Kavanaugh Asks if Texas Abortion Law Could Be Model for Bans on Gun Rights

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shall not be infringed is pretty damn clear.

Not unlimited is pretty damn clear:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absolutely.
The mother has the superior jurisdiction over anyone else.
If the mothers instincts aren't enough, no one else has anything better.
If a mother wants to murder her children, so be it.
The reality is that anyone else who claims otherwise is just a hypocrite.
There are thousands of infants dying due to poverty in the US every year, because no one cares.

Provide a link to prove the claim thousands of children die every year in the US due to poverty.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Not unlimited is pretty damn clear:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Where are the limits in the 2nd Amendment ? Instead of making up shit why don't you loons do this the legal way. Call for a Constitutional Convention to add your except for clauses.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it say the right is ‘unlimited’ and not subject to regulations and restrictions.

“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

It could not be any clearer than that.

 

[Abatis]

Not unlimited is pretty damn clear:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Yeah, I remember Heller saying that but I must ask, does your understanding of, "the Second Amendment right is not unlimited", mean that the power of Congress is unlimited?

Do you argue the right can be limited whenever and however a legislature desires?

See, I remember Heller saying:

• "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

and I remember Heller quoting Rawle's explanation of the 2nd Amendment's restrictive clause:

• "The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. . . "

I remember Heller warning modern judges and legislators against engaging in an endless reassessment of the value of the right to arms in modern society;

• "The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."

And I remember Heller doubling down on that theme . . . and this can only be taken as SCOTUS speaking directly to "the legislature" and its LIMITED power to dictate to the people what arms they are allowed to possess and use:

• "But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

So, what exactly are you trying to convey with your harping on "not unlimited", is that your only take-away from Heller?

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, as originally intended by Framers, and as codified in Article VI of the Constitution.

And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.
Why do you never mention this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Correct.

If the Supreme Court holds that there is an individual right to possess a firearm in the Constitution, then there likewise exists a right to privacy, as held by the Supreme Court.

And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban is constitutional.
Why do you never mention this?

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie.
Abortion is not ‘murder.’

And yet, you believe the TX abortion ban in constitutional.
This means an abortion in TX past 6 weeks can indeed be murder.
Why do you never mention this?

 

[JoeB131]

A 2 year old can't live outside the mothers body either........without care.....so we can now kill them too?

Point is, they don't need to be attached to someone to keep living, unlike a fetus.

Now, I think we should take every aborted fetus and put it inside a rightwinger instead, just line up. We also need to find a way for men to carry them to term...

 

[JoeB131]

“…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

It could not be any clearer than that.

Then why do you leave half the words out, if it's so clear? I think the part about WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS would prove that the Founding Slave Rapists never intended it to be an unlimited right.

They certainly didn't want black people to have guns... Sally Hemmings might have decided she was sick and tired of Tommy Jefferson raping her.

Oh, Jefferson started raping Sally Hemmings when she was 15. But thank God he's not Roman Polanski!!!

 

[2aguy]

Then why do you leave half the words out, if it's so clear? I think the part about WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS would prove that the Founding Slave Rapists never intended it to be an unlimited right.

They certainly didn't want black people to have guns... Sally Hemmings might have decided she was sick and tired of Tommy Jefferson raping her.

Oh, Jefferson started raping Sally Hemmings when she was 15. But thank God he's not Roman Polanski!!!

the Founding Slave Rapists

Moron....you proudly admit you vote for the democrat party, the political party created by actual slave rapists...who started the Civil War so they could keep raping their slaves........are you really this stupid?

 

[JoeB131]

the Founding Slave Rapists

Moron....you proudly admit you vote for the democrat party, the political party created by actual slave rapists...who started the Civil War so they could keep raping their slaves........are you really this stupid?

There was no Democratic Party in 1776.

They should have explained this to you in Home School....

There were no political parties in the Confederacy, either.

 

[Leviticus]

abortion is a constitutional right?

Yes. There are several rights that were not originally part of the constitution but were rules as rights by the Supreme Court. Interpreting the constitution when there is a dispute is literally the only job SCOTUS has under the Constitution.

 

[Leviticus]

I dont think conservatives will be satisfied until we go full Irish, and ban all abortions in all circumstances. Irish doctors have literally let woman die, from miscarriages when they knew terminating the pregnancy would save them.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I dont [sic] think conservatives will be satisfied until we go full Irish, and ban all abortions in all circumstances. Irish doctors have literally let woman die, from miscarriages when they knew terminating the pregnancy would save them.

Since the Roe vs. Wade decision, over sixty million innocent American children have been killed in cold blood, via abortion.

That's an awful lot of blood on the hands of murderous filth such as yourself, who defend this savage practice. In their time, the Nazis didn't come anywhere close to this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. There are several rights that were not originally part of the constitution but were rules as rights by the Supreme Court. Interpreting the constitution when there is a dispute is literally the only job SCOTUS has under the Constitution.

Except its not.
Most USSC decisions - and NONE of them, prior to Marbury - do not deal with the constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.

The Texas solicitor general acknowledged the possibility but said Congress could pass laws to protect such rights. Kavanaugh seemed wary of such intervention.

"Some of those examples, I think, would be quite difficult to get legislation through Congress," Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh Poses Possibility That Texas Abortion Law Can Apply to Gun Rights

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court Monday that "no constitutional right is safe" if the Texas law is allowed to stand.

www.newsweek.com

So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

I did not see this coming. Did you?

I don't think it could legitimately, but we all know how much our so-called legal system cares about respecting the letter and spirit of the law.

 

[Flash]

Justice Brett Kavanaugh floated the possibility of Texas's abortion law becoming a model for states to restrict other constitutional rights, such as gun rights under the Second Amendment.

The associate justice, appointed by former President Donald Trump, specifically posed a theoretical law that would allow the seller of an AR-15 semi-automatic weapon to be sued for $1 million.

The Texas solicitor general acknowledged the possibility but said Congress could pass laws to protect such rights. Kavanaugh seemed wary of such intervention.

"Some of those examples, I think, would be quite difficult to get legislation through Congress," Kavanaugh said.

Kavanaugh Poses Possibility That Texas Abortion Law Can Apply to Gun Rights

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the Supreme Court Monday that "no constitutional right is safe" if the Texas law is allowed to stand.

www.newsweek.com

So you could use a Texas abortion style law to restrict guns in California? It gets around the Constitution.

I did not see this coming. Did you?

There is NO Constitutional right to kill a child.

There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

These stupid uneducated Moon Bats don't know any more about the Constitution than they know about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science or Ethics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No. Cars are much more needed then guns. I do oppose motorcycles -- accident death rate 30 times higher then cars.

You do know there's a difference between "used more often" and "more needed", right? Tylenol is used far more often than chemotherapy drugs are, but does that mean Tylenol is "more needed" than chemo?

 

[JoeB131]

Since the Roe vs. Wade decision, over sixty million innocent American children have been killed in cold blood, via abortion.

That's an awful lot of blood on the hands of murderous filth such as yourself, who defend this savage practice. In their time, the Nazis didn't come anywhere close to this.

Mormon Bob, there were just as many abortions going on before Roe as after Roe. Women would go to their OB?GYN, he'd perform the abortion and write something else on the chart.

Take a look at birth figures for 1973 and onward. The birth rate actually INCREASED, it didn't drop.

You seem to keep ignoring the fact that no one is driving around in trucks, snatching women off the street and making them get abortions.

Instead, women are making appointments, going to the clinic, getting their little problem taken care of, and getting on with their lives.

If you were serious about less of them doing that, then support paid family leave, universal health care, comprehensive sex education and availability of contraception.