Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/26/09 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Because you can't prosecute someone for scraping their uterus.

But you can prosecute the clinic. In Massachusetts, marijuana is decriminalized but there are still federal laws against selling the stuff.

Even if your Backwater, USA town bans abortion outright, the defendant would still be entitled to an appeal... which ends with the SCOTUS. Because your idea of social justice through moral legislative action blanket banning abortion procedures doesn't account for WHY abortions should be banned, I don't see how I can show you what legal matters mean and how law works a certain way.

Help me out?

To avoid this from becoming the 999th thread on the morals and ethics of abortion, I specified that this thread only be for the discussion of the legal aspects of abortion.

But shouldn't it be up to the legislature to decide if it is a good idea to ban abortion, if it is not unconstitutional?

Because the legislature is part of Congress, it must be held in check by the Supreme Court and the Chief Executive. President via vetos, SCOTUS via rulings.

That's a reasonable point, but I'd argue right now that the SCOTUS holds too much power. A great number of people vote for the president just so that they can get them to stack the supreme court to their advantage, which obscures the real policy issues that the candidates should be campaigning on.

Describe your hypothetical abortion ban [amendment].

No. The argument I am presenting is that the legislative bodies should be able to make laws if they do not explicitly go against the constitution. I am not advocating a specific law.

Your use of "legislating from the bench" further illustrates your inability to grasp what legislation is, and how it can be unconstitutional in either state and/or and/or district and/or federal courts.

If the supreme court can abstract the constitution to the point of absurdity, it becomes more like a legislative body then a court. What's so hard to understand about this?

Where in the Constitution does it say you may legislate without first checking it's constitutionality?

What kind of a question is this?

---

At 1/26/09 08:05 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Until viability, the government may not dictate personal life decisions without due process of the law, ie., what interest does the government have in non-constitutionally recognized persons such as fetuses, embryos, sperm and eggs?

It's common knowledge (and proven scientifically) that the earliest stage of an individual's human development is conception.

Whether from conception to adulthood, you still are half the DNA of the male and female.

Once again, if you do not value life, then you can not defend life.

At 1/26/09 08:15 PM, Elfer wrote:

Like I said before, if you have a complaint about the Roe v. Wade decision, be specific. Read the whole decision, then make your specific complaints, instead of dismissing the entire progression of judgments that leads up to the final conclusion.

One only need to read of the roles given to the branches by the Constitution to know about the legality of Roe v. Wade.

It isn't complicated.

You just merely want it to be.

At 1/26/09 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Because you can't prosecute someone for scraping their uterus.

You do not have to make it illegal to receive an abortion, but only to make it illegal to perform one.

Even if your Backwater, USA town bans abortion outright, the defendant would still be entitled to an appeal... which ends with the SCOTUS. Because your idea of social justice through moral legislative action blanket banning abortion procedures doesn't account for WHY abortions should be banned,

No one is saying that abortion should be banned, but that Roe v Wade is an unconstitutional decision based on the Constitution as issues that are not mentioned in the Constitution are dictated by the people of the states.

what interest does the government have in non-constitutionally recognized persons such as fetuses, embryos, sperm and eggs?

Why isn't that for the legislature to decide?

Because the legislature is part of Congress, it must be held in check by the Supreme Court and the Chief Executive. President via vetos, SCOTUS via rulings.

But the Supreme Court is given the specific role of determining what is "Unconstitutional" based entirely on the Constitution.

Meaning: They can not (as dicated by the Constitution) create law.

Describe your hypothetical abortion ban [amendment].

The only way to ban or legalized abortion (or any other issue not part of the Constituion such as voting age) is to propose an amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of the states of the Union.

Your use of "legislating from the bench" further illustrates your inability to grasp what legislation is, and how it can be unconstitutional in either state and/or and/or district and/or federal courts.

And you can't even grasp the simple concept of the Judicial branch.

Your entire argument is based upon the premise that the Supreme Court can make any ruling (violating the Constitutuion or not) and still be "constitutional" simply because their title is "Supreme Court", which is pure stupidity.

