Law professor: Slippery slope to legal incest and polygamy

[RKMBrown]

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.

Just an appendectomy?
34 week premature baby:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Nonsense.

It can be found right here:

The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

and here:

The Equal Protection Clause of [the Fourteenth Amendment denies] to States the power to legislate that different treatment be accorded to persons placed by a statute into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of that statute. A classification `must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation, so that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.' Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920)."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

as well as here:

In order to reconcile the Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied equal protection with the practical reality that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, the Court has stated that it will uphold a law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end.

We must conclude that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violates the Equal Protection Clause, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Colorado is affirmed.

Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al., 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Again, the Ninth



Term: 1960-19691964

Location: Planned Parenthood Birth Control Clinic


Facts of the Case



Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.


Question



Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?


Argument

Griswold v. Connecticut -



Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Griswold, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

A little knowledge is an absurd thing.

That you cannot offer even a single sentence's worth of substantive rebuttal to what I said simply strengthens my argument.

Your post has been so thoroughly rebutted anything he added to it would be redundant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It means that what the constitution prohibited of the states before the 10th Amendment (like requiring religious tests) or after it (like the prohibition upon unequal treatment before the law in the 14th Amendment) the states have no right to do.

Not it doesn't, the phrase is "prohibited by it to the States." That is clearly referring to things like slavery, which the Constitution specifically made a state issue. The Civil War effectively invalidated that small portion of the 10th Amendment and expanded the power of the federal government, but the restrictions still apply only the the feds.

Prohibited by the Constitution, means just that.

Let me rephrase the pertinent section of the amendment for the idiots.

...(N)or reserved by the Constitution for the States.

I am sure this will not be enough for you, but it might help the one person in the universe who thinks you are right.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

Again, the Ninth



Term: 1960-19691964

Location: Planned Parenthood Birth Control Clinic


Facts of the Case



Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.


Question



Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?


Argument

Griswold v. Connecticut -



Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Griswold, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process


Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void

OK, so you're a living document kind of guy who thinks the Constitution means whatever we need it to mean.
Got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 10th amendment contains 2 provisions for which powers are granted to the States:

1. Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and,

2. Nor prohibited by it to the States.

The 'it' above refers to the Constitution. If the Constitution prohibits the States from having a power,

then they don't get that power. Passing any unconstitutional law would fall under that prohibition.

States cannot for example ban personal ownership of firearms, because the Constitution prohibits states from having the power to do that, because the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional protection against such a ban,

the 10th Amendment and 'states' rights' notwithstanding.

That almost makes sense, if I start with the assumption that the Constitution was written by morons.

Why would the 10the Amendment talk about limits on the federal government for 11 words, diverge to talking about the states for 7 words, then finish off with 10 more words talking about limits on the federal government, just to make it possible for you to make a stupid statement?

The phrase is clearly talking about powers that are probated to the states, not from them.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The first two conditions in the 10th Amendment are limits on the States' power.

1. Powers NOT delegated to the US. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that ARE delegated to the federal government OUT of those reserved for the States.

2. Prohibited by the Constitution to the States. That limits the States' powers by removing all powers that the Constitution prohibits the States from having.

You are trying to tell me that the powers prohibited to the states are reserved to the states, that must be really confusing if you believe that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not degradation of society if it's not perversion. Homosexuality is not perversion.

Old people typically have a hard head around things like that, but that's been common throughout all of history. You're not unique, in your lack of pragmatism. Society will continue on, just fine.

Define perversion in such a way that it actually excludes things that are not normal. Until then you are full of shit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's not degradation of society if it's not perversion. Homosexuality is not perversion.

Old people typically have a hard head around things like that, but that's been common throughout all of history. You're not unique, in your lack of pragmatism. Society will continue on, just fine.

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

Well the homos have a problem. Until the 1970s homosexuality was classed as a disease. It changed only because the fags took over a meeting of the AMA and threatened everyone. So it's not a disease, it's a choice. But if it's a choice, then they can choose not to do it. So why don't they? If they have no power over it, then it really is a disease and needs a cure.
One of the many conundrums of "gay" life.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

Same as above though. While life might not be fair LAW should always be applied equally. It is not a matter of fair. It is a matter of the equal application of law.

We try to give people a 'fair trial'. That is very commonly used expression. Are you and kaz now trying to argue that we shouldn't?

That depends on what you mean by fair trial. According to the Supreme Court a fair trial means that everyone that broke the rules did so without really making a difference. They also say it doesn't matter if a person is actually guilty once they get a fair trial. In other words, it doesn't matter if the prosecutor had proof the guy was innocent because he got a confession from someone else as long as he followed the rules and hid the confession in thousands of pages of documents he gave the defense the day before the trial.

