Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[NYcarbineer]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

 

[kaz]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

She should, which is why I'm pro-choice

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

I can't answer "wouldn't," but it "isn't" because it's not in the Constitution, which means that there is no Federal authority for ANY position on abortion, pro or con. If you want it there, you have to add it, not parse words.

BTW, "privacy" is always an argument I find amusing by the left. The guarantee to privacy is very strong in the Constitution, it's the 10th amendment. The Federal government can't do what it's not authorized to do. That's a heavy restriction on violating our privacy. Problem is for liberals you want it (except when you don't) and following the 10th would be risky for all the other things you want but aren't there. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Obamacare. So rather than relying on the real privacy, you make it up as a separate right.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

 

[kaz]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

Whether she has the right to her body or her baby does is State law. The Federal government has no say that she does or doesn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states' powers are not limited by the tenth (10th) amendment to the constitution.

Read that 10 times and come back when you understand the 10th amendment to the constitution.

You are confusing current law with respect to portions of the civil war amendments and the tenth amendment. Which means you don't know what the republic was about when it was formed.

Yes they are limited by the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states specifically what powers the states have and don't have.

By stating what powers the states do not have, the 10th amendment is setting limits.

I'm gonna guess you don't even know what the word specific means.

The 10th amendment specifies 'powers not delegated to the federal government' and 'powers not prohibited by the Constitution'.

Those are the two specific categories of limitations.

It's like telling your kid he can go hang out with his friends, but he has to be home by 10.

See? You've given him the 'power' to do something or things, but you've placed a limitation on it.

btw the 10 amendment is effectively superfluous. It merely restates in a summary what the Constitution in sum total does without saying so.

 

[RKMBrown]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

She should, which is why I'm pro-choice

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

I can't answer "wouldn't," but it "isn't" because it's not in the Constitution, which means that there is no Federal authority for ANY position on abortion, pro or con. If you want it there, you have to add it, not parse words.

BTW, "privacy" is always an argument I find amusing by the left. The guarantee to privacy is very strong in the Constitution, it's the 10th amendment. The Federal government can't do what it's not authorized to do. That's a heavy restriction on violating our privacy. Problem is for liberals you want it (except when you don't) and following the 10th would be risky for all the other things you want but aren't there. Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, Obamacare. So rather than relying on the real privacy, you make it up as a separate right.

Do you agree with the modern liberal view that "viable" babies are protected by due process? Or does the right to choose, in your view, extend to all children that are not yet eligible to vote?

For me, I like using brain waves and heart beat as a means to measure whether we are alive or not. If alive, I'd appreciate not being shut off. Esp. not if I have a full life ahead of me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just a few off the top of my head include that the Federal government has a say in abortion, that private land can be confiscated for non-public use, that discrimination is OK if it's "reverse" discrimination, that the Federal government can ban drugs and commit major atrocities on our privacy with no warrant to go after them, that government has the Constitutional authority to control our health care system, that government can regulate political speech going into elections, that non-US citizens not in the United States have Constitutional rights and that foreign law has weight in the American Judicial system.

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yes they are limited by the 10th amendment. The 10th amendment states specifically what powers the states have and don't have.

By stating what powers the states do not have, the 10th amendment is setting limits.

I'm gonna guess you don't even know what the word specific means.

The 10th amendment specifies 'powers not delegated to the federal government' and 'powers not prohibited by the Constitution'.

Those are the two specific categories of limitations.

It's like telling your kid he can go hang out with his friends, but he has to be home by 10.

See? You've given him the 'power' to do something or things, but you've placed a limitation on it.

btw the 10 amendment is effectively superfluous. It merely restates in a summary what the Constitution in sum total does without saying so.

You are getting warmer.... but you are still off. The part you are missing is that the 10th means, in part, that we live in a republic where an infinite number of powers that are not explicitly relegated to the federal government are in fact relegated to the states or the people.

