A question for the anti-choice crowd.

[Witchit]

Oh, wouldja look at that. I'm allergic to male stupidity.I just went cross-eyed! Couldn't see a word you were saying.

#brightblessings

 

[P@triot]

Typical of any woman who knows that what happens in HER body is none of YOUR business.

If you really want to bring this "her body" false narrative into reality - then let's pass a law making it mandatory that whatever is done to the fetus must be done to the women carrying it (so "her body" is actually involved as you falsely claim). If the baby's skull is caved in, the woman's skull must be caved in. If the baby's arm is vacuumed off, the woman's arm must be vacuumed off as well.

When it is actually "her body" I will absolutely get my nose out of it. But watch abortions completely disappear over night when that happens. You know why - because right now nothing happens to the woman's body. Instead it is another human being entirely which is tortured and murdered.

 

[P@triot]

Oh, wouldja look at that. I'm allergic to male stupidity.I just went cross-eyed! Couldn't see a word you were saying.

#brightblessings

Yes...but you certainly embrace female stupidity. And you certainly know when to turn tail and run like hell when facts leave you no leg to stand on in your insane and absurd position!

 

[Czernobog]

Until a fetus is viable, it is not a person, and abortion should be between a woman, and her doctor. If you agree that, prior to viability (second trimester), an abortion is the personal choice of a woman, and her doctor, then you are pro-choice, and why are you arguing?

That is astounding and appalling sexism. An abortion should be between a woman and her doctor?!? A person not even involved in the creation of the child?!? As a man - why do I have no say over someone murdering my baby?

If you're going to support abortion - you should at least have the basic fucking decency to recognize the father in the decision process. Only a liberal would place a fucking doctor above the father.

That is of course up to the woman. Not required. Optional.

That of course is astoundingly ignorant. Typical of liberals.

Typical of any woman who knows that what happens in HER body is none of YOUR business.

It's not "her" body sweetie. It's the body of the baby. When she has an abortion - is she killed or is the baby killed? When she has an abortion, is her skull caved in or is the baby's skull caved in? When she has an abortion, is her arm vacuumed off or is the baby's arm vacuumed off?

Oops.....thanks for play hon.

Its not a baby, sweetie. It is a non-viable fetus; property, insider her body, and she has every right to say, "get it out." The idea of "killing" it bothers you so much? Fine. You carry it. We'll transfer it from her body to yours. No? Then shut the fuck up. She gets to do with her own damn body what she wants, including what invasive growth does, or does not, feed off of her.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Chuz Life]

I dont have the need to convince you of anything. You are not between myself and where this issue is going. Every member of this site could completely agree on every aspect of the abortion issue and it would not change ANYTHING with regard to the legality and future Supreme Court decisions.

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

So am I. Maybe, then, we can finally see those badly written, irrational laws struck down. I wish someone would have the balls to challenge those very laws.

They have already been challenged several times. Didn't you see the link I provided earlier? So far, the SCOTUS HAS REFUSE to take up any of the challenges for Consideration.

Refusing to take up the challenge is not the same as upholding the Constitutionality. Sorry.

By not taking up the chance to overturn any of the MURDER convictions under any of our Fetal Homicide Laws, the SCOTUS is too "upholding" (siding with) the Constitutionality of the lower courts decisions in those cases. Maybe you can explain why would the SCOTUS decline the chance to overturn an (in your opinion) Un-Constitutional law.

So, let's hear it.

 

[Chuz Life]

The ruling yesterday reaffirmed the fact that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Liar.

Not even the Supreme Court's ruling in the Roe v Wade decision supports your claim here.

" The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision." ~ Roe v Wade

So, even according to the Roe Decision, the question is not about the State's (governments) right to protect the the life of a child in the womb. . . it's a matter of when there is a compelling enough reason for the Government to do so.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. I'm not. You are irrelevant. The Supreme Court proved that, yesterday. You are just a tiny little voice whispering out of a fading history.

Buh bye.

Do you care to predict what the scotus is going to do when they finally take on a case that pits a murder conviction under a fetal homicide law against the courts own prior rulings in Roe?

Man how I am looking forward to that day.

So am I. Maybe, then, we can finally see those badly written, irrational laws struck down. I wish someone would have the balls to challenge those very laws.

They have already been challenged several times. Didn't you see the link I provided earlier? So far, the SCOTUS HAS REFUSE to take up any of the challenges for Consideration.

Refusing to take up the challenge is not the same as upholding the Constitutionality. Sorry.

By not taking up the chance to overturn any of the MURDER convictions under any of our Fetal Homicide Laws, the SCOTUS is too "upholding" (siding with) the Constitutionality of the lower courts decisions in those cases. Maybe you can explain why would the SCOTUS decline the chance to overturn an (in your opinion) Un-Constitutional law.

So, let's hear it.