Because obviously the Supreme Court can not dictate that Free Speech is Unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say you may legislate without first checking it's constitutionality?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court can create law?
Where in the Constitution does it say or hint anything about abortion?
Where in the Constitution does it say the supreme court can dictate who is and isn't able to receive the death penalty?

Answer these questions.

Is the death penalty unconstitutional?
Is it Unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to decide who can receive the death penalty?

Or is it a state by state, by the people, issue?

---

At 1/27/09 12:37 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/26/09 06:20 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/26/09 06:17 PM, Memorize wrote:

Nor is the Supreme Court a legislative body.

You need to reread your civics book.

I'm sorry, what?

So much for the very basic and easy to understand and common knowledge of the 3 branches of Government.

I believe he is referring to judicial review: Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.

I'm sorry, but whatever argument you make from now on is irrelevant due to your total lack of understanding about the powers of government.

Ad hominems are fun. For example: I'm sorry, but whatever argument you make from no on is irrelevant due to your complete inability to put forth a perspective that crosses your party's line, even when you admit that you don't support your party's stance.

See, that fun, and completely irrelevant. Thanks for playing.

---

At 1/27/09 12:51 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/26/09 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Because you can't prosecute someone for scraping their uterus.

But you can prosecute the clinic. In Massachusetts, marijuana is decriminalized but there are still federal laws against selling the stuff.

Marijuana law is =/= abortion law.

About prosecuting clinics, why?

Help me out?

To avoid this from becoming the 999th thread on the morals and ethics of abortion, I specified that this thread only be for the discussion of the legal aspects of abortion.

But shouldn't it be up to the legislature to decide if it is a good idea to ban abortion, if it is not unconstitutional?

You seriously need to knock the crap off if you expect to get anywhere in this. I'm trying, but you need to understand that an all-out ban creates derision between the state and federal governments. Last I checked, the north won the civil war and federalism > states rights, especially when it comes to life/death scenarios.

Are your legal grounds for banning abortion merely, "marijuana is outlawed, so abortions should be, too", solely on the grounds that it's government telling you what [not] to do with your body? I'm starting to wonder if maybe you'd like fellatio w/swallowing ejaculate prosecutable as murder.

...what would you sue the clinics on the grounds of, again?

Because the legislature is part of Congress, it must be held in check by the Supreme Court and the Chief Executive. President via vetos, SCOTUS via rulings.

That's a reasonable point, but I'd argue right now that the SCOTUS holds too much power.

I'm just glad Roberts made it in. There aren't enough like him or Thomas or Scalia.. ha

A great number of people vote for the president just so that they can get them to stack the supreme court to their advantage, which obscures the real policy issues that the candidates should be campaigning on.

Meh, the SCOTUS is no more powerful than congress or the president. They just deal in spades. They get to say what MAY or MAY NOT as according to the constitution, and CASE LAW.

Describe your hypothetical abortion ban [amendment].

No.

Then you lose. The system in place is more than sufficient and your arguments are null and void. Thanks for playing.

---

At 1/27/09 12:51 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/26/09 08:05 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Until viability, the government may not dictate personal life decisions without due process of the law, ie., what interest does the government have in non-constitutionally recognized persons such as fetuses, embryos, sperm and eggs?

It's common knowledge (and proven scientifically) that the earliest stage of an individual's human development is conception.

I'm not convinced. I believe the earliest stage in a human's development is when a couple (or mother, barring a spousal supplicant) wishes to accept the pregnancy and assume the roles of mother and/or father.

I've never met a person whose parents decided to not accept their roles as mother and/or father during their pregnancy. Of course, it's common knowledge that a mother who doesn't want a baby won't carry it to term if she doesn't want to. Then there are rape victims, who need abortion procedures done by doctors learned and trained in the arts of aborting, to provide a safe atmosphere of recovery for their patients.

