit that I proved you wrong at every turn, maybe I’ll agree to chat with you further. Or maybe not.





Don't bother.  It's a full blown troll. Don't feed it.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You didn't prove him wrong, in fact, I proved you wrong.  At least according to "google" finding zero results for fetus murder convictions.


As usual, you failed. But I already pointed out at least one example. Do some real homework.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> As usual, you failed. But I already pointed out at least one example. Do some real homework.


Really?   Cite it.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Really?   Cite it.


Go back and find it, dipshit. I’ve had enough of your usual bullshit for one day. You’re a void.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Go back and find it, dipshit. I’ve had enough of your usual bullshit for one day. You’re a void.


I take that as a FAIL.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

Search results for query: murder convict





__





						Search results for query: murder convict
					





					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

__





						Search results for query: murder fetus
					





					www.usmessageboard.com
				




Search results for query: murder fetus


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Go back and find it, dipshit. I’ve had enough of your usual bullshit for one day. You’re a void.



Forum search on "murder" "fetus" and "convict..."  and of course a citation search





__





						Search results for query: http
					





					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Forum search on "murder" "fetus" and "convict..."  and of course a citation search
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hint bitch. It’s in this thread. Damn, but you’re an asshole, meager.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 22, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...



You were, like, pregnant and missed civics class...right?


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Hint bitch. It’s in this thread. Damn, but you’re an asshole, meager.


That means you didn't cite it.  So you have no idea if the citation is real or a parody.

Do us both a favor and cite / link to the post.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

percysunshine said:


> You were, like, pregnant and missed civics class...right?


The supreme court often said that rights are not unfettered.  That any right is not unlimited, and that the government with a "compelling government interest" can place limits on them.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> That means you didn't cite it.  So you have no idea if the citation is real or a parody.
> 
> Do us both a favor and cite / link to the post.


Wrong. Try harder you dolt.

I’ll even give you one hint you lazy shit. He pled out.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The supreme court often said that rights are not unfettered.  That any right is not unlimited, and that the government with a "compelling government interest" can place limits on them.



You do not look like a victor.

Any how, the US Constitution restrains the rights of the government, not the people.

What a novel idea.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Wrong. Try harder you dolt.


The only reason you would have to refuse to cite/link the post you claim exists, is if it doesn't exist.

fetal murder is on the books, but convictions aren't.



			https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1539&context=wmlr
		


 At common
law, killing a "quickened" fetus was homicide, but not murder.
Six states criminalize actions against "quick" fetuses. Florida,
Mississippi, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington all punish
willfully or intentionally and unlawfully killing an unborn quick
child as manslaughter;


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I’ll even give you one hint you lazy shit. He pled out.


Is that your way of acknowledging that nobody has been convicted of fetal murder?

If he pled guilty to fetal manslaughter, you're still batting zero.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> As usual, you failed. But I already pointed out at least one example. Do some real homework.


Actually you've failed again and again at pointing out an example of a conviction for fetal murder.

But don't let the facts or the law stop you from arguing that "homicide" or "manslaughter" is close enough, because it's not.
Sorry Charlie.   Your tricks are for kids.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain replied to the thread Constitutional Rights Have Limits.
Wrong. Try harder you dolt. I’ll even give you one hint you lazy shit. He pled out.
18 minutes ago


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 22, 2022)

BackAgain replied to the thread Constitutional Rights Have Limits.
Wrong. Try harder you dolt. I’ll even give you one hint you lazy shit. He pled out.
21 minutes ago

When backagain was asked to point to the post he claimed showed a fetal murder conviction.....

Cricket chirping

I don't think backagain will be back again.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The only reason you would have to refuse to cite/link the post you claim exists, is if it doesn't exist.
> 
> fetal murder is on the books, but convictions aren't.
> 
> ...


Zzzzz.  If you’re charged but take a plea, you’re still a fucking killer.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The only reason you would have to refuse to cite/link the post you claim exists, is if it doesn't exist.
> 
> fetal murder is on the books, but convictions aren't.
> 
> ...


Your fail is complete. Admit your defeat and save your last vestige of dignity.  Oh wait. You never had any.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Is that your way of acknowledging that nobody has been convicted of fetal murder?
> 
> If he pled guilty to fetal manslaughter, you're still batting zero.


Your fail can’t be concealed.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Actually you've failed again and again at pointing out an example of a conviction for fetal murder.
> 
> But don't let the facts or the law stop you from arguing that "homicide" or "manslaughter" is close enough, because it's not.
> Sorry Charlie.   Your tricks are for kids.


Your fail and the stain of your fail lives on. It always will. And that is a good thing.

You won’t ever recognize that fact. You’re far too stupid and dishonest.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Apr 23, 2022)

westwall said:


> Nah, that leads to governments killing mass quantities of people for the "good of the few"


You need to watch Jordan Peterson more often, he covered responsibilities over rights


----------



## westwall (Apr 23, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to watch Jordan Peterson more often, he covered responsibilities over rights





He's a Canadian.   He has no Rights.  None of you subjects do.

That's what makes us different.   I am not a subject.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Apr 23, 2022)

westwall said:


> He's a Canadian.   He has no Rights.  None of you subjects do.
> 
> That's what makes us different.   I am not a subject.


