# The Semantics of Constitutionality



## DGS49 (Oct 7, 2021)

There is a major kerfuffle today about the "right" of pregnant women to end their pregnancy.  The state of Texas has placed a rather severe limitation on abortions.  Indeed, they have prohibited abortions after the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected.  This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade (if you examine the core of the decision), which is to say, it is more restrictive than RvW proclaimed that a State could be.  Under RvW, the States could only regulate (prohibit) abortions after the fetus had arguably achieved "viability," which the decision states is the third trimester of pregnancy.  Texas' prohibition is far earlier than viability.

So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

Balderdash.

A "Constitutional right" is a right that is guaranteed by THE CONSTITUTION.  The right to keep and bear arms are Constitutional Rights.  The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a Constitutional right.  Free speech is a Constitutional right.

The "right" to obtain (or perform) an abortion is a judge-made right that is claimed to be founded on the elusive "right of privacy" that is also found nowhere in the Constitution.

So I don't deny that that "right" exists under the current version of "Constitutional law," but it is not a "Constitutional" right.  It does not originate, nor is it based on anything, in the Constitution.

SImilarly, there is no "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender.  There is no Constitutional right to engage in sodomy, homosexual or otherwise.  These rights do exist, but they have  no connection to the Constitution.  They are entirely made-up "constitutional" law - the creation of activist USSC justices.

I'm not sure what term should be used, but I find it highly objectionable to call these rights "Constitutional rights."  They have nothing to do with the Constitution.


----------



## Abatis (Oct 9, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> A "Constitutional right" is a right that is guaranteed by THE CONSTITUTION.  The right to keep and bear arms are Constitutional Rights.  The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a Constitutional right.  Free speech is a Constitutional right.
> 
> The "right" to obtain (or perform) an abortion is a judge-made right that is claimed to be founded on the elusive "right of privacy" that is also found nowhere in the Constitution.



The "*where's that right in the Constitution?*" argument is deeply flawed.  It ignores / dismisses the most foundational intermingled principles of the Constitution, that of conferred powers and _*retained* rights_.

All power originates from the people.  Government only has those powers granted to it in the Constitution and every power not conferred by the people, is retained by them either as rights, (exceptions of powers not granted), or to be conferred by them to the states through state constitutions, for states to exercise over the issues and affairs and perform the duties the people assign to the states.

That foundational principle was a primary argument of the Federalists in opposition to adding a bill of rights to the federal Constitution.  They argued that it was absurd and dangerous to declare that things shall not be done, when no power was ever granted to impact those issues and affairs.

The Federalists warned that in the future, people might think that the Bill of Rights was the complete list of the rights people possessed and that anything left out was intended to be placed in the care and control of government.

Madison was a Federalist, vehemently opposed to a bill of rights who eventually was forced to support the addition of a bill of rights.  Ironically he was tasked with editing the proposed amendments from the states, composing provisions all could agree upon and arguing for their adoption.

He did add two proposals himself as rules of construction and interpretation that were recognition and codification of Federalist argument _against_ a bill of rights, they became the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The 9th Amendment reminds us that there are a myriad of rights that the people possess that were not included in the Bill of Rights but remain _constitutionally secured rights_, because the government must be held powerless to move against those interests.




DGS49 said:


> SImilarly, there is no "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender.  There is no Constitutional right to engage in sodomy, homosexual or otherwise.  These rights do exist, but they have  no connection to the Constitution.  They are entirely made-up "constitutional" law - the creation of activist USSC justices.
> 
> I'm not sure what term should be used, but I find it highly objectionable to call these rights "Constitutional rights."  They have nothing to do with the Constitution.



So here comes more information than you want but it is information you need . . .

I understand your belief that the Court made-up these rights and I do agree that the theory of "penumbral rights" is a clumsy work-around, a contrivance to allow the Court to recognize and protect rights not mentioned in the Constitution.  That sense of it being an artifice allows many attacks on the process and of the rights that were "invented" by the theory's application.

Constitutionally, itis argued that work around was made necessary because of an earlier, horrible decision by the Court that the Court is reluctant to revisit.  That decision, _The Slaughter-House Cases_ (1873), handed down a couple years after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, worked to invalidate the 14th Amendment's "privileges or immunities" clause.  That essentially killed the principle of "Liberty", leaving only "due process" and "equal protection" as the legal mechanisms to decide that a challenged state law violated a citizen's rights.

This frustrated the application of the 14th Amendment's protection because "due process" & "equal protection" demand a methodical, case-by-case, issue-by-issue airing of challenges to law and that begat anoher invention of the Court, "selective incorporation", a piecemeal, clause by clause application of the Bill of Rights that is still going on 100 years later, with the 2nd Amendment finally incorporated in 2010.

So let's advance to the 1960's and the Warren led SCOTUS desire to advance civil rights in a wide, broad manner but "due process" and "equal rpotection" not being conducive for that.  The Court's  solution was the "penumbral rights theory". This allowed them to reinvigorate the overall principle of the 14th Amendment that the Court essentially killed in 1873, that the Bill of Rights embodies a rational continuum of liberty . . .  That those specific proclamations of rights stand as examples of many other Liberty interests where government's power is impotent.  The Warren Court said that those specific examples (Amendments 1-8) have "penumbras" and "emanations" and innumerable liberty interests reside within that principle and can be recognized and protected without requiring specific laws being challenged and the Court speaking on every little disagreement.

The Court said that recognizing a panoply of unenumerated rights means that citizens can enjoy a life free from arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints by government and includes the protection of those rights, such as privacy (and later, its derivative rights like abortion and LGBT rights).  That protection demands the rejection of the state justifications for laws binding citizens, when no power was ever granted giving government power in those affairs.

So essentially you are looking at it backwards; the principle isn't that a right isn't listed, it's that a power over that interest (of one's own body and autonomy) isn't granted.

.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 9, 2021)

We need better metadata from women to know they are not pregnant.

A "Theranos" style of objective may be the answer to getting testing capability out to more women. 

We can ask some engineering majors to help out.


----------



## DGS49 (Oct 9, 2021)

I am all on board with unenumerated rights.

But that ignores the personhood of the fetus.  Which is not addressed in the Constitution.

Judge-made law.  Not "Constitutional."


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 10, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> I am all on board with unenumerated rights.
> 
> But that ignores the personhood of the fetus.  Which is not addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> Judge-made law.  Not "Constitutional."


What personhood?  Natural born is expressed in our Constitution.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile (Oct 11, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> I'm not sure what term should be used, but I find it highly objectionable to call these rights "Constitutional rights."  They have nothing to do with the Constitution.


It is a category error mixed with some other argument fallacy.


