Republicans in Panic?

[Ravi]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

So if I am forced to pay into Medicare for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

 

[martybegan]

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

Find me the right to a wedding cake that supersedes a persons right to free exercise of religion.

You can quote the amendments until you are blue in the face, your interpretation of them is flawed, and the reason is you like fucking with people you don't agree with. Its that simple.

 

[Skylar]

see how you like to make things up?


if that is not completely fabricated nonsense, then let's see you give an example..

Bake that damn cake, peasant.

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

Says you. The 9th amendment makes it clear that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, eliminating enumeration as a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

You've made up the 'enumeration of rights' requirement out of nothing. It doesn't exist. Nor can you cite it anywhere in the constitution. The Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the body delegated the authority to interpret the constitution, determine the limits of government power and decide when a law violates the constitution....

.....is the judiciary. Says who? Says the federalist paper when describing the Judicial power. Federalist Paper 78 as I remember.

The 9th amendment, the 14th amendment and the judiciary are far better arbiters constitutionally than you are, citing yourself.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

Show me where in the constitution that it limits protection of rights to those enumerated in the document.

You can't. You made it up. You idiots are always making up imaginary passages of the constitution to justify stripping people of constitutional rights and turn those rights into crimes.

At the State level of course.

 

[martybegan]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

So if I am forced to pay into Medicare for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

that's up to a doctor, and "I don't want the kid "just because"" isn't a medical reason.

Pay for it your damn self.

 

[Valerie]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

just look at him wanting to use big gubmint to punish people he doesn't like... tsk tsk

 

[martybegan]

you grasp that constitutional issue ass backwards, but what else is new...?

pity the cake bakers who would like the big gubmint hammer to protect the right to publicly punish people they don't like.

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

Says you. The 9th amendment makes it clear that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, eliminating enumeration as a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

You've made up the 'enumeration of rights' requirement out of nothing. It doesn't exist. Nor can you cite it anywhere in the constitution. The Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the body delegated the authority to interpret the constitution, determine the limits of government power and decide when a law violates the constitution....

.....is the judiciary. Says who? Says the federalist paper when describing the Judicial power. Federalist Paper 78 as I remember.

The 9th amendment, the 14th amendment and the judiciary are far better arbiters constitutionally than you are, citing yourself.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

Show me where in the constitution that it limits protection of rights to those enumerated in the document.

You can't. You made it up. You idiots are always making up parts of the constitution that will allow you to strip people of constitutional rights and turn those rights into crimes.

The 9th doesn't say every right we can think up of becomes protected, That's silly.

And here you go running to authority again, can't think for yourself, as usual.

 

[martybegan]

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

Wait, you think the state should issue licenses for people to have sex like they do to people that engage in business?

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

 

[martybegan]

Finally, medical abortions should be covered by insurance, but if its for belated birth control, out of your own pocket please.

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

just look at him wanting to use big gubmint to punish people he doesn't like... tsk tsk

I already corrected my statement, try reading on first before snarkily replying, oxygen thief.

 

[Valerie]

look it up marty... educate yourself.

 

[martybegan]

look it up marty... educate yourself.

About what? And I'm educated already, thank you very much.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, I think Republicans are too stupid to panic

Their ability to win the White House is slipping away and they double down on batshit crazy

 

[Ravi]

Why is that? Why can I not buy a policy that covers a legal medical procedure because you don't like it?

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

So if I am forced to pay into Medicare for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

that's up to a doctor, and "I don't want the kid "just because"" isn't a medical reason.

Pay for it your damn self.

Now you are backpeddling. It's between the doctor and the patient, then. None of your business whatsoever.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Establishment gave us Juan McCain, Boehner and McConnell. It's long past time that they worry

As far as I know none of those men are fascists. Donald Trump is. That's a huge difference.


And Ben Carson is a certified idiot in every aspect of knowledge outside of medicine. Brain surgeons everywhere are now relieved he has destroyed the stereotype that they must be geniuses at everything.

 

[Skylar]

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

Artillery:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
Definition of ARTILLERY

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

 

[Ravi]

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

Wait, you think the state should issue licenses for people to have sex like they do to people that engage in business?

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

Nothing in there about regulating commerce, huhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Wry Catcher]

the 2d applies to WELL-REGULATED MILITIA to defend the country (since there was no standing army at the time) and every justice until scalia knew that. but heller is what it is.... as stupid a decision as it is.

and I don't trust wingers with my rights. it's really simple. I guess it just depends on what your priorities are. of course, the difference is that no one has outlawed guns or tried to (since regulation is STILL ok even scalia said so in heller). yet, your guys routinely try to take away others' rights

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

Do you mean anyone who uses language which goes beyond your level of education should not be trusted? Or that Romney and by extension Wall St. (people who earn money by using other people's money) should not be trusted?