You have Gun Rights, fuck me, never knew that *Roll My Fucking Eyes*

Americans need responsibilities, forget that Rights crap. Try being responsible in society as opposed to being prepared to shoot people.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Zzzzz.  If you’re charged but take a plea, you’re still a fucking killer.


But you're not a murderer.

And you said people were convicted of *murdering* a fetus.

And that has not happened, no matter how many times you lie, and claim it has.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> But you're not a murderer.
> 
> And you said people were convicted of *murdering* a fetus.
> 
> And that has not happened, no matter how many times you lie, and claim it has.


Yeah. one who does that IS still a murderer. Just one who avoided the conviction.
And no. I never said anyone had been convicted of murdering a fetus. Try not to make shit up so much, you lying moron. I’m also not the one with the burden.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

“Homicide” includes more than murder. It can also include manslaughter.  Either way, it involves the wrongful taking of a person’s life.
So, a manslaughter conviction suffices for the purpose of establishing that wrongfully  taking the life of a fetus is taking the life of a “person.” And that has been the point all along.









						Man convicted in death of woman, fetus
					

A man was convicted Tuesday of killing a 16-year-old girl and her unborn child -- the first time in state history that a mother and her fetus were treated...




					www.upi.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Apr 23, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


U just don't have a fucking clue.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Kansas case and opinions.
					

FindLaw's searchable database of Court of Appeals of Kansas decisions since




					caselaw.findlaw.com
				




Defendant convicted of conspiracy to commit murder of the fetus. Such a conviction could not be obtained unless it was possible to commit murder of the fetus.  Accordingly, Kansas also legally accepts the legal principle that a fetus is a “person” for purposes of its homicide law.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> And you said people were convicted of *murdering* a fetus.
> 
> And that has not happened, no matter how many times you lie, and claim it has.





BackAgain said:


> Yeah. one who does that IS still a murderer. Just one who avoided the conviction.
> *And no. I never said anyone had been convicted of murdering a fetus.* Try not to make shit up so much, you lying moron. I’m also not the one with the burden.


Once more, you're lying your ass off.  That was the very heart of the argument you were making.  And here's you post where you specifically said "convicted"



BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.
> 
> Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.



How are you going to argue you way out of that lie, except by posting another lie?


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> “Homicide” includes more than murder. It can also include manslaughter.  Either way, it involves the wrongful taking of a person’s life.
> So, a manslaughter conviction suffices for the purpose of establishing that wrongfully  taking the life of a fetus is taking the life of a “person.” And that has been the point all along.
> 
> 
> ...


Here comes the lies again.

You required "convicted of murder of a fetus", now you're spinning like a top, that manslaughter is murder?

Stop lying.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Once more, you're lying your ass off.  That was the very heart of the argument you were making.  And here's you post where you specifically said "convicted"
> 
> 
> 
> How are you going to argue you way out of that lie, except by posting another lie?


Once more you point to statements that aren’t even contradictions to make false claims that another has lied. *You* remain the liar. And you’re a retard.  You can’t stop lying.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Kansas case and opinions.
> 
> 
> FindLaw's searchable database of Court of Appeals of Kansas decisions since
> ...


Why did you omit this important FACT:

*• Intentional first-degree murder for the miscarriage of Naomi's fetus. The jury returned a not guilty verdict*

Aggravated battery of Naomi based on great bodily harm with lesser included offenses of both domestic battery and battery based on bodily harm for lacing the pancakes with an abortifacient. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Distribution of adulterated food for giving the pancakes to Naomi, a misdemeanor violation of K.S.A. 65-657. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Conspiring with Angel to commit intentional first-degree murder by causing Naomi to miscarry and identifying the online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol as *the overt act furthering the conspiracy.* The jury found Bollig guilty.


Conspiracy to commit murder is not murder.  Just like conspiracy to commit insurrection isn't insurrection.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Here comes the lies again.
> 
> You required "convicted of murder of a fetus", now you're spinning like a top, that manslaughter is murder?
> 
> Stop lying.


No lie by me. Another lie by you. Feel obliged to cite the post where you claim I said I “required” the conviction of murder of a fetus.

it’s not my problem that you lack the mental ability to follow a conversation. Let me try to set you straight. The folks (people like you) who claim that a fetus is _not_ a “person” within the legal meaning of person in the United States have been proved wrong. 

As part of the conversation, schmucks like you insisted that nobody could be convicted of the murder of a fetus since a murder requires that the victim be a “person.”  I challenged those who make the claim to prove it. They said it: it’s their burden.

Meanwhile, I have shown statutes that do make a fetus a “person;” and I have demonstrated prosecutions FOR the killing of a fetus because the law in those cases DOES define a “fetus” within the definition of “person.”

Next, I have further refined the point. You call it spinning, but you’re a dishonest stupid person you’re wrong. The POINT all along continues to be that at least in some states it is legally possible to commit a *homicide* on a fetus *BECAUSE* the law includes “fetus” within the definition of “person.”

In fact, I went so far as to demonstrate that there IS a Untied States law that includes a fetus within the definition of a “person” for purposes of criminal prosecution. 