----------



## Colin norris (Oct 12, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> There is a major kerfuffle today about the "right" of pregnant women to end their pregnancy.  The state of Texas has placed a rather severe limitation on abortions.  Indeed, they have prohibited abortions after the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected.  This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade (if you examine the core of the decision), which is to say, it is more restrictive than RvW proclaimed that a State could be.  Under RvW, the States could only regulate (prohibit) abortions after the fetus had arguably achieved "viability," which the decision states is the third trimester of pregnancy.  Texas' prohibition is far earlier than viability.
> 
> So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
> 
> ...



It's all driven by those godbothering hypocrits on the right.


----------



## DGS49 (Oct 22, 2021)

Sotomayor would have immediately blocked Texas abortion law
					

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about whether it should block Texas's new law that prohibits abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected. But if it were up to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the court would already have scrapped the law.




					www.yahoo.com
				




Exhibit A.  Justice Soto is horrified that a State would ignore an element of "constitutional" law that is entirely judge-made.  Clearly, in her little pea brain, the Constitution's "emanations and penumbras" are to be accorded value equal to that of the text itself.

She is wrong.  Her side will lose, despite the ravings and wailings of millions of wimmin whose chances of getting pregnant are approximately zero, due to their uniform repulsiveness.


----------



## SavannahMann (Oct 22, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> There is a major kerfuffle today about the "right" of pregnant women to end their pregnancy.  The state of Texas has placed a rather severe limitation on abortions.  Indeed, they have prohibited abortions after the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected.  This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade (if you examine the core of the decision), which is to say, it is more restrictive than RvW proclaimed that a State could be.  Under RvW, the States could only regulate (prohibit) abortions after the fetus had arguably achieved "viability," which the decision states is the third trimester of pregnancy.  Texas' prohibition is far earlier than viability.
> 
> So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
> 
> ...



Do you have a right to write your opinion online? It isn’t in the Constitution. In fact. Nothing about your writings are protected. 

Right to be secure in your person and papers. Your phone calls obviously don’t qualify. Not do your electronic files on your computers. Going strictly by the Constitution. 

There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must advise someone of their rights. But we do so. 

In fact the First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law. Why is it wrong for a State to pass laws? They aren’t Congress. 

Why can’t a State pass a law saying that Anyone who advocates for Donald Trump shall be executed within seven days? 

It is not a Constitutional Violation according to you. We would have to ignore the Supreme Court Decisions that say those Individual Rights trump (pardon the pun) States Rights. 

Instead we utilize the idea of implied freedoms. So your First Amendment Rights apply everywhere. So no one can lock you up for your freedom of expression. 

Or we can go with your plan. Where your rights change from state to state.


----------



## fncceo (Oct 22, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade



Roe v Wade doesn't mention heartbeats at all.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 23, 2021)

Advances in contraception may be the better solution at lower cost.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 23, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> There is a major kerfuffle today about the "right" of pregnant women to end their pregnancy.  The state of Texas has placed a rather severe limitation on abortions.  Indeed, they have prohibited abortions after the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected.  This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade (if you examine the core of the decision), which is to say, it is more restrictive than RvW proclaimed that a State could be.  Under RvW, the States could only regulate (prohibit) abortions after the fetus had arguably achieved "viability," which the decision states is the third trimester of pregnancy.  Texas' prohibition is far earlier than viability.
> 
> So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
> 
> ...


There is no Abortion in the Constitution. It is MURDER. And the Ghouls at Planned ButcherHood make a profit selling aborted babies for Big Money. Stem Cell Research. Dr. Mengele would be proud.


----------



## SavannahMann (Oct 23, 2021)

San Souci said:


> There is no Abortion in the Constitution. It is MURDER. And the Ghouls at Planned ButcherHood make a profit selling aborted babies for Big Money. Stem Cell Research. Dr. Mengele would be proud.



There is no email, faxes, or phones in the constitution. Why do the police need a warrant to read or listen in?


----------



## San Souci (Oct 23, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> There is no email, faxes, or phones in the constitution. Why do the police need a warrant to read or listen in?


Basically ,the Constitution is written in Stone. Takes a strong chisel to CHANGE it. That chisel is called The Amendment Procedure. ROE was illegal. Never Legislated.


----------



## SavannahMann (Oct 23, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Basically ,the Constitution is written in Stone. Takes a strong chisel to CHANGE it. That chisel is called The Amendment Procedure. ROE was illegal. Never Legislated.



So the police need no warrant to listen to phone calls or read electronic mail? 

The State can pass a law prohibiting anyone from advocating for Trump. The First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law. If California makes it a death penalty offense to even speak the name of Trump that is Constitutional isn’t it?


----------



## San Souci (Oct 23, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> So the police need no warrant to listen to phone calls or read electronic mail?
> 
> The State can pass a law prohibiting anyone from advocating for Trump. The First Amendment says Congress shall pass no law. If California makes it a death penalty offense to even speak the name of Trump that is Constitutional isn’t it?


SCOTUS has murdered 60 Million Babies.


----------



## SavannahMann (Oct 23, 2021)

San Souci said:


> SCOTUS has murdered 60 Million Babies.



The premise of your reply is that the Constitution is written in stone. Decisions and rights from Supreme Court Decisions are invalid. Why not answer my question? Or do you believe the Constitution is written in stone for a single issue only?


----------



## San Souci (Oct 23, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> The premise of your reply is that the Constitution is written in stone. Decisions and rights from Supreme Court Decisions are invalid. Why not answer my question? Or do you believe the Constitution is written in stone for a single issue only?


I also said it CAN be changed. By Amendment. The Courts CAN'T make Law.


----------



## SavannahMann (Oct 23, 2021)

San Souci said:


> I also said it CAN be changed. By Amendment. The Courts CAN'T make Law.



So your position is that my examples are invalid.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 24, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> So your position is that my examples are invalid.


I said what I said. No interpretation necessary. There are no gray areas.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 24, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> There is a major kerfuffle today about the "right" of pregnant women to end their pregnancy.  The state of Texas has placed a rather severe limitation on abortions.  Indeed, they have prohibited abortions after the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected.  This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade (if you examine the core of the decision), which is to say, it is more restrictive than RvW proclaimed that a State could be.  Under RvW, the States could only regulate (prohibit) abortions after the fetus had arguably achieved "viability," which the decision states is the third trimester of pregnancy.  Texas' prohibition is far earlier than viability.
> 
> So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
> 
> ...



 I see your point, but disagree.
Originally the Bill of Rights did not at all try to list all rights.
It was more about restricting the federal government.
But the 14th amendment changed all that.
The 14th amendment put the federal government in charge of defending all rights, including those not previously in the Constitution.
Clearly privacy is a right, and to not be forced to deliver a baby is also a right.
And the 14th amendment makes them Constitution rights, meaning they are federal instead of by the states.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Basically ,the Constitution is written in Stone. Takes a strong chisel to CHANGE it. That chisel is called The Amendment Procedure. ROE was illegal. Never Legislated.



