Do States have the RIGHT to BAN birth control devices as Rick Santorum stated?

[Remodeling Maidiac]

RIGHT HERE:--You can watch it on video--and THEN explain to me how Rick Santorum beats Barack Obama?---

Rick Santorum: States Should Have the Right to Outlaw Contraception | Video Cafe

There is a difference in saying something can be done and actually proposing to do it you know.

And Santorum beats Obama by getting more votes. Pretty simple really.

Well--me being in Colorado can give you proof of why a Rick Santorum candidate has no possible way of defeating Barack Obama.

Midterm 2010 election--we republicans thought we had a great conservative candidate in Ken Buck to run against democrat encumbant Michael Bennet. All polls showed Buck leading--we were headed for victory--UNTIL he went on Face the Nation and made an off the wall comment about homosexuality--stating that it was like a disease--similar to alcoholism. That single statement went global on all news stations--political boards around the country. He too was against abortions even in the instances of rape or incest.

This loss was very painful because it was republicans to win. After the vote was studied--we discovered that Ken Buck had LOST the female vote in the state--including large sections of El Paso County--Colorado Springs--HOME TO FOCUS ON THE FAMILY woman vote also. Now keep in mind that Ken Buck was never against birth control.

You see--even pro-life conservative women understand abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest--and they were VOTING against the conservative in this race over that issue. Now can you possibly imagine what women across this country will be doing to Rick Santorum in November 2012?---LOL.

El Paso county is also heavily Hispanic.

Bottom line, he made a stupid comment and thus lost. Colorado is being overun with liberals so it comes as no surprise.

 

[oreo]

There is a difference in saying something can be done and actually proposing to do it you know.

And Santorum beats Obama by getting more votes. Pretty simple really.

Well--me being in Colorado can give you proof of why a Rick Santorum candidate has no possible way of defeating Barack Obama.

Midterm 2010 election--we republicans thought we had a great conservative candidate in Ken Buck to run against democrat encumbant Michael Bennet. All polls showed Buck leading--we were headed for victory--UNTIL he went on Face the Nation and made an off the wall comment about homosexuality--stating that it was like a disease--similar to alcoholism. That single statement went global on all news stations--political boards around the country. He too was against abortions even in the instances of rape or incest.

This loss was very painful because it was republicans to win. After the vote was studied--we discovered that Ken Buck had LOST the female vote in the state--including large sections of El Paso County--Colorado Springs--HOME TO FOCUS ON THE FAMILY woman vote also. Now keep in mind that Ken Buck was never against birth control.

You see--even pro-life conservative women understand abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest--and they were VOTING against the conservative in this race over that issue. Now can you possibly imagine what women across this country will be doing to Rick Santorum in November 2012?---LOL.

El Paso county is also heavily Hispanic.

Bottom line, he made a stupid comment and thus lost. Colorado is being overun with liberals so it comes as no surprise.

No El Paso county is not heavily Hispanic--but nice try anyway--- Rick Santorum's comment's are even MORE stupid. Recently referring to homosexuality as some type of beastiality.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

so the justices DIDN'T understand the 9th, but you do? lol.. seriously, mike?

The justices don't know much at all these days. You may put them on some pedestal but they are all nominated because of their political and partisan beliefs. I laugh my ass off when I read someone who thinks that the SCOTUS is some kind of impartial body, it could not get more partisan. Want proof? There is really only one justice who's decision you cannot predict on ANY court case. What does that tell you? That they are not impartial. That their politics drive every decision you they make.

Can you tell me the logic behind the 9th amendment? Can you tell me ANYTHING about the situation surrounding the ratification? Who was its biggest proponent? Who argued against it? Why weren't all of the 12 amendments drafted passed? Much less ratified?

No, you can't tell me any of that. You base your opinions on pieces written 200 years later and then you laugh at me... sad.

Mike

Hey Mike. Sorry to interrupt you lashing out and attacking Jillian. But, I just wanted to remind you that you have still haven't said how the Ninth Amendment doesn't apply here. Actually, no one has, come to think of it.

Anyway, carry on ...

 

[oreo]

Santorum wants to turn women into incubators for the Holy seed of Christ. He wants to Christianize Child berth from Washington.

He wants government to tell every state what to do.

He is no better than the liberals.

The conservatives are taking us back to the dark ages, when the Church drove science and reason under ground.

Conservatives leaders are not as religious as they claim. They are merely using Religion as populism to seduce rural America into voting values over economic interests. Conservatives are doing the work of Big Business, which wants people to be stupid and scared - and easily manipulated by frauds promising national security and moral renewal.

Santorum is going to put Washington in every bedroom. He is going to police the womb on behalf of Jesus.

This is exactly like the dark ages. And it explains why America has become the most radically religious place on earth.