Youre quite stupid and amazingly dishonest.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Why did you omit this important FACT:
> 
> *• Intentional first-degree murder for the miscarriage of Naomi's fetus. The jury returned a not guilty verdict*
> 
> ...


One cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder of a fetus IF it isn’t legally possible to murder a fetus. Keep swinging. Keep missing.

Also, I didn’t omit anything. I’m the one who provided the citation, you lying idiot. 

“• *Conspiring* with Angel to *commit* *intentional* first-degree *murder* by causing Naomi to miscarry and identifying the online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol as the overt act furthering the conspiracy. The jury found Bollig *guilty.”  

Again, that verdict would be legally impossible if a fetus wasn’t legally a “person” for purposes of the homicide law. *


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> No lie by me. Another lie by you. Feel obliged to cite the post where you claim I said I “required” the conviction of murder of a fetus.



Right here asshole.



BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.
> 
> Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.


 *convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus,*


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Right here asshole.
> 
> 
> *convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus,*


“if” “your contention”. “Your burden.”  
You lying idiot.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> One cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit murder of a fetus IF it isn’t legally possible to murder a fetus. Keep swinging. Keep missing.


You're a complete asshole.

The kansas appellate court specifically said just that.

It said that  Kansas specifically precluded conviction of the mother for murder by miscarriage.

But that they could convict a conspiracy to commit murder, even if the murder itself wasn't a crime.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You're a complete asshole.
> 
> The kansas appellate court specifically said just that.
> 
> ...


You’re an asshole. That discusses what could be charged *as against the mother.* You fucking dishonest hack lying sack of stupid.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You’re an asshole. That discusses what could be charged *as against the mother.* You fucking dishonest hack lying sack of stupid.


Read the appellate decision asshole.

*The statute, however, expressly excludes from prosecution “[a]ny act committed by the mother of the unborn child”* and an abortion performed by a “licensed medical professional at the request of [a] pregnant woman.” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b).


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Read the appellate decision asshole.
> 
> *The statute, however, expressly excludes from prosecution “[a]ny act committed by the mother of the unborn child”* and an abortion performed by a “licensed medical professional at the request of [a] pregnant woman.” K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b).


*By* the *mother*, you absolute retard.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

*The statute, however, expressly excludes from prosecution “[a]ny act committed by the mother of the unborn child”*  K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 21-5419(b).


Which means the mother committed no crime.

But others could be convicted of conspiracy to commit the crime.

*The participants, therefore, may be convicted and punished for a conspiracy even though the object crime remains unrealized*









						FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Kansas case and opinions.
					

FindLaw's searchable database of Court of Appeals of Kansas decisions since




					caselaw.findlaw.com


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

Looks like backagain won't be back again






Constitutional Rights Have Limits
By the mother, you absolute retard.
BackAgain Post #210 45 minutes ago

45 minutes searching to find a conviction for fetus murder, and counting.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Fucking meager just can’t admit his mistake. Nobody is talking about prosecuting the mother or the abortion doctor, you complete blockhead.  The question has been and still is whether a fetus is considered a person under (some) US laws (federal and/or any of the States).  Yes. It is.

Next, can the snuffing-out of the life of a preborn human be considered a homicide?  Yes. As I’ve shown.

Is abortion therefore considered a homicide under any current U.S. law?  That depends on the various state laws but generally, no. Why not?  Because abortion has been carefully carved-out as an exception to any criminal homicide definition.  This is akin to declaring a case of self defense as not being a “crime,” in that it is a legislatively carved out exception. It is — definitionally — not a criminal homicide.

However, in other circumstances, as I have demonstrated it is a criminal homicide (in some jurisdictions) to snuff out the life of a preborn child. 

Meager will remain stupidly insistent on pretending otherwise.  But he’s already been proved to be a liar.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Fucking meager just can’t admit his mistake. Nobody is talking about prosecuting the mother or the abortion doctor, you complete blockhead.  The question has been and still is whether a fetus is considered a person under (some) US laws (federal and/or any of the States).  Yes. It is.


That wasn't your argument, so i'll repeat it before you spend another day where you  keep lying about what the argument was about.



BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for
> causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant
> giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.
> 
> Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.



You've been trying to show a person convicted of the murder of a fetus, and so far it's nothing but page after page and post after post of  EPIC FAIL


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for
> causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant
> giggling doesn’t change a thing. *I disproved your false claim.*



Saying  *I disproved your false claim.* proves what a terrible liar you are.
You've been flailing and twisting, and even changing the meaning of words to try and  eek even an inkling of truth of a fetal murder conviction.

You claimed a manslaughter conviction was murder
You claimed a homicide conviction was murder
And the closest you could come, was a conspiracy to commit, being murder.

Yet none of them were a conviction for fetal murder.  So your claim you disproved his claim, is nothing but another in the long string of lies you've been telling to try to convince people you aren't the biggest loser here.

But they see through you, which is why you keep running away and refusing to post a citation to back up ANYTHING you claim.


----------



## Pellinore (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.
> 
> At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper *government* acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.
> 
> ...


Holy cow, I stepped away for one day and now this is six pages deep.