Wrong.
Most rights were deliberately left out of the Constitution because they are infinite, and the intent was for the judiciary to fill them in as necessary.
Rights never are or have to be legislated.
You only legislate rights if there has been a consistent pattern of abuse of those rights.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> There is no Abortion in the Constitution. It is MURDER. And the Ghouls at Planned ButcherHood make a profit selling aborted babies for Big Money. Stem Cell Research. Dr. Mengele would be proud.



Wrong.
Abortion was common and legal during the time of the founders, so then clearly it can't later be made illegal, by anyone.
Humans have a high fertility rate, like rabbits, and that can no longer be allowed.
It would be the destruction of the whole planet.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Abortion was common and legal during the time of the founders, so then clearly it can't later be made illegal, by anyone.
> Humans have a high fertility rate, like rabbits, and that can no longer be allowed.
> It would be the destruction of the whole planet.


Yes ,Mein Fuhrer.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Most rights were deliberately left out of the Constitution because they are infinite, and the intent was for the judiciary to fill them in as necessary.
> Rights never are or have to be legislated.
> You only legislate rights if there has been a consistent pattern of abuse of those rights.


Murdering babies and selling their PARTS for Stem Cell research is only RIGHTS for Ghouls.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Yes ,Mein Fuhrer.



That is the whole point, in that government does not get to force a woman to do or not do anything.
The woman gets to decide if she wants to carry to term or not.


----------



## Rigby5 (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Murdering babies and selling their PARTS for Stem Cell research is only RIGHTS for Ghouls.



A fetus is not yet self aware.
It is not sentient.
The woman is.
She gets to decide, not you.


----------



## g5000 (Oct 24, 2021)

fncceo said:


> Roe v Wade doesn't mention heartbeats at all.


But it does mention viability, which they considered to be somewhere between 24 and 28 weeks.


----------



## g5000 (Oct 24, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> SImilarly, there is no "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender.  There is no Constitutional right to engage in sodomy, homosexual or otherwise.  These rights do exist, but they have  no connection to the Constitution.  They are entirely made-up "constitutional" law - the creation of activist USSC justices.
> 
> I'm not sure what term should be used, but I find it highly objectionable to call these rights "Constitutional rights."  They have nothing to do with the Constitution.


The arguments against gay marriage are the same arguments which were made against interracial marriage.

The 14th amendment protects both.  Equal protection of the laws.

If the government wrote a law bestowing free lollipops to every American, that would be entirely constitutional.  But if the government added a section which excluded country music artists from receiving a lollipop, that would violate the constitution.

Just so with gay and interracial marriages.  The government has written laws bestowing all kinds of cash and prizes to married couples.  They cannot exclude married couples that make them feel icky unless it can be demonstrated such couples are a societal harm.

It used to be argued that interracial marriages were a societal harm which were going to create a "mongrel race", and the opponents used the Bible as justification for their hatred.

You can't outlaw homosexuality just because it makes you feel icky.  That's unconstitutional.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 24, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> That is the whole point, in that government does not get to force a woman to do or not do anything.
> The woman gets to decide if she wants to carry to term or not.


Maybe the woman should not be promiscuous? Or maybe use Condoms? Murder is a bad option.


----------



## SavannahMann (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> I said what I said. No interpretation necessary. There are no gray areas.



We consider the First Amendment an individual right. Yet, it is strictly limited, by the wording of the amendment, to Congress. Why can’t a State pass laws limiting Free Speech? The text of the Amendment is that Congress Shall Pass No Law. 

If we are going by strict interpretation of the Constitution, what is written and nothing more, shouldn’t we apply that to everything? Or are we going to ignore all the others and only focus on Abortion to make you all happy?


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Maybe the woman should not be promiscuous? Or maybe use Condoms? Murder is a bad option.


It is not "murder" until after you prove viability.


----------



## San Souci (Oct 24, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is not "murder" until after you prove viability.


So is being a tramp a bad option.


----------



## danielpalos (Oct 24, 2021)

San Souci said:


> So is being a tramp a bad option.


Better contraception at lower cost!


----------



## Pellinore (Oct 29, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> There is a major kerfuffle today about the "right" of pregnant women to end their pregnancy.  The state of Texas has placed a rather severe limitation on abortions.  Indeed, they have prohibited abortions after the heartbeat of the fetus can be detected.  This standard goes beyond the standard of Roe v. Wade (if you examine the core of the decision), which is to say, it is more restrictive than RvW proclaimed that a State could be.  Under RvW, the States could only regulate (prohibit) abortions after the fetus had arguably achieved "viability," which the decision states is the third trimester of pregnancy.  Texas' prohibition is far earlier than viability.
> 
> So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
> 
> ...


G5000 correctly explained most of this in his post, a few above mine.  

The Constitution is a very short document, and couldn't possibly cover every aspect of law even for a relatively small nation as we were in 1789.  The right to privacy is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it is implied by rights such as protection against illegal search and seizure.  

Equal treatment under the law comes from the 14th Amendment, which was the basis for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the basis for the recent Supreme Court ruling saying that you can't fire your gay and trans employees any more, because sexual preference and gender identity counts under the word "sex."  

The Supreme Court can't make law; it can only interpret law brought before it under judicial review, which is also not explicitly in the Constitution.  It is the result of a court decision based on Article III, and Marshall's reading of the Federalist Papers.  So again, you have to consider what's implied in addition to what is explicit, which can really be a most-of-the-iceberg-is-underwater kind of activity, but that's how it works.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 4, 2021)

Personally, speaking for myself, I sincerely hope that the Texas Abortion Law stands. 

I am in Pro Choice. But I hope the arguments made on Monday win the day with the Supreme Court. And here is why. 

If Texas wins a state can abridge and violate any Constitutional Right by writing a copycat law. Second Amendment? Sure you have it. But anyone can sue you for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars if you exercise it. First Amendment? Sure you have it. 

Michigan as we all know has a large Muslim Population. Imagine if they pass a law that anyone who goes to a Christian Church is able to be sued for $10,000 by anyone. A copycat of the law in Texas. The Federal Government would be prohibited by the decision from Monday from doing anything. Christians would be bankrupted, Christian Churches would be forced to close immediately. 

Or you could pass a law that anyone driving a car from Texas in your state is liable to be sued. No problem. No Constitutional violation. No Problem.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Maybe the woman should not be promiscuous? Or maybe use Condoms? Murder is a bad option.



Promiscuity is necessary for normal biological balance.
The body makes you have sex just as it makes you eat or sleep.
If you refuse your body trying to force you to have sex, you may not die, but you may wish you had.

Nothing wrong with condoms and birth control, but they don't always work.
And things can change.
Abortion will always also be a necessary option.
And a fetus is no more sentient than a single sperm, which is also alive.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> We consider the First Amendment an individual right. Yet, it is strictly limited, by the wording of the amendment, to Congress. Why can’t a State pass laws limiting Free Speech? The text of the Amendment is that Congress Shall Pass No Law.
> 
> If we are going by strict interpretation of the Constitution, what is written and nothing more, shouldn’t we apply that to everything? Or are we going to ignore all the others and only focus on Abortion to make you all happy?