Judicial Review has no mention in COTUS, but is clearly part of the Common Law and is only scrutinized by malcontents who don't get the opinion they want.

A proper / rational criticism of Judicial Review is under circumstances when the Supreme Court become predictable, and issues always seem to be decided 5-4 by members of the same caucus; such a circumstance creates in thinking persons to question: 1) Why allow a justice - chief or otherwise - a life appointment; 2) Why is the Supreme Court the only trier of facts without a Code of Ethics?

 

[Skylar]

The Establishment gave us Juan McCain, Boehner and McConnell. It's long past time that they worry

As far as I know none of those men are fascists. Donald Trump is. That's a huge difference.


And Ben Carson is a certified idiot in every aspect of knowledge outside of medicine. Brain surgeons everywhere are now relieved he has destroyed the stereotype that they must be geniuses at everything.

Its interesting to watch many republicans demonstrate that they don't actually believe the nonsense they've been spouting all these years.

They complained that Obama didn't have enough experience. And now a TV reality star and an ex surgeon are leading in the polls for the GOP candidate.

They complained about Hillary's health. And nominated John McCain. A man older and in arguably poorer health, beset by round after round of cancer.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, I favor liberty over government coercion.

You really don't. You favor government coersion over liberty....if that government is the State government.

Take abortion. Currently its a protected right. But you feel that the right should be stripped of the people, that the liberty of a woman to make her own reproductive choices should be taken from her. With the State granted the authority to take that right and turn it into a crime.

That's not 'liberty over government coercion'. That's just plain government coercion.

Not sure why Marty doesn't get that concept. A tyrannical government is a tyrannical government no matter if federal, state, or local. And under our constitution, a state cannot take away a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

Says you. The 9th amendment makes it clear that the constitution is not an exhaustive list of rights, eliminating enumeration as a requirement for a right to be held by the people.

You've made up the 'enumeration of rights' requirement out of nothing. It doesn't exist. Nor can you cite it anywhere in the constitution. The Constitution isn't an exhaustive list of rights. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the body delegated the authority to interpret the constitution, determine the limits of government power and decide when a law violates the constitution....

.....is the judiciary. Says who? Says the federalist paper when describing the Judicial power. Federalist Paper 78 as I remember.

The 9th amendment, the 14th amendment and the judiciary are far better arbiters constitutionally than you are, citing yourself.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

Show me where in the constitution that it limits protection of rights to those enumerated in the document.

You can't. You made it up. You idiots are always making up parts of the constitution that will allow you to strip people of constitutional rights and turn those rights into crimes.

The 9th doesn't say every right we can think up of becomes protected, That's silly.

The 9th explicitly contradicts your made up 'explicitly in the document to a protected right' nonsense. There's no such requirement. Nor is enumeration a requirement for a right to exist.

And exactly as I predicted, you can't show me anywhere in the constitution that it states that a right must be explicitly enumerated in order to be protected. No such requirement exists. You made it up.

Your 'enumeration requirement' for rights is just silly.

[And here you go running to authority again, can't think for yourself, as usual.

Its you I won't accept as defining what a right is. You've openly argued that the US government isn't limited by rights held by the people. That the government doesn't have to recognize those rights, protect them, or be limited in its power by such rights. Demonstrating elegantly that you aren't quite clear what rights even are.

This you call 'thinking for yourself'. That I call a profound misunderstanding of what rights actually are. As they are, by definition, limits on government action. And freedoms held by the people. You don't recognize them as either.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

 

[martybegan]

My mistake, I meant to mean government funds, not private insurance.

So if I am forced to pay into Medicare for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

that's up to a doctor, and "I don't want the kid "just because"" isn't a medical reason.

Pay for it your damn self.

Now you are backpeddling. It's between the doctor and the patient, then. None of your business whatsoever.

Setting guidelines, not backpeddling, and only for government funds, and only for birth control abortions.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Establishment gave us Juan McCain, Boehner and McConnell. It's long past time that they worry

As far as I know none of those men are fascists. Donald Trump is. That's a huge difference.


And Ben Carson is a certified idiot in every aspect of knowledge outside of medicine. Brain surgeons everywhere are now relieved he has destroyed the stereotype that they must be geniuses at everything.

Its interesting to watch many republicans demonstrate that they don't actually believe the nonsense they've been spouting all these years.

They complained that Obama didn't have enough experience. And now a TV reality star and an ex surgeon are leading in the polls for the GOP candidate.

They complained about Hillary's health. And nominated John McCain. A man older and in arguably poorer health.

'I was sort of dumbfounded. They went to all this trouble to say she had staged what was a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over, something she never lowballed with the American people, never tried to pretend didn't happen" -- BJ CLinton