I agree completely.  The Bill of Rights concerns limitations on the actions of the government; it does not itself place limitations on the actions of specific people.  Your First Amendment free speech analogy is spot on, and it applies to the other rights as well. 

Those are indeed separate from crimes, which are covered by the US, State, or various other jurisdictional Codes of Laws. (The Constitution is the _highest _law in the land, not the _only _one.) If the government bugs your phone, that's a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights; if I do it, that's wiretapping, which is a felony in most states, and I'd probably do time for it. I also agree with what I take to be your next point, that our right to privacy does not give us carte blanche to commit any crime we like, as long as we have the door shut as we do it. Of course.

Everyone in this thread but me seems to be eager to relate this to Roe v Wade, the decision for which essentially stated that it is not the Supreme Court's job to state that a fetus is a person (with the associated right to survival) with such overwhelming surety that it overrides the other Constitutional rights involved, including the mother's right to privacy and right to make her own parenting decisions and so on, within parameters set by the States.  Without making a personal statement on abortion one way or the other, I find it understandable how someone who can state without question that a fetus is a person as a matter of personal ethics, as you seem to be, can find this decision to be puzzling, if not abominable.  I definitely get that.

The issue I objected to was the assertion that the Right to Privacy was "determined ... by SCOTUS" or a "bit [o]f fiction up until that point."  It wasn't.  It's been there the whole time.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> That wasn't your argument, so i'll repeat it before you spend another day where you  keep lying about what the argument was about.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been trying to show a person convicted of the murder of a fetus, and so far it's nothing but page after page and post after post of  EPIC FAIL


You are incapable of honesty. I said it and tip quoted it, you total lying sack of stupid. I said, 


> *If* your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s *your* burden.



So once again, you are caught in one of your endless lies.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> You are incapable of honesty. I said it and tip quoted it, you total lying sack of stupid. I said,
> 
> 
> If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden.



There you go. Another lie by omission of the operative part of your post.



BackAgain said:


> If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for
> causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant
> giggling doesn’t change a thing. *I disproved your false claim.*



The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence.  His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.

All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.

BUT YOU CAN'T

No matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of words.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Holy cow, I stepped away for one day and now this is six pages deep.
> 
> I agree completely.  The Bill of Rights concerns limitations on the actions of the government; it does not itself place limitations on the actions of specific people.  Your First Amendment free speech analogy is spot on, and it applies to the other rights as well.
> 
> ...


I disagree that the alleged right to privacy has been there the whole time. I also disagree that it constitutes a valid juridical basis for Roe v. Wade. I do believe that there is a right to privacy but not that it is a Constitutionally guaranteed right (except to the extent that the Constitution says so in substance in places like the 4th Amendment).

I will also say this: I believe that you are at least partly right in your contention that the 9th Amendment is a lever by which the SCOTUS can address the abortion issue. I have looked again at the decision which did see fit to make reference to the 9th Amendment and I am reconsidering how pertinent it is to the ultimate decision in Roe v. Wade.


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> There you go. Another lie by omission of the operative part of your post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You insist on lying. I didn’t lie by omission either. As you knew when you just made that dishonest statement of yours. You have zero credibility. When you need to endlessly lie — as you do — to “make” your faux points, your  “points” were never worth the effort in the first place.

Time for little meager intellect to face reality:

*Just as* a person can shoot another person intentionally (even planning to kill him) and yet not even be properly charged with a crime (if that shooting was “justified”), *so too* a doctor can perform an abortion on a woman fully intending to kill the little person in the mother’s womb and yet not be legally chargeable with a crime. In both cases, as I have noted, the law recognizes the victim as a person. In both cases the law, by definition, declares the killing of that person as non criminal.

Beyond that, you have no point. You can’t even cobble together an argument. You can deflect with your lies. You do that all the time. But you are forever incapable of just honestly addressing the actual argument. You’re a coward and you’re fully and deliberately dishonest — but you are entirely incapable of validly arguing the issues on the merits.


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for
> causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant
> giggling doesn’t change a thing. *I disproved your false claim.*



The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence.  His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.

All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.

BUT YOU CAN'T

No matter how much you try to stretch the meaning of words


----------



## BackAgain (Apr 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence.  His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occured, and you claim to have disproved it, another of your long string of endless lies.
> 
> All you have to do to prove you weren't lying is to post a conviction for fetal murder.
> 
> ...


So, to summarize:  you lie. You deflect. You can’t stay on topic. And you can’t coherently make your point, if you even have one.

That’s ok, meager. I realize now that you truly are that much of a coward.


----------



## MisterBeale (Apr 23, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


The Constitution was written in such a way, as to protect natural rights.  In the end, it fails to do so, it only protects those who marshal the most strength and capital in society.


The right to judicial review, was one of the first powers that the ruling elites read into the Constitution, and this, then, has subsequently given them the power to constrain natural rights in anyway they see fit.

If you believe that they have the right to restrict your natural rights through "judicial review," that is your right.  But, it is an erroneous reading of the Constitution, IMO.

It is also my right, to believe that the ruling elites are full of shit.  They can only enforce their will through a monopoly on "legalized," violence.