The 14th amendment.
Originally the Bill of Rights was mostly about limiting the feds.
But after the 14th amendment, now the feds can prosecute the states if they violate individual rights.

A strict interpretation of the Constitution means that rights are infinite and can never all be listed.
Which then implies judges have to reveal them as needed in each individual case.
For example, privacy.
Not listed anywhere, but still protected by judicial proclamation.
Which is why judges have to be so specially selected.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> It is not "murder" until after you prove viability.



Even when viable, it is not murder if not sentient, like:

{...
*Carolyn Jones* was taken off life-support May 13 against her family's wishes. (Image source: Facebook/Mark Dickson) A Texas woman who had her life-sustaining breathing assistance withdrawn by the doctors who were meant to be caring for her has been saved through an emergency hospital transfer.
...}

{...
The *Terri Schiavo case* was a euthanasia legal case in the United States from 1998 to 2005, involving *Theresa Marie Schiavo* (née *Schindler*) (/ˈʃaɪvoʊ/; December 3, 1963 – March 31, 2005), a woman in an irreversible persistent vegetative state. Schiavo's husband and legal guardian argued that Schiavo would not have wanted prolonged artificial life support without the prospect of recovery, and in 1998 elected to remove her feeding tube. Schiavo's parents disputed her husband's assertions and challenged Schiavo's medical diagnosis, arguing in favor of continuing artificial nutrition and hydration.[1][2] The highly publicized and prolonged series of legal challenges presented by her parents, which ultimately involved state and federal politicians up to the level of President George W. Bush, caused a seven-year (1998 to 2005) delay before Schiavo's feeding tube was ultimately removed.
...}


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

San Souci said:


> So is being a tramp a bad option.



That is religious propaganda.
There is nothing wrong with being natural.


----------



## Rigby5 (Nov 9, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> The Supreme Court can't make law; it can only interpret law brought before it under judicial review, which is also not explicitly in the Constitution. It is the result of a court decision based on Article III, and Marshall's reading of the Federalist Papers. So again, you have to consider what's implied in addition to what is explicit, which can really be a most-of-the-iceberg-is-underwater kind of activity, but that's how it works.



The courts obviously have to be vastly superior to legislators as to what is actual law, since they have to be able to strike down any mere legislation that is contrary to basic legal authority.  And basic legal authority comes only from the defense of inherent individual rights, not government.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 9, 2021)

Better contraception at lower cost to eschew any potential need for the abortion of a fellow human being!


----------



## San Souci (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Promiscuity is necessary for normal biological balance.
> The body makes you have sex just as it makes you eat or sleep.
> If you refuse your body trying to force you to have sex, you may not die, but you may wish you had.
> 
> ...


It is murder. And Promiscuity leads to the Clap ,Syphilis ,and AIDS.


----------



## San Souci (Nov 9, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> The courts obviously have to be vastly superior to legislators as to what is actual law, since they have to be able to strike down any mere legislation that is contrary to basic legal authority.  And basic legal authority comes only from the defense of inherent individual rights, not government.


Where is infanticide a RIGHT?


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 9, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Where is infanticide a RIGHT?



The Second Amendment says you have the right to keep and bear arms. Where does it say you have a right to a semi automatic rifle? Could we limit that right to a single shot rifle? If not, why not?


----------



## San Souci (Nov 9, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> The Second Amendment says you have the right to keep and bear arms. Where does it say you have a right to a semi automatic rifle? Could we limit that right to a single shot rifle? If not, why not?


It does not say what KIND of "Arms". Therefore ,it could be anything from a musket to a 50 Megaton Nuke,


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 9, 2021)

San Souci said:


> It does not say what KIND of "Arms". Therefore ,it could be anything from a musket to a 50 Megaton Nuke,



So why can’t we limit it to a single shot rifle? Or just ban semi automatic? 

People like to observe there are lots of alternatives to abortion. Birth control methods. So eliminating one isn’t a big deal. Especially when it isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution. 

So let’s play. What kind of arms isn’t listed. While we have Supreme Court decisions. We reject those. They are merely creating rights aren’t they? 

So if we ban semiautomatic rifles that leaves you single shot, bolt action, lever action, and pump action doesn’t it? Lots of options. 

So using the original Constitution explain why that would be wrong.


----------



## San Souci (Nov 9, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> So why can’t we limit it to a single shot rifle? Or just ban semi automatic?
> 
> People like to observe there are lots of alternatives to abortion. Birth control methods. So eliminating one isn’t a big deal. Especially when it isn’t specifically listed in the Constitution.
> 
> ...


Guns are tools. Babies are HUMANS. Abortion is MURDER. Case closed.


----------



## Pellinore (Nov 9, 2021)

San Souci said:


> It does not say what KIND of "Arms". Therefore ,it could be anything from a musket to a 50 Megaton Nuke,


None other than Justice Scalia repeatedly pointed out that the inclusion of the word "bear" implies that it restricts itself to weapons that can be borne.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Nov 9, 2021)

Abatis said:


> The "*where's that right in the Constitution?*" argument is deeply flawed.  It ignores / dismisses the most foundational intermingled principles of the Constitution, that of conferred powers and _*retained* rights_.
> 
> All power originates from the people.  Government only has those powers granted to it in the Constitution and every power not conferred by the people, is retained by them either as rights, (exceptions of powers not granted), or to be conferred by them to the states through state constitutions, for states to exercise over the issues and affairs and perform the duties the people assign to the states.
> 
> ...


The logical flaw with that false premise is the fact...there is more than "one" human body involved. What about the supposed rights of the FATHER?  The courts deny the father has any parental rights as defined by DNA testing......until child support is demand from the female after said life exits the magical female vagina that defines life.

  The court systems have radically moved away from the concept of logic and reason.  For instance.  On one hand........and this is something that Congress got right in working within the boundaries of physical science, You have the endangered species act that clearly defines "the unborn....gestating life" as an example of life within the species that is being protected, and if that gestating unborn life is caused harm, the person causing such harm is subject to a fine and or imprisonment.

How can one law such as the Endangered Species Act of 1973 define life as preexisting the actual birth process.......while the court denies the science that proves that life is exampled upon conception in the fact that once created, even while unborn........a gestating life has a totally unique DNA human signature, different from either parent, unlike any other life on earth.

Its a contradiction in both logic and reason, when Animals have more of right to live than unborn people.