Is it any wonder that we are now last in math and science, behind every other advanced industrial nation. The conservatives have won. We are superstitious and scared. We believe in Creationism. Darwin and the periodic chart are myths.

Sarah Palin referred to Santorum as a knuckle dragging Neanderthal--and she's right.

Sarah Palin calls rival 'knuckle-dragging Neanderthal' | World news | The Guardian

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well--me being in Colorado can give you proof of why a Rick Santorum candidate has no possible way of defeating Barack Obama.

Midterm 2010 election--we republicans thought we had a great conservative candidate in Ken Buck to run against democrat encumbant Michael Bennet. All polls showed Buck leading--we were headed for victory--UNTIL he went on Face the Nation and made an off the wall comment about homosexuality--stating that it was like a disease--similar to alcoholism. That single statement went global on all news stations--political boards around the country. He too was against abortions even in the instances of rape or incest.

This loss was very painful because it was republicans to win. After the vote was studied--we discovered that Ken Buck had LOST the female vote in the state--including large sections of El Paso County--Colorado Springs--HOME TO FOCUS ON THE FAMILY woman vote also. Now keep in mind that Ken Buck was never against birth control.

You see--even pro-life conservative women understand abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest--and they were VOTING against the conservative in this race over that issue. Now can you possibly imagine what women across this country will be doing to Rick Santorum in November 2012?---LOL.

El Paso county is also heavily Hispanic.

Bottom line, he made a stupid comment and thus lost. Colorado is being overun with liberals so it comes as no surprise.

No El Paso county is not heavily Hispanic--but nice try anyway--- Rick Santorum's comment's are even MORE stupid. Recently referring to homosexuality as some type of beastiality.

Yes it is. I was born and raised there. Ended up moving to woodland park to get away from the crime.

And the only thing ridiculous is your complete foaming at the mouth obsession with Santorum.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

 

[oreo]

so the justices DIDN'T understand the 9th, but you do? lol.. seriously, mike?

The justices don't know much at all these days. You may put them on some pedestal but they are all nominated because of their political and partisan beliefs. I laugh my ass off when I read someone who thinks that the SCOTUS is some kind of impartial body, it could not get more partisan. Want proof? There is really only one justice who's decision you cannot predict on ANY court case. What does that tell you? That they are not impartial. That their politics drive every decision you they make.

Can you tell me the logic behind the 9th amendment? Can you tell me ANYTHING about the situation surrounding the ratification? Who was its biggest proponent? Who argued against it? Why weren't all of the 12 amendments drafted passed? Much less ratified?

No, you can't tell me any of that. You base your opinions on pieces written 200 years later and then you laugh at me... sad.

Mike

Hey Mike. Sorry to interrupt you lashing out and attacking Jillian. But, I just wanted to remind you that you have still haven't said how the Ninth Amendment doesn't apply here. Actually, no one has, come to think of it.

Anyway, carry on ...

The 12 that have now voted stating that States do have the right to BAN birth control cannot defend themselves--that's why you're not getting any answers.

They also do not realize that this case was already settled by the U.S. Supreme court in 1965 in Griswold vs. Connecticut. States DO NOT have the RIGHT to BAN birth control contraceptives.--much to Rick Santorum's disappointment--LOL.
Griswold v. Connecticut

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

That's a slippery slope bud!

Ban my Boulevard Wheat and we got a problem.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

That's a slippery slope bud!

Ban my Boulevard Wheat and we got a problem.

heh heh not slippery at all. It's the exact same logic many of you are using.

Kinda sucks when it hits home, doesn't it?

 

[oreo]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

Maybe they'll approve of Coor's light---

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The justices don't know much at all these days. You may put them on some pedestal but they are all nominated because of their political and partisan beliefs. I laugh my ass off when I read someone who thinks that the SCOTUS is some kind of impartial body, it could not get more partisan. Want proof? There is really only one justice who's decision you cannot predict on ANY court case. What does that tell you? That they are not impartial. That their politics drive every decision you they make.

Can you tell me the logic behind the 9th amendment? Can you tell me ANYTHING about the situation surrounding the ratification? Who was its biggest proponent? Who argued against it? Why weren't all of the 12 amendments drafted passed? Much less ratified?

No, you can't tell me any of that. You base your opinions on pieces written 200 years later and then you laugh at me... sad.

Mike

Hey Mike. Sorry to interrupt you lashing out and attacking Jillian. But, I just wanted to remind you that you have still haven't said how the Ninth Amendment doesn't apply here. Actually, no one has, come to think of it.

Anyway, carry on ...

The 12 that have now voted stating that States do have the right to BAN birth control cannot defend themselves--that's why you're not getting any answers.