						Natural law - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						No Treason - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## meaner gene (Apr 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> If your contention is that no person has been *convicted of murder for
> causing the death of a fetus,* that’s *your* burden. And your constant
> giggling doesn’t change a thing. *I disproved your false claim.*



The part about "I disproved your false claim" is how you manged to lie TWICE in a single sentence.  His claim was true, as no convictions for fetal murder have occurred, and your claim to have disproved it, is just another of your long string of endless lies.

Watching you twist and turn like that is just sad.


----------



## Delldude (May 23, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> I believe we have a disconnect. Just because the Constitution doesn’t say we have a right to privacy, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a right to privacy. If we say it is a corollary to our right to be secure in our own homes (a right we do have, explicitly), then I have no objection to a claim that a right to privacy may be Constitutionally protected. But that’s not the end of the inquiry.
> 
> At least one additional question comes to mind immediately if we have a right to be secure in our own homes, let’s ask: secure from whom or from what? I suggest that it was intended to mean “secure from government intrusion.” The Constitution can be resorted to against improper *government* acts (like a warrantless wiretap). Sure, we may have a right against invasion of that security (or privacy) by the actions of individuals, too. But the latter right isn’t a Constitutionally protected right. It is a lawful right. But the Constitution isn’t the right shield to address that latter violation.
> 
> ...


The sections concerning our rights are from intrusions from the government to us. 
Do 'peaceful' protestors violating noise ordinances and so on fall under that, I doubt it.
Even the protesting justices statute, probably would be unconstitutional.
I could see blockades somewhat, above and below the houses under protest, letting very small groups to go by..that would be following the 1st. Or, designate specific protest areas, like the SS does with presidents.....usually blocks away from where he is going.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 31, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


I'd have to say that you're wrong.  the 1st and 2nd are limited only where exercising them would violate someone else's rights.  Taking drugs doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Having multiple wives doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Human sacrifice does violate someone's rights.  Perjury, extortion and obstruction of justice do violate someone's rights, but obscenity and slander don't.


----------



## bripat9643 (May 31, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> The Constitution was written in such a way, as to protect natural rights.  In the end, it fails to do so, it only protects those who marshal the most strength and capital in society.
> 
> 
> The right to judicial review, was one of the first powers that the ruling elites read into the Constitution, and this, then, has subsequently given them the power to constrain natural rights in anyway they see fit.
> ...


Lysander Spooner was a great man.


----------



## MisterBeale (May 31, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> Lysander Spooner was a great man.



He is a tad on the radical side for my tastes, but indeed, he is a great man.  He does call it like it is, not as we wish it to be.

Second only to Jefferson on thoughts about American government.

Jefferson is the idealist, Spooner is the realist. 

If the individual and family control their education, commerce, and spirituality?  We can have a government like Jefferson imagines. . . 

. .  if the government does?  It will be the nightmare that Spooner foresees.


----------



## Viktor (May 31, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I'd have to say that you're wrong.  the 1st and 2nd are limited only where exercising them would violate someone else's rights.  Taking drugs doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Having multiple wives doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Human sacrifice does violate someone's rights.  Perjury, extortion and obstruction of justice do violate someone's rights, but obscenity and slander don't.


Taking illegal drugs is agaianst the law and polygamy is illegal.


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 1, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Taking illegal drugs is agaianst the law and polygamy is illegal.


You're such a dumbfuck.  What authority does the constitution give the the federal government to make either one of those things illegal?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 1, 2022)

bripat9643 said:


> I'd have to say that you're wrong.  the 1st and 2nd are limited only where exercising them would violate someone else's rights.  Taking drugs doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Having multiple wives doesn't violate anyone's rights.  Human sacrifice does violate someone's rights.  Perjury, extortion and obstruction of justice do violate someone's rights, but obscenity and slander don't.


This is both ignorant and wrong.

Government is at liberty to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with Constitutional case law.

Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech do not violate the First Amendment.

The NFAs restrictions concerning the regulation of fully automatic firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.

Our rights are neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’


----------



## bripat9643 (Jun 1, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is both ignorant and wrong.
> 
> Government is at liberty to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with Constitutional case law.


Another way of saying that is that the government can simply ignore the Constitution.  I seriously doubt any of the founding fathers would swallow that idea.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Time, place, and manner restrictions on speech do not violate the First Amendment.


That is so vague it's meaningless.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The NFAs restrictions concerning the regulation of fully automatic firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.


It  sure as hell does.



C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Our rights are neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’



Meaningless.


----------



## App'z (Jul 1, 2022)

Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?

( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely  ruled  Nada,  due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !


----------



## westwall (Jul 2, 2022)

App'z said:


> Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?
> 
> ( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
> Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely  ruled  Nada,  due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !






The separation of church and state means there is no state sponsored religion.

That's it.  All the rest of the silliness done by the progressives is not constitutional.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jul 2, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jul 2, 2022)

App'z said:


> Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?
> 
> ( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
> Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely  ruled  Nada,  due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !


Nonsense.
Going to a building to vote does not mean you are forced to believe in the things represented in that building.


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jul 2, 2022)

*" What Is Ours By Informed Consent "

* How To Over Populate A Planet And Numerically Overwhelm Others **


Viktor said:


> Polygamy was common in the ancient world, but not anymore. I suspect its a morals question.