Unalienable:  Non transferable.  Even a mother can't transfer the right to live to herself from her unborn child.......as we are all CREATED....not born but created with an unalienable right to life and liberty void of DUE PROCESS.  Who is to protect the unborn life if not the mother?  I can't think of a worse crime against humanity than for a mother to sanction the killing of any of her children under the pretense of a personal right.  Again, what about the rights of the unborn child and the father?  They are non-existent.  Anyone that declares that Justice is being served indeed has a warped sense of morality.  Justice demands DUE PROCESS, especially for the defenseless and the innocent.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 10, 2021)

Clyde 154 said:


> The logical flaw with that false premise is the fact...there is more than "one" human body involved. What about the supposed rights of the FATHER?  The courts deny the father has any parental rights as defined by DNA testing......until child support is demand from the female after said life exits the magical female vagina that defines life.
> 
> The court systems have radically moved away from the concept of logic and reason.



First, I'm not making a logical argument; everything I said is a legal argument that encompasses the founding constitutional philosophy to the 20th Century court operations that recognized the right of privacy and by extension, personal autonomy.

The flaw in logic is yours, you begin with a preferred outcome and then construct a partial argument for getting there but then acknowledge the law does not allow your outcome.

The law and courts are not based in logic but they do place much importance on the _capacity of reason_ to determine personhood. The concept of personhood differs from the consideration of a legal, natural person, which only demands one to be born -- a magical vagina is not required, any regular vagina will do -- but the law demands one be outside it.



Clyde 154 said:


> For instance.  On one hand........and this is something that Congress got right in working within the boundaries of physical science, You have the endangered species act that clearly defines "the unborn....gestating life" as an example of life within the species that is being protected, and if that gestating unborn life is caused harm, the person causing such harm is subject to a fine and or imprisonment.



You don't need to go outside the human to find examples of legal protection of the unborn and this is where there is a very strong argument that the law displays either a lack of logic or simply complete abandonment of logic . . .

There are *many state laws that make intentionally causing the death of the unborn either murder or manslaughter.*.  Some of those laws define "_'unborn child' as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth_" and reviewing the list in the link above, you will see these laws exist even in the bluest states.  

That some of those laws could be reasonably, logically, plausibly extended to a medical procedure (since "intentionally causing the death" is the primary factor) is why specific exemptions are stated. 

A typical carve-out for abortion reads; "_these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice_."

To demand murder to be charged for some acts that intentionally cause the death of an "unborn child" and leave abortion exempted, are unpersuasive logically or morally . . . but the law is blind to subjective logical and  moral arguments.



Clyde 154 said:


> How can one law . . . define life as preexisting the actual birth process.......while the court denies the science that proves that life is exampled upon conception in the fact that once created, even while unborn........a gestating life has a totally unique DNA human signature, different from either parent, unlike any other life on earth.



Many of the laws criminalizing intentionally causing the death of an "unborn child" recognize that scientific fact, defining an unborn child "as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development". . .   These laws already assign some degree of legal status to an unborn child but then they make exceptions in that law when causing the intentional death of an "unborn child" is performed _under the consent of the mother_ and if _the procedure performed is an accepted medical practice_.

The legal and political questions for Pro-Life people are:

Can the legal definition of what is deemed to be an accepted medical practice be changed?​​Can the _legal theory_ and distinction be changed, that allows abortion be excepted out of the criminal code that criminalizes, _intentionally causing the intentional death of an "unborn child"_?​​And then, the biggie, can the woman's consent be removed from the process, can she be compelled to carry the unborn child to birth?​
Can those legal arguments be made to change any of those conditions, extinguishing those exceptions in law, compelling a person, without dragging subjective moral, or worse, religious arguments into it, which only serve to obfuscate and negate the legal argument?

.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 10, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Guns are tools. Babies are HUMANS. Abortion is MURDER. Case closed.



So the constitutional argument is bullshit. Got it.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 10, 2021)

Pellinore said:


> None other than Justice Scalia repeatedly pointed out that the inclusion of the word "bear" implies that it restricts itself to weapons that can be borne.



See, that is the problem. To define the Second, we have to use the Supreme Court decisions, and that is the complaint of those who are opposed to Abortion. The Supreme Court found the right out of thin air. It isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution you see. Only those rights explicitly mentioned actually exist. 

But take any of the rights. Literally pick one. You have the right to be secure in your person and papers. Ok. Tell me without using a Supreme Court precedent, why the Government isn’t supposed to read your emails or listen to your phone calls? That is not your person, or papers is it?

Take it further. Apply two arguments. The Texas Argument for their Abortion Law is that it uses a loophole from 1908. If the State is not enforcing the law, then there is no legal remedy available. The State isn’t suing people, other citizens are. And the State has nothing to do with it, and the Supreme Court is prohibited from getting involved. 

If that is true, what prevents the Muslims from gaining elective office in Michigan and passing a similar law allowing anyone who attends a Christian Church to be sued? Or New York passing a law that allows anyone who owns an AR-15 to be sued? 

The problem is that most people view the Constitution incorrectly. 

Look at it not as merely a legal framework. But picture it in context of the people of the era. It was the Ten Commandments. Thou Shall Not. Nobody defined the Ten Commandments. Nobody expressly described what Coveting the neighbors wife, or property meant. Were you coveting when you told your neighbor he had a beautiful horse? Do you covet your neighbors car when you tell him it’s a great car? 

The Bill of Rights was intended the same way. To express in a vague manner what Freedoms we all had from the Divine. But it took no time whatsoever to start to limit those freedoms. Well that sort of speech shouldn’t be protected. That’s obscene. We can’t let this guy go because of a mistake by the cops in the search of his house, he’s a bad man who commits crimes. 

We find exceptions. And then we base exceptions on those exceptions. It’s very rare when we say definitively that this is absolutely unconstitutional. Even when the Court rules against the law, they say it would be constitutional if this or that had been done just a little differently. 

Thou Shall Not abridge Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, or Freedom of Religion. I know there is more. My point is thou shall not.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 10, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Only those rights explicitly mentioned actually exist.



That people might someday think that, and believe only those rights specifically enumerated were protected, was among the arguments raised in opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

To alleviate that fear, Madison composed an Amendment that was not derived from proposals by the states but was a product of his own Federalist mind.  That became the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX​The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​​
You seem to be eager to demonstrate the wisdom and prescience of the framers, combining that with the surprising ability to ignore the Bill of Rights while purporting to speak authoritatively about it.

.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 10, 2021)

Abatis said:


> That people might someday think that, and believe only those rights specifically enumerated were protected, was among the arguments raised in opposition to adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.
> 
> To alleviate that fear, Madison composed an Amendment that was not derived from proposals by the states but was a product of his own Federalist mind.  That became the 9th Amendment of the Bill of Rights:
> 
> ...



Or not. 

Look. I’m in favor of freedom. I believe the Constitution protects a lot of things that are not specifically listed. Like Abortion. 

I was using the arguments that the “Originalists” use to say that Abortion isn’t permitted. I am using their own arguments on issues they claim are protected by the Constitution. 

I usually argue against the exceptions used to weaken the rights. 