Of course, you're probably FOR the rape-baby's mandatory birth, I wouldn't be too surprised.

Whether from conception to adulthood, you still are half the DNA of the male and female.

Half your DNA you share with chimps.

Once again, if you do not value life, then you can not defend life.

Once you've lived a little, you'll look back and say, "wow I was stupid then."

---

Oh, you had more to say. My bad.

At 1/27/09 12:51 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/26/09 11:44 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Because you can't prosecute someone for scraping their uterus.

You do not have to make it illegal to receive an abortion, but only to make it illegal to perform one.

Why?

Even if your Backwater, USA town bans abortion outright, the defendant would still be entitled to an appeal... which ends with the SCOTUS. Because your idea of social justice through moral legislative action blanket banning abortion procedures doesn't account for WHY abortions should be banned,

No one is saying that abortion should be banned, but that Roe v Wade is an unconstitutional decision based on the Constitution as issues that are not mentioned in the Constitution are dictated by the people of the states.

Roe v Wade was a court case, not legislation. Get your facts straight mister. And people ARE saying abortion should be bannanable. You should read more betterish.

what interest does the government have in non-constitutionally recognized persons such as fetuses, embryos, sperm and eggs?

Why isn't that for the legislature to decide?

Because the legislature is part of Congress, it must be held in check by the Supreme Court and the Chief Executive. President via vetos, SCOTUS via rulings.

But the Supreme Court is given the specific role of determining what is "Unconstitutional" based entirely on the Constitution.

Yeah, you should read it sometime. Check out due process, unreasonable search and seizure, pleadin da fif, etc.

Then you may have more perspective than merely, "ABORTIONS ARE TEH WRONG CUZ SPERM AND EGG MAKE PEOPLE!! SHOUT SHOUTRABBLECOURTS CANTDOSTUFF"

Give a fucking reason, site Madison v Monroe, don't just blather like a fuckin' IDIOSYNCRATIC ROUTINE.

You are A ROUTINE.

Meaning: They can not (as dicated by the Constitution) create law.

They didn't.

Describe your hypothetical abortion ban [amendment].

The only way to ban or legalized abortion (or any other issue not part of the Constituion such as voting age) is to propose an amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of the states of the Union.

Not 3/4 of the people in Podunk? Strange, I thought you were arguing the legislative bodies had power to prohibit action X, no questions asked. Now you bring up this "union" business.

Say, where did the union come from?

Your use of "legislating from the bench" further illustrates your inability to grasp what legislation is, and how it can be unconstitutional in either state and/or and/or district and/or federal courts.

And you can't even grasp the simple concept of the Judicial branch.

You just can't grasp that I've grasped, choked and throttled Roe v Wade harder than any subject you've ever handled.

The fact you aren't allowing the generous slack given insofar is telling of your ability to hold a conversation.

You can't be arrogant about what you let teach you, even a LazyDrunk.

Your entire argument is based upon the premise that the Supreme Court can make any ruling (violating the Constitutuion or not) and still be "constitutional" simply because their title is "Supreme Court", which is pure stupidity.

Monroe v Madison. Don't like it, start a petition for an amendment prohibiting the SCOTUS. It makes about as much sense as your whole rant on stuff you have no idea about.

Because obviously the Supreme Court can not dictate that Free Speech is Unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled on free speech, what is protected and what is not.

This is ridiculous, because you are a glutton for ridicule.

Where in the Constitution does it say you may legislate without first checking it's constitutionality?

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court can create law?

They haven't.

Where in the Constitution does it say or hint anything about abortion?

It doesn't. Of course, the Constitution was only drafted to protect the people's rights and outline the government's. It wasn't meant to extirpate every nook and cranny of moral dilemmas, but to assuage power accordingly, assuring the rights of the people stood first.

Don't believe me if you want, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've heard about the rights of the people.

Where in the Constitution does it say the supreme court can dictate who is and isn't able to receive the death penalty?

Where in the constitution does it forbade the SCOTUS from ruling on the death penalty?