A social civil contract between multiple individuals can be established as a matter of principle for negative liberties .

Having that social civil contract recognized for either negative liberties of protection and especially for positive liberties of endowment is a different issue .

The qurayshism religion institutionalizes polygamy as does mormonism as a principle to perpetuate genetic identity in the context of a family .


----------



## Monk-Eye (Jul 2, 2022)

*" Consequence Examples Of The Pitiful "

* Informed Consent of The Governed Circumvented * *


Viktor said:


> Roe v Wade was a bad ruling. The Constitution does not even mention abortion. A Texas law which ignored it was upheld by the Supreme ct and a direct challenge to it is now before the court.


Roe v Wade was perfect and it is disappointing that it was not ever explained to the public for it to be understood .

The constitution specifies that birth is a requirement for equal protection - includes a wright to life - as birth is a requirement for citizenship , therefore a fetus does not have constitutional protections .

** Texas Law Is Mostly Fluff * *

The texas law relates to private prosecution and SCOTUS returned it to texas because it wanted to rule on a decision issued by texas supreme court .

The SCOTUS response included that if a practitioner performed an abortion consistent with Roe v Wade that practitioner would be entitled to relief and that a plaintiff must have valid damages .

The SCOTUS also ruled that texas courts could not be prevented from accepting cases as it would break the judicial process and it further inquired about the process of civil prosecution.

The only valid claim of damages would come from a parent against a practitioner if the practitioner failed to receive parental consent , as otherwise other claims would not be valid .

Because of the nature of legal representation attorneys fees are only available when one has entered into a social civil contract with informed consent , with a prearranged agreement to provide goods and services being the only one in texas law , where a plaintiff  can only collect actual valid damages ( not a fatwa bounty ) and SCOTUS admonished the law as being out of the norm from standard law .

Private prosecution has existed in the united states since its inception and in answer to SCOTUS inquiry into the process , private grand juries must be convened ( 12 to 22 ) which is separate from the court and expected to root out frivolous lawsuits .

Private prosecution falls within the realm of civil suits and expectations of the law that defendants are not entitled to tort for frivolity is debase as civil suits are a free for all and even a grand jury can be counter sued for frivolity .

The texas law for civil prosecution admitted that it did not include a challenge as to whether a ( sic ) right to privacy exist .

Unfortunately the aclu and center for productive rights is forwarding attorneys based on pro-bono who are significantly lacking in , as related , a competent understanding of the constitutional basis for abortion .

What else would one expect when competent debate is estoppel by the fee press and its public representatives hold the public in low regard , dismissed as ignorant plebeians ?


----------



## flan327 (Jul 2, 2022)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> What is a woman?


Grow up

PLEASE


----------



## flan327 (Jul 2, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> So, to summarize:  you lie. You deflect. You can’t stay on topic. And you can’t coherently make your point, if you even have one.
> 
> That’s ok, meager. I realize now that you truly are that much of a coward.


John Belushi died of a drug overdose 

I’m always curious to know the reason behind a poster’s avatar


----------



## bripat9643 (Jul 2, 2022)

flan327 said:


> Grow up
> 
> PLEASE


How is that not grown up, asshole?


----------



## App'z (Jul 2, 2022)

Oh Boy the interview with Boland is mazing Sammich !



			Law professor who taught Merrick Garland predicts he will indict Trump


----------



## App'z (Jul 3, 2022)

Have you noticed that every answer the Demo's have is to create more costs to American Taxpayers  and now the Big Guy wants to cut Home Loan Interest costs, more taxpayer eating surcharges all around the clock.  Simply let the Energy Sector move forward and stop the Crap idea that you can plug in your EV and all our problems are over by spending Taxpayer funds on a program with High Paying Government appointed employees and instead why not Build & Let the Nuke Plant Technology builders create for every town and City smaller power plants and lets get the Billionairs out of their chairs there.   Right now with Wind and Solar generatuin I pay about $50 every month, approximately 1/5 of what I need.  So immediately 6 X power production simply meet current needs.  The 300,000,000 EV cars of our future are each like using a Welder for 2 to 3 continuous hours charging in every home at Least .  and that doesn't fill the Semi or Train needs.  That means huge amplification of Power supply Trunk lines for every town and City nationwide and the many 1000's of miles of transportation,  IE need local small nuke plants to generate asap.


----------



## App'z (Jul 3, 2022)

Obviously separation of Church and State has to go to the Supreme Court of these USA to clarify a rather shady statement about Government and Church Separation.  Right now why would a Church have to endure a Pandemic of infection when the Government said they couldn't hold group gathering inside them for a very long time !   Get Government back to Public owned places, not private church building is the need here.  When you look at states facts 2/3 of poling places are in church buildings.  Absolutely no need to be doing that there !


----------



## App'z (Jul 3, 2022)

The most obvious fact about the Pandemic was Courthouse closing of offices to public, yet the Churches are supposed to hold public election poling places open to the general public and all their membership is open to infection / or closed to them because of public concern / politicians not wanting them open.  Yea we got a lot of old politicians Masked, scared to death, offices completely closed down, people at home with land lines/computers and doing at home government;  placed at home, basically cowards in hiding!  Yea its been a proven fact of governments.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> you don;t have to be married to be held legally responsible for your children.
> 
> Most people marry before they have kids anyway so once again the only real issue is property
> More and more married people aren't having children as well.