But the truth is everyone hates the Constitution. The left hates the second. The right hates others. I love it all.


----------



## San Souci (Nov 10, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> So the constitutional argument is bullshit. Got it.


There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you can murder babies.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 10, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Or not.
> 
> Look. I’m in favor of freedom. I believe the Constitution protects a lot of things that are not specifically listed. Like Abortion.



Mmmmkay.



SavannahMann said:


> I was using the arguments that the “Originalists” use to say that Abortion isn’t permitted. I am using their own arguments on issues they claim are protected by the Constitution.



I would argue that those people are not originalists or textualists and certainly not constitutionalists.

Social conservatives, while often draping themselves in the Constitution, are driven by moralism that isn't tethered to the Constitution and is usually grounded in theology and dogma.   As a constitutionalist, I resent social conservatives waving the Constitution in people's faces while espousing positions that government has no role in and are rejected by the Constitution.



SavannahMann said:


> I usually argue against the exceptions used to weaken the rights.



Which is why it is important to always stand on the principle that our original, fundamental, fully retained righs are not given, granted, creaed or estblished by the provision recognizing and securing them (or not).



SavannahMann said:


> But the truth is everyone hates the Constitution. The left hates the second. The right hates others. I love it all.



I agree that both are dangerous to liberty.  I put dogma based social conservatives and leftists who tend to ignore and dismiss the Constitution, in the same box. 

Both demand government exercise powers it was never granted, to compel / prohibit / modify citizen behavior that they consider abhorrent.

.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 10, 2021)

San Souci said:


> There is NOTHING in the Constitution that says you can murder babies.



There is nothing in the Constitution that says a State can’t declare itself to have a single religion. So Michigan can outlaw Christianity. Got it.


----------



## San Souci (Nov 11, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> There is nothing in the Constitution that says a State can’t declare itself to have a single religion. So Michigan can outlaw Christianity. Got it.


Yes. There is. The Separation of Church and State covers that. Caught ya lying again.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 11, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Yes. There is. The Separation of Church and State covers that. Caught ya lying again.



Where exactly is that in the Constitution?


----------



## San Souci (Nov 11, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Where exactly is that in the Constitution?


First Amendment-Establishment Clause.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 11, 2021)

San Souci said:


> First Amendment-Establishment Clause.



Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan. 

The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision. 









						The Separation of Church and State: Everson v. Board of Education - FindLaw
					

In 1947, the Supreme Court was asked to decide just how separate our federal government needed to be from religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education, a closely divided Supreme Court decided a New Jersey program that helped children in Catholic schools did not violate the First...




					supreme.findlaw.com
				




You object to the Supreme Court making law and creating rights out of thin air. You want the originality Constitution. So let’s go for it. No problem with a State establishing a religion. It isn’t Congress.


----------



## San Souci (Nov 11, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.
> 
> The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> ...


Should have gone through the Amendment Proceedure. The Courts CAN'T make law. But they do when Libs are in charge. 60 Million babies have been murdered because of "Roe".


----------



## San Souci (Nov 11, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.
> 
> The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> ...


PS--Did that decision make New Jersey a Catholic State? Case Closed.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 11, 2021)

San Souci said:


> Should have gone through the Amendment Proceedure. The Courts CAN'T make law. But they do when Libs are in charge. 60 Million babies have been murdered because of "Roe".



So you admit that under your Originalist view there is no prohibition from the Muslims in Michigan banning Christianity? 

The problem is that you like almost everyone views the Constitution like a Buffet. You go down the line and take what you like and reject the rest. 

That isn’t how it works. The Constitution is a tapestry. When you pull one thread out you weaken and diminish the whole thing. 

You have to embrace and vigorously defend every bit. Even the boys you don’t like. Especially those parts. Because if you don’t then you’ll find yourself victimized later. 

I will always side with the Constitution. I will always argue for maximum restraint on the Government. I will always argue for maximum freedom for the citizens. 

Not just the parts I like.


----------



## SavannahMann (Nov 11, 2021)

San Souci said:


> PS--Did that decision make New Jersey a Catholic State? Case Closed.



Actually. You proved my point. The foundation of your argument was a Supreme Court Decision. Not written in the Constitution.


----------



## rupol2000 (Nov 13, 2021)

DGS49 said:


> So wimmin's rights activists are now loudly claiming that the Texas law and standard violates women's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.


The right decision here is to stigmatize whores who spread their legs in a swine frenzy, and then don't know what to do about it.
In right-wing politics, there should be no such thing as abortion exept if it is the result of rape


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2021)

Better contraception at lower cost!


----------



## rupol2000 (Nov 13, 2021)

As practice shows, women are generally not capable of responsible behavior that takes into account the consequences, therefore, sex for women should be available only with the direct permission of the parents, and these parents should not be licentious. This is the protection of rights.
Freedom has nothing to do with a pigsty, where boars arbitrarily cover available females.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> As practice shows, women are generally not capable of responsible behavior that takes into account the consequences, therefore, sex for women should be available only with the direct permission of the parents, and these parents should not be licentious. This is the protection of rights.
> Freedom has nothing to do with a pigsty, where boars arbitrarily cover available females.


What practice?  How many gangs of women roam the streets looking for guys to "empty out" so it won't ever occur to them to try to rape "nice girls".


----------



## rupol2000 (Nov 13, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> What practice?  How many gangs of women roam the streets looking for guys to "empty out" so it won't ever occur to them to try to rape "nice girls".


This is also part of the irresponsible behavior of women.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> This is also part of the irresponsible behavior of women.


Saving "nice girls" from potential rape?   Are not men more irresponsible.


----------



## rupol2000 (Nov 13, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Saving "nice girls" from potential rape?   Are not men more irresponsible.


Nobody says that a man shouldn't response


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 13, 2021)

rupol2000 said:


> Nobody says that a man shouldn't response


Men should be at least as responsible as women.


----------



## pegwinn (Mar 2, 2022)

The Bill of Rights extends to every person via the 14th Amendment “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …” That means that not only CONGRESS shall make no law it means States can’t either. 

If I were a lawyer or played on on TV I’d argue that Same Sex Marraige in the religious sense is purely an article of Religion and thus protected under the First Amendment. Further I’d argue that Article 4 Section 1 requires that if one State allows legal Same Sex Marriage then the other 49 are required to recognize it so long as it was lawfully done. They are still allowed the option of not allowing the Marriage to lawfully originate in their State. The State of Intoxication records the act of the union and the license is duly filed means that the happy couple can move to the State of Confusion where such things cannot take place. But, any privileges granted to other married couples must be allowed to the newlyweds that just moved in. The relevant passage from A4S1 is “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”  But, I am not a lawyer and don’t care about who you marry. None of my business.