Answer these questions.

You wouldn't know what to do with the info if you had an answer key. Amuse me, puppet.

Is the death penalty unconstitutional?

For innocents, yes.

Is it Unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to decide who can receive the death penalty?

Sure.

Or is it a state by state, by the people, issue?

..until it's appealed to the SCOTUS. Good times.

---

At 1/27/09 12:51 AM, Memorize wrote: One only need to read of the roles given to the branches by the Constitution to know about the legality of Roe v. Wade.

It isn't complicated.

You just merely want it to be.

It's the role of the supreme court to strike down laws that they find to be unconstitutional. Through a series of lengthy deliberations, they found the laws against abortion to be unconstitutional. If you have a problem with the judgment, be specific.

Either you're suggesting you have a specific problem with the court's decision, or you're suggesting that the supreme court is supposed to be impotent and unable to strike down laws.

Note that in this case, the court did not, in fact, create any new legislation, thus acting as "de facto legislators." All they did was strike down existing laws, acting as a de facto supreme court.

---

At 1/26/09 11:45 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/26/09 08:33 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 1/26/09 05:51 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Nobody here can tell me when life begins, which is what abortion is about... life, not taxes.

It's a controversial issue.

What?

"Nobody here can tell me when life begins"

I'm assuming you mean at conception and not when life began in general.

---

At 1/26/09 05:18 PM, Memorize wrote: Under your logic, the Supreme Court can declare the suspension of "Freedom of Speech" as "Constitutional" under War Powers.

;;;;;;;;
My good goddess, your niave.
You might want to check out the governments powers , under a War Powers act.
They can do what ever they want. Taking away freedoms like the freedom of speach is just the tip of the iceburg. They can & have restricted basic foods, they can ration anything including heating oil, coal ,wood & electricity ,did you know we have day light savings time, first implemented in World War 1.

They can order you to turn over products owned by you made of metal to 'help' the War effort.
Your comment...under my logic...really made me laugh, whoever said that our countries Governments acted 'Logically' ?
I don't believe you can prove I've ever said that. But yes your right to free speach can be taken away witht he stroke of a pen & you won't even have the right to question it, under a War Measures Act.

---

At 1/27/09 02:47 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Why?

Why not?

Roe v Wade was a court case, not legislation. Get your facts straight mister. And people ARE saying abortion should be bannanable. You should read more betterish.

The Supreme Court dicated when and for what circumstances would allow abortion.

Just like how they took away a state's right to determine if a child rapist is able to receive the death penalty (keeping in mind that during the founding father's day, people were executed for even more things other than rape, therefore rendering the execution of a child rapist NOT Unconstitutional).

Yeah, you should read it sometime. Check out due process, unreasonable search and seizure, pleadin da fif, etc.

Drugs.

And yes, they do equal abortion in this case because they are exactly like abortion when it comes to the Constitution (as given by an example above).

Drug laws are NOT in the Constitution, just like abortion.
Drugs (by the constitution) were dictated by each state, just like abortion.
Therefore abortion, just like drugs, should follow the rules of the Constitution to propose an amendment.

They are NO DIFFERENT in terms of "due process".

Give a fucking reason, site Madison v Monroe, don't just blather like a fuckin' IDIOSYNCRATIC ROUTINE.

You are A ROUTINE.

And you don't know your history.

Not to mention you lack any thinking capacity.

You go on about "due process", then when someone brings up drugs and drug laws and its history (prohibition), your only retort is "They're not the same, lolz".

That's weak.

They didn't.

You forget that they didn't just make abortion legal, they also determined when it was legal and under what circumstances (also taken from the states).

Say, where did the union come from?

In case you really are that stupid (which I do believe), Union = The US (ever heard of "state of the Union"?)

But even still: Way to totally dodge the point and Constitution again.

First you say what they did was Constitutional, and when I point out that there are rules to adding and repealing amendments written in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers, then all you can come up with is this?

LOL

You just can't grasp that I've grasped, choked and throttled Roe v Wade harder than any subject you've ever handled.