I was trying to avoid responding to the older messages in this thread, saving my input, if any, until I saw if there were more current posts of interests but this one needs correction:

Most Americans do not wait to be married to have children.  Over 50% of children in the US are born out of wedlock.  

Assuming that many parents do, at some point, get married, that would mean that the number of parents who have children without being married is actually significantly higher than 50%. Those parents also might get counted more than once in the category of parents who are married when they have their 2nd, 3rd, etc., child.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> Whatever eyou may think of Roe, it is settled law.


How settled was it, exactly, gun controller?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things which is the reason for the Ninth Amendment


And everything the 9th Amendment might cover is a State issue according to the 10th Amendment.  The Supreme Court got it right on the Mississippi case in overturning Roe.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Read the Ninth Amendment


Roe wasn't decided on the 9th Amendment - not even a little bit.  It was decided on the made-up idea of substantive due process - which every scholar I have ever read on the topic admits was made up in the early 20th century.  No one believes that substantive due process is an actual constitutional concept.


----------



## badbob85037 (Jul 3, 2022)

Viktor said:


> The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.
> 
> The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.
> 
> ...


Are you a gun grabber? I asked   because you know as much as a gun grabber on laws. Like I will own the biggest flame thrower I want, all nice and legal. Protect perjury?! You must of not seen any of those January 6th testimonies


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> For one noise complaints are a state matter not a federal one.  the federasl government doesn;t enforce state laws BUT all state laws are subject to SCOTUS rulings and there have been many instances where state laws have been found unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In most cases where the Supreme Court overturns a State law it is done based on the idea that the State laws come under the Police Power of the States and on substantive due process, an idea magically pulled out of the 14th Amendment, that the Court uses to give itself power over what the 10th Amendment clearly grants to the States.  Police Powers in this case have nothing to do with men in blue; it's the power to create laws, according to the Supreme Court itself, that provide for the public health,safety, and morals of the States.



woodwork201 said:


> _*As recently as 1991 the Supreme Court spoke in Barnes v. Glen Theatre of "[t] he traditional police power of the States" as one which "we have upheld [as] a basis for legislation"; this plurality opinion of the Court defined it as "the authority to *_*provide for the public health, safety, and morals."*
> https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=jcl




States, by design and the 10th Amendment, have all of the power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government or specifically forbidden to the States with a few exceptions of powers reserved to the people.  

The main restriction on the States is the 14th Amendment protecting from the States, all of the privileges and immunities protected against the Federal Government - mostly, but not only, the Bill of Rights.  The Federal courts had to make something up to get involved so they invented substantive probable clause.

States could actually get pretty nasty with their laws and there's nothing, constitutionally, that the Federal Government can do about it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The federal government is bound to protect that right by the 9th amendment because the Constitution protects all rights not just those listed in its text.  ANYONE can run a case through the state courts right up to SCOTUS no matter what state they live in then SCOTUS will rule whether or not that law was Constitutional.
> 
> If that isn't protection of rights by the federal government then what is?


How can the Federal Government be bound to protect what the Constitution clearly, explicitly, says is a power of the State?

The Federal Government can only interfere in any state law if the law violates the Federal protections explicitly defined in the Constitution and protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.  If that weren't the case, if there was already a Federal power to intercede on State police powers, then there  would have been no need to have the 14th Amendment.  The Federal Government would have already had the power to overturn the States.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> Determined by a significant majority, by Justices nominated by both Ds and Rs, for three different justifications, more than fifty years ago, with a ton of rulings supporting it since.  Good luck getting that overturned.


I wish I had read your post on the day you wrote it and bought a lottery ticket. Our luck was absolutely amazing, wasn't it? But I should have bought the ticket on election day, 2016, because luck doesn't just happen; Donald Trump brought this luck to us.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Griswold was a major foundation for Roe.
> 
> Since the Roe v. Wade decision does make some reference to the 9th, I don’t mind conceding that point. In fact, I already did. But I see no evidence that it’s the basis of the decision. The simply SCOTUS made up the law. The SCOTUS isn’t the legislature. It’s not supposed to make up law.



There was no need for you to concede; you were correct.

The references to the Ninth Amendment in Roe v Wade are about the fact that Roe argued it was a violation of the 9th Amendment and the Court also acknowledged that the District Court found for Roe based on the 9th Amendment but the Supreme Court was explicit that they did not find on the 9th but, instead, found on the 14th.

*This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.*​








						Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> What you attempted to grunt out, you incoherent shithead, Was that they don’t arrest people for murder because of the commission of an abortion.
> 
> The why is a political decision. But if a woman doesn’t seek an abortion but some asshole stabs her in the uterus thereby snuffing out the life of the fetus, that criminal could be and likely would be charged with murder. Why?  Because Idaho law recognizes the personhood of that tiny victim.


So does California.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Vegasgiants said:


> Great.  So where are the arrests for the murder of these persons
> 
> 
> I'm waiting





BackAgain said:


> Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s *your* burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.
> 
> Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.