Because they were ruled by justices with conservative agendas. Once that problem is fixed, you're gonna see the court taking up a lot of cases your cfake conservative fascists wished they wouldn't.

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

 

[Czernobog]

The ruling yesterday reaffirmed the fact that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Liar.

Not even the Supreme Court's ruling in the Roe v Wade decision supports your claim here.

" The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision." ~ Roe v Wade

So, even according to the Roe Decision, the question is not about the State's (governments) right to protect the the life of a child in the womb. . . it's a matter of when there is a compelling enough reason for the Government to do so.

And the Court clearly ruled that restricting access to abortion clinics is not a compelling reason for the state to interfere.

 

[Chuz Life]

An aborted child is just as born as is any other. They are simply "born" into the hands of their killers.

You really aren't too bright, are you? You are obsessed with "giving birth" and nothing more. If you really cared about the fetus you wouldn't belong to a party that wants to take Welfare, Snaps, Obamacare away from the poor. You are nothing more than a hypocrite unless you would rather admit that you're just not smart enough to make the connection.

Simple Definition of born

• : brought into life by the process of birth
  
  
• : brought into existence

Simple is right. Overly simplified, actually.

However, just for fun and using the definition that you think is so profound, let's consider when the child (a new human being) in the womb actually begins, originates, and first "comes into existence" -

shall we?

What moment / biological event do you suppose that would be?

 

[Chuz Life]

Listen, dullard, I never claimed that they were already making a comparison between a live delivery and an abortion. Did I.

You said I should "ask a Dr." and I said "let's ask these guys." Given they are / were BOTH abortionists and given what they do say in their videos. . . I have every reason to conclude that they would have no problem noting the many things that an abortion and a live birth have in common.

Listen retard, when I said, try asking a doctor if an abortion is the same as a c-section, you posted your retarded videos, and said, "Let's ask these doctors", implying that the videos would demonstrate them supporting your retarded position that a c-section is just like an abortion.

They didn't.

Your post remains the day's most retarded post.

Now, why don't you go back into your corner, and wipe the drool off your face.

Your selective reading and comprehension explains why you have earned your favorite seat on the short bus.

The only implication was that thise two abortionists would likely agree with me that an abortion is comparable to a "birth" based on their brutal honesty about the fact that abortions do kill children and how they are performed.

Well, congratulations on continuing to be a presumptive retard, since there was noting in that video to suggest that either of those doctors was as retarded as you, and do not understand that a c-section, and an abortion are entirely different procedures.

So, yes, you could ask those doctors if a c-section is the same as an abortion, and they would ell you that your question is retarded.

Now, crawl back into your corner, and clean the drool off your face.

I'll take the bet on any given day that any doctor worth their salt will agree that the surgical delivery of a child from a womb (in an abortion) is comparable to any other surgical removal of a child from a womb (birth).

In either case, the woman could be the same, the child yhe same and the doctor doing the procedure could be the same.

The only real difference is the intended outcome.

An aborted child is just as born as is any other. They are simply "born" into the hands of their killers.

I'll take that bet, because the medical definition of an abortion is not "the surgical delivery of a child from the womb"

Abortion: In medicine, an abortion is the premature exit of the products of conception (the fetus, fetal membranes, and placenta) from the uterus.

Abortion has nothing to do with birth - via caesarian section, or otherwise.

Feel free to go back to your corner, and continue drooling on yourself.

A premature exit (birth) is still a birth. Just as any other.

My own daughter for example was over 6 weeks premature.

By the strict adherence to your definition, was she aborted or was she "born?"

 

[Chuz Life]

the fact that abortions do kill children and how they are performed.

Abortions do not kill "children" - so quit lying.

Fetuses are not children. Fetuses are still attached to the mother and therefore part of her body.

As we can see, your denials have already been refuted by and defeated by our many Fetal Homicide Laws passed since Roe v Wade.

(C) If the person engaging in the conduct thereby intentionally kills or attempts to kill the unborn child, that person shall instead of being punished under subparagraph (A), be punished as provided under sections1111 (Murder), 1112 (Manslaughter), and 1113 (attempt Murder) of this title for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being.

(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at ANY stage of development, who is carried in the womb.

Answer this question: If a doctor tells the mother that it is either her or the fetus because carrying it will kill her, do you still believe she should be able to choose to have an abortion

Obviously, if the woman dies then they both die.

I support laws that require Doctors to do all they can to save and to preserve all the human lives they are presented with.

That said, many times a life is lost despite their efforts and I can accept that. Can't you?

or are you one of those who thinks it's tough shit for her and she shouldn't have an abortion?

If you are asking (despite my belief that personhood begins at conception) whether an abortion to save the life of the mother can be legally and/ or Constitutionally justified? My answer is Yes.

Reason: (Just for the moment, let's ignore the fact that if the mother dies, the child will likely die as well) And, Let's assume that a child in the womb is already fully recognized as a human being / person with all the Constitutional rights that any other "person" has.