They also do not realize that this case was already settled by the U.S. Supreme court in 1965 in Griswold vs. Connecticut. States DO NOT have the RIGHT to BAN birth control contraceptives.--much to Rick Santorum's disappointment--LOL.
Griswold v. Connecticut

Why bother to put up a poll if all you're going to do is attack those that don't answer the way you deem to be correct?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

Maybe they'll approve of Coor's light---

Piss water.

 

[Texanmike]

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government and the State Government?

The US Constitution is silent on birth control. Therefore, according to the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, the authority to address regulation of birth control relies in the States.

I don't know what is difficult to understand about this. What part of this do you not understand? Please tell me. What is dangerous about actually following what the Constitution says?

What's difficult to understand is your utter and total ignoring of the Ninth Amendment. Do you just not know what it means?

The ninth Amendment essentially means that the fact that because rights are given in the Constitution does not mean that there are others that do not exist. Read what Wilson (1793) said about its inclusion (one of the major influences on the BoR). The concern was that by restricting the federal government with (for example) the first amendment might imply that the federal government would naturally have the authority to infringe on those rights. Wilson was a driving force behind the 9th amendment so as to ensure that the inclusion of the first amendment did not imply that the federal government would have had jurisdiction over those rights in absence of the first amendment. It doesn't grant any specific rights to anyone and even the most ambitious courts have avoided using it as a basis for a court case decision.

Mike

 

[grunt11b]

Anything not in the constitution is left to the states and then to the people. So yes, the states have that right. Nothing in the constitution gives anybody a right to birth control.

 

[Texanmike]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

You have it right.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

so the justices DIDN'T understand the 9th, but you do? lol.. seriously, mike?

The justices don't know much at all these days. You may put them on some pedestal but they are all nominated because of their political and partisan beliefs. I laugh my ass off when I read someone who thinks that the SCOTUS is some kind of impartial body, it could not get more partisan. Want proof? There is really only one justice who's decision you cannot predict on ANY court case. What does that tell you? That they are not impartial. That their politics drive every decision you they make.

Can you tell me the logic behind the 9th amendment? Can you tell me ANYTHING about the situation surrounding the ratification? Who was its biggest proponent? Who argued against it? Why weren't all of the 12 amendments drafted passed? Much less ratified?

No, you can't tell me any of that. You base your opinions on pieces written 200 years later and then you laugh at me... sad.

Mike

Hey Mike. Sorry to interrupt you lashing out and attacking Jillian. But, I just wanted to remind you that you have still haven't said how the Ninth Amendment doesn't apply here. Actually, no one has, come to think of it.

Anyway, carry on ...

I was not lashing out at her. I was lashing out at anyone who is so rigidly married to their ideology that they cannot let others live under a government that suits them.

Anyway, you have your answer.

Mike

 

[grunt11b]

Why couldn't they?

We have a right to bear arms, but federal, state and local governments have banned assault weapons, handguns, suppressors, magazines with a capacity of more than 10, shotguns that hold more than 2 rounds.

So what would keep STATES from banning anything.

Griswold says that you cannot make it illegal to USE contraception...it doesn't say it makes it illegal to ban the sale of contraception...or tax the crap out of it, like cigarettes and alcohol.

What would stop them?

This is the problem with big government...what's to stop them?

It's very difficult to get behind a candidate that doesn't even understand BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS--isn't it?

Does human rights apply to the constitution of the united states of America as far as law goes? No it does not. Human rights is a made up category of agenda driven initiatives that individuals would like to impose on the population that they cannot pass through constitutional law and instead try to circumvent the constitution by saying it is a HUMAN right, when no right clearly exists.

 

[DontBeStupid]

It doesn't grant any specific rights to anyone

None of the Bill of Rights do. Which is odd you would say that, since you're the big Constitutional expert and all, right?

 

[grunt11b]

what? so having birth control is now a basic human right?

Human rights involve the PRIVACY of what goes on between a husband and wife--& their human right to how they institute family planning. Their human right to make a decision on how many children they have, etc.

The FEDERAL or STATE government has no business in their bedrooms--but Santorum thinks they do--LOL.

This human right that you speak of, is NOT in the constitution, but yet you so firmly believe in it. Let me ask you this, being that the 2nd amendment of the constitution DOES guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, shouldn't the government be buying every citizen a colt 1911?

 

[grunt11b]

Lets re-cap.

According to the "conservatives" posting here, because the Federal Constitution does not specifically mention Pringles and Bud Light, any State has the right to ban all sales of Pringles and Bud light.

You guys should run on that. Really.

technically they could. If you wish to have the constitution amended, by all means amend it. Until then, we will hold to the law.
If it's not in the constitution it should be left to the people to vote on to make it law, kinda like we seen in California with gay marriage that an activist judge just reversed against the peoples will. If anything in that case was unconstitutional, it was the judge intervening with the peoples will, not the marriage ban itself which the people voted for.