That certainly explains your responses.

"The Supreme Court is a legislative body", even though the Constitution clearly states they are of the Judicial Brach.

You go on about "due process" for abortion to justify yourself, but you completely switch positions on drugs (which also are not mentioned in the Constitution).

I give historical examples of how crime and drug laws were dictated by the states as they weren't in the Constitution (and they're exactly like abortion with "due process/privacy"), and all you could answer with was "They're not the same".

But I'll ask you this then: If the Supreme Court can declare anything not mentioned in the Constitution as either Constitutional or Unconstitutional, then why are there rules written in the Constitution by the founding fathers to add and/or repeal amendments?

Monroe v Madison. Don't like it, start a petition for an amendment prohibiting the SCOTUS. It makes about as much sense as your whole rant on stuff you have no idea about.

See above with drugs and drug laws.

Also, I said it before: You need an amendment to also ADD to the constitution, not just take one away (or else why would we have over 10 amendments?).

Let me ask: Was slavery Unconstitutional after the Constitution's creation before the time of Lincoln?

The Supreme Court has ruled on free speech, what is protected and what is not.

And under your logic, a new Supreme court (new people on the Supreme Court) can decide differently, regardless of the Constitution (slavery being one of them).

One Supreme Court could say that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to bare arms.

Then a new set of people in the Supreme Court could declare that the ruling of the 2nd amendment was "unconstitutional" because it "really refers to state militias".

And you would support BOTH regardless of the speeches by those who wrote the Constitution, regardless of what is in the Constitution, and its history in the United States.

Claiming they are both correct decisions with such polar opposite answer is straight out of 1984's 'double think'.

Where in the Constitution does it say or hint anything about abortion?

It doesn't. Of course, the Constitution was only drafted to protect the people's rights and outline the government's.

And these rights were guaranteed to protect the people from the Federal Government.

Don't believe me if you want, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've heard about the rights of the people.

No.

I can just tell the difference between real rights and Constitutional law and Imaginary rights created by people who stretch the constitution to fit their agendas.

Where in the constitution does it forbade the SCOTUS from ruling on the death penalty?

Answer my questions.

Answer these questions.

Is the death penalty unconstitutional?

For innocents, yes.

LOL.

That was such an avoidance answer.

At 1/27/09 12:56 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

I believe he is referring to judicial review: Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases.

Of which he called a "legislative body", which they aren't.

You're defending him, not because he's right (which he isn't), but because he shares your view on the subject.

Which only makes you that much more pathetic, lol.

My entire definition of the Supreme Court is exactly that: "Determine the constitutionality of the law", and since the Constitution does not deal with abortion (or other issues, not even hinting at them), then by rule of thumb (as it has been since the Constitution's creation) the issue is left entirely up to the states and the people of the states.

Don't believe me?

Prohibition of Alcohol and Drugs.

Not in the Constitution. Not mentioned. Not even hinted at. As a result, they were left up to the states until we actually decided to follow the rules of the Constitution to add/repeal amendments by proposing an amendment to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.

See, that fun, and completely irrelevant. Thanks for playing.

Someone woke up on the wrong side of their mother's carcass, eh?

At 1/27/09 01:13 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

I'm not convinced.

Then you're an idiot.

I believe the earliest stage in a human's development is when a couple (or mother, barring a spousal supplicant) wishes to accept the pregnancy and assume the roles of mother and/or father.

So let's get this straight... you believe the earliest stage of human development is when there is no human to develop?

Fascinating.

I've never met a person whose parents decided to not accept their roles as mother and/or father during their pregnancy.

Your reasoning makes about as much sense as claiming that science determines the viability of the fetus, only to do an instant 180 and claim its viability is soley up to the mother.

Whatever happened to science?

Of course, you're probably FOR the rape-baby's mandatory birth, I wouldn't be too surprised.

No.

But it's only been proven that EVERYTHING pro-abortionists have said since 1973 about abortion has not come in effect.