I despise abortion. But, the 9th Amendment means you can assert any right you want to make up. Because assertion is affirmative you will have to prove it. If someone asserted the 9th Amendment the most obvious defense is to state the child is in fact a person and thus protected by the same Constitution. You have no right to murder. And, you cannot assert a right that takes away my rights. However this leaves the door open to disallow abortions that are actually a medical need to save the mothers life. Another can of worms. 

The problem with and the strength of our Constitution is that it is a bitch to amend. That paradox is pretty cool IMHO.

The biggest problem is that people “interpret” it, read into it, and find shit that aint there. It says what it says and equally important doesn’t say what it doesn’t say. If you use a dictionary published near ratification you know what it meant as the ink was blotted. Every other reference is just empty calories and isn’t relevant as they have precisely zero legal authority. If you doubt me on that try to assert religious liberty and base the case on the Danbury Letter. It will fail as the letter is merely an historical document with no lawful authority. Same with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, or the most famous press release (aka the Declaration of Independence) in history.


----------



## rupol2000 (Mar 2, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> Men should be at least as responsible as women.


In a normal society, only a man should be responsible, because it is he who should make decisions. In the leftist society, no one is responsible for anything. A woman may be in power, but there is no demand from her. In leftist feminism, collective responsibility.


----------



## rupol2000 (Mar 2, 2022)

pegwinn said:


> The biggest problem is that people “interpret” it, read into it, and find shit that aint there. It says what it says and equally important doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.


Yes, and they read feminism and emancipation there, which are not there. It says only about equality in voting.

*There is no gender equality in the US constitution.
*


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 2, 2022)

Humans have a high rate of sexuality because we used to be prey and died like rabbits, so only a high reproduction rate allowed the human species to survive.
But now that we have tampered with nature by surviving so long, we have no choice but to artificially lower our reproductive rate with abortion.
It is either that or extinction once we over populate enough to destroy our environment.
It is weird that anyone would care about a fetus that was never sentient, since those who pretend to care so much about fetuses, seem to care nothing about adult humans.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 2, 2022)

pegwinn said:


> The Bill of Rights extends to every person via the 14th Amendment “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …” That means that not only CONGRESS shall make no law it means States can’t either.
> 
> If I were a lawyer or played on on TV I’d argue that Same Sex Marraige in the religious sense is purely an article of Religion and thus protected under the First Amendment. Further I’d argue that Article 4 Section 1 requires that if one State allows legal Same Sex Marriage then the other 49 are required to recognize it so long as it was lawfully done. They are still allowed the option of not allowing the Marriage to lawfully originate in their State. The State of Intoxication records the act of the union and the license is duly filed means that the happy couple can move to the State of Confusion where such things cannot take place. But, any privileges granted to other married couples must be allowed to the newlyweds that just moved in. The relevant passage from A4S1 is “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.”  But, I am not a lawyer and don’t care about who you marry. None of my business.
> 
> ...



What is wrong is your idea that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the source of legal authority.
It isn't.
It is an attempt to try to figure out what our inherent rights might be, and what jurisdiction levels of government might best have.
It is a work in progress so has many mistakes, and never remotely pretended to be the source of any rights.  Rights have to already exist before they could even remotely be put into something like the Constitution.  If the constitution created rights, then they would be arbitrary and could just as easily be eliminated.


----------



## rupol2000 (Mar 2, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Humans have a high rate of sexuality because we used to be prey and died like rabbits, so only a high reproduction rate allowed the human species to survive.
> But now that we have tampered with nature by surviving so long, we have no choice but to artificially lower our reproductive rate with abortion.
> It is either that or extinction once we over populate enough to destroy our environment.
> It is weird that anyone would care about a fetus that was never sentient, since those who pretend to care so much about fetuses, seem to care nothing about adult humans.


This is the fruit of slave civilization. The matriarchy and priests benefited from high reproduction, because it provided more low-skilled labor and combat infantry for expansion. But this is not a property of all mankind.
There was no sexual licentiousness in patriarchal traditions.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 2, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Read the first amendment again. It says Congress shall pass no law. In my scenario it was the State of Michigan.
> 
> The claim you are making is a Supreme Court decision.
> 
> ...



There originally were state religions, line Penn's Sylvania.
But clearly that infringes on the inherent rights of those of other religions, so is not legal after the 14th amendment.
The original constitution was wrong because the states originally considered themselves endowed with Divine Right.  We rebelled from England because we do not believe in Divine Right.  So then states can't be allowed to violate individual rights any more than the feds.


----------



## pegwinn (Mar 2, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> What is wrong is your idea that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the source of legal authority.
> It isn't.
> It is an attempt to try to figure out what our inherent rights might be, and what jurisdiction levels of government might best have.
> It is a work in progress so has many mistakes, and never remotely pretended to be the source of any rights.  Rights have to already exist before they could even remotely be put into something like the Constitution.  If the constitution created rights, then they would be arbitrary and could just as easily be eliminated.



It literally is the source. And the Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Not separate as you seem to think. And, it is a completed work that happens to have a built in lawful process to change it. Finally, considering the abject failure of government to conform to the text those rights you believe already existed are arbitrary and can be easily eliminated.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 2, 2022)

rupol2000 said:


> This is the fruit of slave civilization. The matriarchy and priests benefited from high reproduction, because it provided more low-skilled labor and combat infantry for expansion. But this is not a property of all mankind.
> There was no sexual licentiousness in patriarchal traditions.



There is no such thing as patriarchal traditions that were not for war, slavery, and religion.
You have it wrong and mixed up matriarchy and patriarchy.
The original hunter/gatherer human society was a matriarchy because the men would be off hunting while the women had to stay to raise the children, so then did the gathering and governing.
Then there was no war or slavery.
It was when we invented agriculture, currency, property, and the Mideast also started to desertify, that we switched to a patriarchy that was continually at war and followed warlike religions.

This statue from before 10,000 BC is likely from a peaceful, matriachical, hunter/gatherer society.


----------



## Rigby5 (Mar 2, 2022)

pegwinn said:


> It literally is the source. And the Bill of Rights are a part of the Constitution. Not separate as you seem to think. And, it is a completed work that happens to have a built in lawful process to change it. Finally, considering the abject failure of government to conform to the text those rights you believe already existed are arbitrary and can be easily eliminated.


No, the Constitution can NOT be the source of rights, because that would leave a conundrum, of where did the authority to create the Constitution come from?
The Constitution can not be self authorizing.
And clearly Jefferson said it was not in the Declaration of Independence.
He said that the inherent rights of all individuals already always exist, and that is what is the source of all authority.

Whether one considers the amendments, like the Bill of Rights, to be part of the constitution or not, I do not care.
It is still a work in progress and needs more amendments yet.


----------



## rupol2000 (Mar 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> There is no such thing as patriarchal traditions that were not for war, slavery, and religion.
> You have it wrong and mixed up matriarchy and patriarchy.
> The original hunter/gatherer human society was a matriarchy because the men would be off hunting while the women had to stay to raise the children, so then did the gathering and governing.
> Then there was no war or slavery.
> ...