Does that child / person have the Constitutional right to maim or to kill their mother any more than any other "person" would have?

Does a pregnant woman completely surrender her Constitutional right to defend herself against the child (person) she carries for the duration of the pregnancy?

My answer is NO. to both questions.

So, in medical situations (like my own wife and myself faced) an abortion CAN be legally Constitutionally justified - even if the child is completely recognized as a person.

This is not significantly different from any other act of self defense defense where the perceived threat to life is another "person." Rapists, muggers and thieves are "persons" and our right to defend ourselves is not only limited to acts against the likes of them.

That said, the woman DOES compromise her own rights to SOME extent - when she INVITES another person into her body and when she creates the physical relationship (with the help of her partner) that put the child (person) in her body in the first place. That is why I support laws that REQUIRE doctors to do everything they CAN do (within reason) to preserve all of the lives they are presented with.

Now, let's see how much you are going to try to distort and twist my views on this like you desperate fucks tend to so.

Shall we?

 

[Chuz Life]

The ruling yesterday reaffirmed the fact that government has no authority to compel a woman to give birth against her will.

Liar.

Not even the Supreme Court's ruling in the Roe v Wade decision supports your claim here.

" The [p154] Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision." ~ Roe v Wade

So, even according to the Roe Decision, the question is not about the State's (governments) right to protect the the life of a child in the womb. . . it's a matter of when there is a compelling enough reason for the Government to do so.

And the Court clearly ruled that restricting access to abortion clinics is not a compelling reason for the state to interfere.

Your fucking ignorance is showing again (as if it ever ended.)

Quote the language in the courts ruling that supports your claim above.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

 

[Czernobog]

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.

That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?

 

[Czernobog]

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.

That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?

Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.

That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?

Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.

Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.

Right?

 

[Czernobog]

Why do you think they haven't taken up any of the cases, and simply ruled on them, in order to put to rest any question of the laws' constitutionality?

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.

That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?

Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.

Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.

Right?

No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.

While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.

Now, admittedly, Constitutional scholars have condemned the ruling, but it was the law of the land.

You may not like the ruling of Loving v Virginia, but that does not change the fact that the Supreme Court is, by constitutional decree, the final authority on the constitutionality of any federal, or state law.
For instance, you would agree, would you not, that corporations have constitutional "personhood" in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court, in spiute of many of the citizens of this nation disagreeing?

I may not have liked the ruling of Citizens United, however, it is the Court that had the authority to determine the constitutionality of the issue.

It also does not alter the fact that constitutionality is determined by ruling, not by refusing to hear a case.

 

[Chuz Life]

When the SCOTUS can do exactly that by simply letting the lower courts rulings stand. . . why waste the time, energy and money with being redundant? The court is under no pressure to do so.

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.

That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?

Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.

Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.

Right?

No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.

While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.

US History - the Dred Scott case

• The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
• The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
  
  

 

[Chuz Life]

That does no such thing. Choosing to not hear a case is not the same thing as ruling a law as Constitutional. The Supreme Court chose 26 times to pass on similar cases prior to Loving v. Virginia. Does that mean that the Court ruled 26 times that the laws prohibiting interracial marriage were constitutional. Clearly not. They simply chose to not take up the issue, and make a ruling either way.

The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a law in only one way - by issuing a ruling. Cowardly choosing to avoid the issue is just that - avoiding the issue.

You assume (I think ignorantly) that the Loving v Virginia decision was itself a Constitutional ruling. I don't agree that it necessarily was. And for the record, I am in an interracial marriage myself. So, I am not saying that "interracial marriages" are NOT Constitutional or "should be" banned. However, I am saying that the States (government) does or SHOULD have the right to define marriage as it sees fit for society and the Loving v Virginia ruling took that Constitutional right away from the States.

That said, using YOUR logic... when the SCOTUS finally overturns Roe v Wade on the basis that it UnConstitutionally denies 14th Amendment rights to the children aborted. . . we can say that we were right all along about the UnConstitutionality about Roe. Can't we?

Unfortunately, for you, you are not the one who gets to make that determination. That would be the Supreme Court. And they do that, as with the case of Loving v Virginia, by ruling on, not by passing on, cases.

Just to be clear, we are talking about the same Supreme Court that once ruled that SLAVERY was legal and Constitutional.

Right?

No, we're not. The Dred Scott case did not, per ce, rule that slavery was constitutional; only that, under the statutes allowing slavery, that slaves were not Unites States citizens, and had no standing to pursue suit in US courts.

While the ruling was distasteful, it was not incorrect. It was why the 14th amendment was necessary.

US History - the Dred Scott case

• The Court also ruled that Congress never had the right to prohibit slavery in any territory. Any ban on slavery was a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibited denying property rights without due process of law.
• The Missouri Compromise was therefore unconstitutional.
  
  See the underlined? Tell us again how they were not ruling that Slavery was Constitutional