"There will less single mothers"
"There will be less crime"
"Less of a burden"

Conclusion:

-Abortion rates increase.
-Increase of single mothers by 40%
-Increase in crime among that age group.

Half your DNA you share with chimps.

Once you've lived a little, you'll look back and say, "wow I was stupid then."

lol, I'm not the one taking the previous racist's viewpoint or using Hitler-like justification for my position.

But I then I guess you're all for the painfull of physical tortures, right?

---

At 1/27/09 11:18 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I don't believe you can prove I've ever said that. But yes your right to free speach can be taken away witht he stroke of a pen & you won't even have the right to question it, under a War Measures Act.

Then that is a violation of the Constitution.

Unless it was proposed as an amendment to the Constitution and was ratified by 3/4 of the states.

---

Since you don't understand what case law is, and you've invoked Godwin's law (it really was merely a matter of time, wasn't it?), I'm gonna have to say you don't have a leg to stand on, mem.

Honestly, the SCOTUS may not consider whether or not abortion legislation is unconsitutional and why, but they may hear cases and deem than unconstitutional?

You've got this really elementary ability of expressing what you know. It's like watching a two-legged dog hobble around barking at people, convinced it's the noise that's making everyone cringe.

---

At 1/27/09 12:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/09 02:47 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Why?

Why not?

I ASKED FIRST. And quote the whole thing if you're going to obfuscate.

Roe v Wade was a court case, not legislation. Get your facts straight mister. And people ARE saying abortion should be bannanable. You should read more betterish.

The Supreme Court dicated when and for what circumstances would allow abortion.

Now ask yourself why. The ask yourself what's the difference between drugs and killing someone. Wow you're a fucking dolt who can't see the forest through the trees. You can ad hominem my balls, I'm sure you can understand THAT line of logic.

Just like how they took away a state's right to determine if a child rapist is able to receive the death penalty (keeping in mind that during the founding father's day, people were executed for even more things other than rape, therefore rendering the execution of a child rapist NOT Unconstitutional).

Funny you should mention rape.

Did you know the founders kept slaves, and they raped them regularly by virtue of their ownership?

You didn't? Oh. The more you know.

Yeah, you should read it sometime. Check out due process, unreasonable search and seizure, pleadin da fif, etc.

Drugs.

Let's talk about drugs then, Mr. Obfuscate.

Why is marijuana on the same schedule as heroin, crack, and cocaine? Why does the DEA conduct overseas operations without informing the public through the FISA? How many whippets do you need to take before you can be arrested? Let's talk about something over than abortion, abortion law, abortion history and instead focus on something with evenmore panache, drugs.

And yes, they do equal abortion in this case because they are exactly like abortion when it comes to the Constitution (as given by an example above).

lol

---

At 1/27/09 01:13 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Half your DNA you share with chimps.

95% actually.

I'm not hunting'you or trying to attack your every post I was actually debating with someone else on mutations on a more 'serious' forum when I spotted your post.

---

At 1/27/09 01:10 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 1/27/09 12:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/09 02:47 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Why?

Why not?

I ASKED FIRST. And quote the whole thing if you're going to obfuscate.

All I did was give the same type of answer you've been giving this entire thread.

"The Supreme Court can declare abortion legal by the Constitution!"

"What about drugs and prohibition? They're also not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court couldn't act in those and they had to propose amendments to add and repeal."

Your response: "They're not the same".

lol

Roe v Wade was a court case, not legislation. Get your facts straight mister. And people ARE saying abortion should be bannanable. You should read more betterish.

The Supreme Court dicated when and for what circumstances would allow abortion.

Now ask yourself why. The ask yourself what's the difference between drugs and killing someone.

You mean despite the fact that drugs like Cocaine can only damage the individual while abortion kills the living being inside the mother?

So it's not "ok" to commit suicide to take drugs that harm yourself, but it's ok to have an abortion because "it's my body"?

Hehe.