I don't like that definition of fair.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Please explain how you will be forced to pay for gay marriages. For that matter please explain how you think you paid for my marriage.

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

Which has to be made up somewhere else because, as we all know, that the government doesn't reduce spending just because it gets less money.

 

[Seawytch]

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

Except there is no scientific evidence that says that. Consensus among scientists is that orientation is not a choice.

Pawlenty says Scientists are in Dispute Over Whether Gay is a Choice

 

[Seawytch]

Does the marital state confer tax benefits, yes or no?

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

Which has to be made up somewhere else because, as we all know, that the government doesn't reduce spending just because it gets less money.

Really? This is the new "conservative" argument? Legally married tax paying gay couples should pay more taxes than legally married heterosexual couples?

Can't wait to hear that argument in court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's not perversion? In what world?

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

What doesn’t make sense is to hate a class of persons simply for who they are, whether they’ve elected to be ‘that way’ through their own volition or as a result of a natural process. What doesn’t make sense is to hate a class of persons simply because the chose to exercise their Fifth Amendment right to express their individual liberty in a manner you find subjectively offensive. What doesn’t make sense is to seek to deny a class of persons their equal protection rights absent any rational basis or factual justification.

Fortunately whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or free will is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; one does not need to be ‘born gay’ to be afforded the protection of his liberty the Constitution guarantees:

The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

Except there is no scientific evidence that says that. Consensus among scientists is that orientation is not a choice.

Pawlenty says Scientists are in Dispute Over Whether Gay is a Choice

There is no link in that opinion peace that even begins to back up their position. Could that be because there is no scientific evidence, or a scientific consensus, that people are born gay? Would you like to admit I am right, or do you want to throw another opinion piece at me that doesn't prove me wrong?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's a reduction in the taxes the couples already pay.

Which has to be made up somewhere else because, as we all know, that the government doesn't reduce spending just because it gets less money.

Really? This is the new "conservative" argument? Legally married tax paying gay couples should pay more taxes than legally married heterosexual couples?

Can't wait to hear that argument in court.

Not being a conservative I really couldn't care less if they agree with me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In this world. It's completely natural, some people are born that way. That you can't accept it is not anyone's problem but your own.

That you go out of your way to argue against it says more about your own insecurity and inner demons than anything else. The act of your arguments is more telling than your arguments themselves. You're a busy body.

That doesn't even make sense if I ignore the scientific evidence that people are not born gay.

What doesn’t make sense is to hate a class of persons simply for who they are, whether they’ve elected to be ‘that way’ through their own volition or as a result of a natural process. What doesn’t make sense is to hate a class of persons simply because the chose to exercise their Fifth Amendment right to express their individual liberty in a manner you find subjectively offensive. What doesn’t make sense is to seek to deny a class of persons their equal protection rights absent any rational basis or factual justification.

Fortunately whether homosexuality manifests as a consequence of nature or free will is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant; one does not need to be ‘born gay’ to be afforded the protection of his liberty the Constitution guarantees:

The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to choose to enter upon relationships in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Here we go again.

Get it through your fucking head for once in your pathetic little life, it doesn't fucking matter to the courts in this country if being gay is a choice or not anymore than it matters if people have a choice about religion. Stop trying to prove you know enough about anything to make me look like an idiot, I could probably win a debate with you about your childhood.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

no



Yes, and for that reason. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to either force or deny interracial marriage or gay marriage, therefore it is prohibited to the Federal government. Judicial activism pure and simple.

Reduce it to its most basic principle:

Denying a black man the right to marry a white woman is racial discrimination. That is unconstitutional.

As are all the other racial combinations you might want to list. The example, however, should best demonstrate the constitutional violation.

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

The 14th Amendment was ratified to ensure all persons within a given state’s jurisdiction were afforded their right to due process and right to equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

One does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence; moreover, because one’s civil rights are inalienable, those rights may not be violated by any government – Federal, state, or local.

 

[dblack]

Reduce it to its most basic principle:

Denying a black man the right to marry a white woman is racial discrimination. That is unconstitutional.

As are all the other racial combinations you might want to list. The example, however, should best demonstrate the constitutional violation.

The 14th was created to address the situation where blacks were just subject to different laws than anyone else. You can't extrapolate that to that preventing "discrimination" is a Federal power. Welcome to live, it's not always fair. Problem is that fighting it with government just endlessly makes it more unfair.

The 14th Amendment was ratified to ensure all persons within a given state’s jurisdiction were afforded their right to due process and right to equal protection of the law, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

Some one needs to email Roberts. I don't think the Court got the memo.