 

[kaz]

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

So is rejecting them. The Constitution does not address abortion or when life begins. Therefore, the Federal government has NO authority to say ANYTHING about abortion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

Whether she has the right to her body or her baby does is State law. The Federal government has no say that she does or doesn't.

The Federal government has the authority to protect the right she does have, which is privacy. She has a right to property as well, and her body is her property.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Equal protection has been cited in every anti-gay marriage case that has come before a court...including the SCOTUS.

And?

It just seems rather short sighted to state that the equal protection of gays and lesbians isn't being violated when court after court disagrees with your assessment.

It’s not only short-sighted, it’s just fundamentally wrong.

 

[Contumacious]

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

Whether she has the right to her body or her baby does is State law. The Federal government has no say that she does or doesn't.

Neither do the states. Her reproductive rights are protected by the NINTH AMENDMENT.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm gonna guess you don't even know what the word specific means.

The 10th amendment specifies 'powers not delegated to the federal government' and 'powers not prohibited by the Constitution'.

Those are the two specific categories of limitations.

It's like telling your kid he can go hang out with his friends, but he has to be home by 10.

See? You've given him the 'power' to do something or things, but you've placed a limitation on it.

btw the 10 amendment is effectively superfluous. It merely restates in a summary what the Constitution in sum total does without saying so.

You are getting warmer.... but you are still off. The part you are missing is that the 10th means, in part, that we live in a republic where an infinite number of powers that are not explicitly relegated to the federal government are in fact relegated to the states or the people.

No, you're getting warmer.

 

[kaz]

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

Whether she has the right to her body or her baby does is State law. The Federal government has no say that she does or doesn't.

The Federal government has the authority to protect the right she does have, which is privacy. She has a right to property as well, and her body is her property.

People have the right to have privacy from the Federal government other than those specific things the Federal government is authorized to do. That government can enforce your arbitrary definition of "privacy" on States or others is nowhere to be found.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

Whether she has the right to her body or her baby does is State law. The Federal government has no say that she does or doesn't.

But the Federal Constitution does.

All the states are subject to the Constitution; the states have no ‘right’ to violate their residents’ civil liberties, including the right to privacy.

Once again we see the ignorance and hypocrisy of the right, where conservatives decry the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government, yet endorse the tyranny of state and local governments.

 

[The Rabbi]

Why wouldn't a woman wanting an abortion have a right to privacy between her and her physician?

Why wouldn't that be constitutionally protected?

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

It isnt a question of whether the fetus has rights or not. It is a question of whether the mother can murder the infant or not. Generally speaking murder is frowned on, or should be.

 

[The Rabbi]

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

Whether she has the right to her body or her baby does is State law. The Federal government has no say that she does or doesn't.

But the Federal Constitution does.

All the states are subject to the Constitution; the states have no ‘right’ to violate their residents’ civil liberties, including the right to privacy.

Once again we see the ignorance and hypocrisy of the right, where conservatives decry the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government, yet endorse the tyranny of state and local governments.

Which section of the Constitution says that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

So is rejecting them. The Constitution does not address abortion or when life begins. Therefore, the Federal government has NO authority to say ANYTHING about abortion.

Unless the fetus has constitutional rights as a person, face the facts, an abortion then is no differently materially than an appendectomy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She has a right to privacy between her and her doctor. She does not have the right to kill her unborn child. Except the SC created one from the "shandows and penumbras of the Constitution."

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

It isnt a question of whether the fetus has rights or not. It is a question of whether the mother can murder the infant or not. Generally speaking murder is frowned on, or should be.

It can't BE murder if the fetus is not a person.

 

[The Rabbi]

The unborn have no personhood rights in the Constitution. Inventing rights for fetuses is really a good example of legislating from the bench.

It isnt a question of whether the fetus has rights or not. It is a question of whether the mother can murder the infant or not. Generally speaking murder is frowned on, or should be.

It can't BE murder if the fetus is not a person.

True. The fetus can be a person without constitutional rights. As the Declaration says, Endowed by their Creator. The fetus is certainly a creation. Perhaps rights accrue at birth.