I did not confuse anything, your story concerns only Old Europe and the Middle East, these are their Venera.

The Aryans were free and patriarchal shepherds.


----------



## rupol2000 (Mar 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The original hunter/gatherer human society was a matriarchy because the men would be off hunting while the women had to stay to raise the children, so then did the gathering and governing.
> Then there was no war or slavery.


It was much worse. There was cannibalism and extreme slavery. They kept people together with pigs and treated them like pigs.

There are a huge number of traces of fractures, trepanations and impressions of teeth on the bones.

To prevent the slaves run away, they simply broke the bones in their legs and so on.







In addition, there were bloody orgies where castration took place
Matriarchy is not just savagery


----------



## pegwinn (Mar 3, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No, the Constitution can NOT be the source of rights, because that would leave a conundrum, of where did the authority to create the Constitution come from?
> The Constitution can not be self authorizing.
> And clearly Jefferson said it was not in the Declaration of Independence.
> He said that the inherent rights of all individuals already always exist, and that is what is the source of all authority.
> ...



Dude, take a breath, the lack of oxygen is having an effect on your ability to have a rational discussion. You said "What is wrong is your idea that the Constitution or Bill of Rights is the source of legal authority." To which I cheerfully shot it down by telling you that it is. Why? Because it literally is. Do the words "Supremacy Clause" mean anything at all to you. Allow me to help you out:



> This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.



And, because you are gonna tell me I'm misquoting it ... Article VI will get you the goods. 

But I gotta say it is really hard to consider you a worthy person to discuss things with when you say "...considers the amendments, like the Bill of Rights, to be part of the constitution or not, I do not care." Your original comment said "...the Constitution or Bill of Rights ...". The word OR means you are talking about two distinct and separate documents. Lemme 'splain it to you. The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution just as the quoted portion of Article IV above is. There is no AND or OR involved. 

Please respond back and tell me you got it that time. If you didn't I'll type slower.


----------



## Stryder50 (Mar 4, 2022)

DGS49 said:


> I am all on board with unenumerated rights.
> 
> But that ignores the personhood of the fetus.  Which is not addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> Judge-made law.  Not "Constitutional."


One question still to be answered, and agreed upon, is when does the fetus attain personhood?
Another issue is what about the rights of the father in this matter?
If she keeps the fetus and gives birth, he can be on the hook for child support payments.
If she aborts he may be losing his right to have a child and/or an heir


----------



## beautress (Jun 13, 2022)

DGS49 said:


> I am all on board with unenumerated rights.
> 
> But that ignores the personhood of the fetus.  Which is not addressed in the Constitution.
> 
> Judge-made law.  Not "Constitutional."


The fetus is a being. A human being, to be exact. And yes, our country is about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ending the life of a human being in its multiple growth stages of human dna organizing itself for its post birth stage is ending the life, liberty and happiness of the sweetest of sweet sweeties, a baby that used to be celebrated by people because they believe that a good God Almighty gives life from the time it is conceived, until years later when it dies of old age, having been through all the stages of a reasonably good life.

Congress has been remiss about the scientific fact that life starts at conception. Inhaling air is an advanced stage of post birth learning, because the little guy first had to grow lungs to the point of breathability among a million other processes that took place in its dear mother's body that was designed for that specific job and is the reason human beings are able to be the stewards of the planet, with both blessings and responsibilities.


----------



## Clyde 154 (Jun 14, 2022)

beautress said:


> The fetus is a being. A human being, to be exact. And yes, our country is about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ending the life of a human being in its multiple growth stages of human dna organizing itself for its post birth stage is ending the life, liberty and happiness of the sweetest of sweet sweeties, a baby that used to be celebrated by people because they believe that a good God Almighty gives life from the time it is conceived, until years later when it dies of old age, having been through all the stages of a reasonably good life.
> 
> Congress has been remiss about the scientific fact that life starts at conception. Inhaling air is an advanced stage of post birth learning, because the little guy first had to grow lungs to the point of breathability among a million other processes that took place in its dear mother's body that was designed for that specific job and is the reason human beings are able to be the stewards of the planet, with both blessings and responsibilities.


The point missed?  The constitution does not have to contain or address a topic to make it illegal or immoral.  The US CONSITUTION is a negative document drafted and ratified by the people/states to place limits upon the power and scope of a centralized government.....not the inverse, the constitution is not a tool to be used to hit the PEOPLE/STATES over the head when something is not addressed therein.  The courts have no authority or legal right to "interpret" or change one dot or title in the wording of the constitution.........the courts only duty is to enforce the law that is clear and present and compare any new laws suggested by the states or the feds with the words that actually exist in the constitution as that constitution that is nothing more than a legal and binding contract among the states that is not subject to change, add or take away any wording void of a 75% majority ratification vote by the states representatives.  The court possesses no such right..its self professed and made up.

If the right to "self interpret" the constitution by an agent of the Federal Government exists..........show us this right that exists within the words of the U.S Constitution.  The federal court system is a part of the very government entity that is limited by the words of the Constitution no where is there a legal precedent that declares one party can change the words of a binding contract without the consent of the other party to amend that contract.  Its ridiculous the way the liberals claim to have the right to change the constitution via court decree.

  If there is no specific language in the constitution the right to make law as requested by the constituents of each state have the constitutional right to make law where the constitution is silent...........thus, the 10th amendment to the constitution.  When something is not addressed in the constitution it belongs to the people/states, not the court system in a self professed authority to legislate law from the bench.   Abortion is not addressed in our founding documents......but the right to life after CREATION is indeed addressed as being "unalienable".....i.e., non transferable to the state, court or either parent.   Marriage is not addressed, as are many different topics the PEOPLE/STATES have acted upon to make law as their citizens ratified through the process of republican "representation".

ANYONE?  Show us the language in the Constitution that gives the right to the federal court system (unelected civil servants) to interpret and change the literal meaning of the constitution void of representation from THE PEOPLE.   Again..............ANYONE?   Do not attempt show me........."wink, wink" precedent, precedent established by the same LIBERAL JUDGES and declare the constitution says this or says that.  Show me the "original" authority that grants SCOTUS the right to change the wording of the constitution by introducing language that did not exist previously in that "BINDING CONTRACT".

This "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" is self governing by THE STATES/PEOPLE......it does not belong to an elite oligarchy of bought and paid for CIVIL SERVANTS.  The right to make law is reserved expressly to the PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVES.

If Roe V. Wade can come into existence with the sound of a judges gavel.........it can be rescinded just as easy in the same manner.   If not........why not?   Slavery was once Settled Law.......until it was not,  Denying the right to vote to women and minorities was once SETTLED LAW......until it was not.  The difference?   THE PEOPLE made both ILLEGAL through amending the constitution in a legal fashion.  When the right to abort on demand becomes law through a 75% majority ratification process............it is SETTLED LAW.


----------

