BenNatuf
Limit Authority
- Thread starter
- #821
I've read it more than once, Casey too. You are the one who wants to employ arguments from the dicta, so you go fetch them, and you use them to see if you can create a logical reasonable argument for the state having any interest at all to negate a persons rights that does not involve ballancing those rights against another persons. What your asking me to do is research to argue against an argument you haven't made and in effect make your argument for you. No, make it yourself.Then go ahead and lay it out. I've made my argument and you have them to lean on. Go to Roe and Casey and find out what the interest of the state is and then explain why and how that "interest" could be used to negate a persons constitutional right. While your doing it, think on how the state could use that same or any other claimed interest to negate other rights. Then tell me how the negation squares with the idea that the government cannot infringe on your rights except in the case of a more compelling interest of another person or persons rights (real persons, not notional ones).It was all laid out in Roe. You need only refer to the court's rationale and demonstrate why it's wrong.
You claim you want to use thier argument... so do it. Don't expect me to do your homework for you. I will gladly entertain whatever you come up with.
You haven't even read Roe v. Wade?
lol
You complained I wouldn't respond to the dicta, something I never said. What I did say is it has no precedential value in the law, and it doesn't. Since this thread is about the application of the law the only relevant parts of Roe and Casey are the findings. You want to argue against that theory using opinions from the dicta of the cases... so have at it. Just remember to explain how the rationale they use relates to the government having any authority to negate a persons rights based on whatever interest they identify and how that relates to the government having no authority to infringe on the rights they allow to be infringed on.
Simple question: do you know of any other incidence that is not specifically constituionally authorized that allows the state to infringe on a persons constituional rights for any reason other than in the ballancing of those rights with the more compelling rights of another person or persons?
and another: do you know of any instance when a person has ever had thier rights negated by any interest of the state that is not based on a ballancing of rights between that person and another person or persons except for those cases where the state is specifically constituionaly empowered to do so?