There have been plenty of cases in California of conviction for murder for killing the unborn child.  Here's just one.









						Boyfriend Convicted of Double Murder of Pregnant Girlfriend, Unborn Son
					

A man was convicted for the 2001 murder of his pregnant girlfriend and unborn son. Prosecutors say he arranged the murder because the woman refused to have an abortion.




					www.nbclosangeles.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> You need to watch Jordan Peterson more often, he covered responsibilities over rights


The difference between you and us is that you're a subject; we are not.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Why did you omit this important FACT:
> 
> *• Intentional first-degree murder for the miscarriage of Naomi's fetus. The jury returned a not guilty verdict*
> 
> ...



I know this is way late in this conversation but it's a very pertinent thread topic with the recent Court rulings - especially abortion, don't you think?

But I'll respond to your harassment that the question from the vegas dude to BackAgain was where are the arrests for killing fetuses, not where are the convictions.  There have been many of each, of course, but you're just trolling to try to keep readers from finding the real facts in between  your trolling posts.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Delldude said:


> The sections concerning our rights are from intrusions from the government to us.
> Do 'peaceful' protestors violating noise ordinances and so on fall under that, I doubt it.
> Even the protesting justices statute, probably would be unconstitutional.
> I could see blockades somewhat, above and below the houses under protest, letting very small groups to go by..that would be following the 1st. Or, designate specific protest areas, like the SS does with presidents.....usually blocks away from where he is going.


You protest government at the places of government, not at the places where families, neighbors, and children live.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Viktor said:


> Taking illegal drugs is agaianst the law and polygamy is illegal.


And yet you started a thread about the Constitution and it turns out you don't even believe in it.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is both ignorant and wrong.
> 
> Government is at liberty to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with Constitutional case law.
> 
> ...


Then we won't be seeing any whining from you about overturning Roe because now that is the new case law and the government can do whatever they wish, consistent with Constitutional case law.  I'm glad to  hear that.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

App'z said:


> Does the 1st amendment protect Citizens from having to enter a Church to Vote in State and Federal Elections, is it Constitutional in fact ?
> 
> ( the First Amendment guarantees the principle of the separation of church and state by implication: the separating of church and state is what allows religious liberty to exist.)
> Of course Elections carried out at Church Property poling places are Most likely  ruled  Nada,  due to forcing people to go to Church to Vote and are unconstitutional Via Action of State force !


If they made you pray before voting you might have something.  

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.   But I think it's best you just not vote if  your polling place is in a church.... or anywhere else.


----------



## App'z (Jul 4, 2022)

Matthew McConaughey’s emotional White House briefing speech in full
					

Actor Matthew McConaughey delivered an emotional address at the White House where he shared details about the schoolaged victims of the Uvalde shooting massacre




					www.independent.co.uk
				




And sure Voting in State, City or Federal elections on private Church property needs to go to the Supreme Court due to the Ambiguity of the Separation of Church and State mentions in the Constitutional processes.  Government closed down Churches due to the Pandemic how can it make them open to the Mass of Voters, most of which are not members of the Church in question.  There is plenty of space in Tax Payer Public Buildings to Vote.  The fact that they also were closed due to the pandemic leaves a vague question of fear of Catching a Cold to the inhabitants of those jobs.  Now the Politician and His Fears come into question and the answer may yep we are dwads and don't wanna get sick too !


----------



## Delldude (Jul 14, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> You protest government at the places of government, not at the places where families, neighbors, and children live.


Alas, this is not happening...with no repercussions.


----------



## App'z (Jul 15, 2022)

Oh Boy !

According to The Intercept's reporting, "The Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and January 6, 2021, according to a letter given to the January 6 committee and reviewed by The Intercept. The letter was originally sent by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to the House and Senate homeland security committees. Though the Secret Service maintains that the text messages were lost as a result of a 'device-replacement program,' the letter says the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications."


----------



## App'z (Jul 15, 2022)

Whoopie said, "You better hope they don't come for you next Clarence!"

*This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.*


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 17, 2022)

App'z said:


> Oh Boy !
> 
> According to The Intercept's reporting, "The Secret Service erased text messages from January 5 and January 6, 2021, according to a letter given to the January 6 committee and reviewed by The Intercept. The letter was originally sent by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General to the House and Senate homeland security committees. Though the Secret Service maintains that the text messages were lost as a result of a 'device-replacement program,' the letter says the erasure took place shortly after oversight officials requested the agency’s electronic communications."


The missing data wasn't just the 5th and the 6th.  The phones were replaced in a standard scheduled process for replacing phones every 90 days.  Those phones were replaced on schedule.


----------



## App'z (Jul 28, 2022)

__





						Blindsided veterans erupt in fury after Senate Republicans suddenly tank PACT Act
					





					www.msn.com
				




This will have to have a better explanation most likely !  Most likely all Bases have a lot of discarded crap on them that is harmful to the environment.  Thas a problem with all Contractor types from way back.  "Where can I dump this crap, sure public lands !"  Most likely the new hire's were formers !


----------



## App'z (Jul 28, 2022)

So you are Privy to the schedule put in place !


----------