Wow you're a fucking dolt who can't see the forest through the trees. You can ad hominem my balls, I'm sure you can understand THAT line of logic.

Yes, I'm using the Constitution and Historical precedant by the Constitution and I'm the one who can't see the forest through the trees.

Sure thing.

Just like how they took away a state's right to determine if a child rapist is able to receive the death penalty (keeping in mind that during the founding father's day, people were executed for even more things other than rape, therefore rendering the execution of a child rapist NOT Unconstitutional).

Funny you should mention rape.

Did you know the founders kept slaves, and they raped them regularly by virtue of their ownership?

Do you really want me to bring up all of the quotes by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Franklin arguing against slavery, many times on the basis of Christianity?

You didn't? Oh. The more you know.

lol @ assumptions.

Did you know that the reason why they made slaves = to 3/5 of a person was to limit representation to the slave owners?

Yes, the more you know.

Honestly, you can't declare something constitution and try to tweak the Constitution towards your own agenda and then claim it doesn't matter based on the founding fathers.

Better yet: Can you tell how many and which of the founding fathers raped slaves?

Why is marijuana on the same schedule as heroin, crack, and cocaine?

Hard drugs used to be sold over the counter just about a century ago.

Why does the DEA conduct overseas operations without informing the public through the FISA?

Spying without a warrant from a judge is Unconstitutional.

How many whippets do you need to take before you can be arrested? Let's talk about something over than abortion, abortion law, abortion history and instead focus on something with evenmore panache, drugs.

You can talk about abortion and abortion law and history all you want. It doesn't change the fact that as it relates to the Constitution, their decision to legalized and create laws on trimesters is Unconstitutional based on Constitutional history and law.

lol

You're also a hypocrite. You've been giving answers like "it's not the same" and a simple "lol" all though this ENTIRE thread without actually answering anything as it relates to the Constitution, then you get all pissy with me when I say "why not".

Now that deserves a LOL!!!

---

Try to prosecute someone for having a dooby using divorce law, see how that goes for ya.

Did you need a wiki link to show you what case law is?

---

Seriously, DRUGS ARE OUTLAWED SO SO SHOULD ABORTIONS.

If you say it loud enough mem, maybe someone would understand you.

We're not supposed to talk about the moral ramifications of banning something like drugs and abortion, we're supposed to talk about the legal matters. None of which you've addressed with a satisfactory amount of insight and knowledge.

It's crazy to think you might actually believe someone would read what you're writing and say to themselves, "wow, that makes sense!"

Because it doesn't.

---

At 1/27/09 12:54 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/27/09 11:18 AM, morefngdbs wrote:

I don't believe you can prove I've ever said that. But yes your right to free speach can be taken away witht he stroke of a pen & you won't even have the right to question it, under a War Measures Act.

Then that is a violation of the Constitution.

Unless it was proposed as an amendment to the Constitution and was ratified by 3/4 of the states.

;;;;;;
WRONG !
You might want to go read the CRS report for Congress -National Emergency Powers-

"Federal Law provides a variety of powers for the President to use in response to crisis, exegency, and emergency circumstances threatening the Nation. Moreover, they are not limited to military or War situations. Some of these authorities,deriving from the Constitution or statutory Law, are continuously available to the President with little or no qualification. Others- statutory delegations from Congress- exist in a stand by basis and remain dormant until the President formally declares a National Emergency. These delegations or grants of power authorize the President to meet the problems of governing effectively in times of crisis. Under the powers delegated by such statutes , The President may seize property, organize & control the means of production ,seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and controll all transportation , communication , regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel,and,in a variety of ways, control the lives of U.S. citizens ."

These are just some of that "tip of the iceburg" I was mentioning earlier.
Don't you realise your in prison ?
Your just in a larger ,less restrictive place than say a maximum security lock up, you only have right now what's allowed to you by your government...until they decide to take away anything they want.
& there's nothing you can do about it....sucks when someone points out a REAL truth don't it.

But the chances are you be a good little toby & your various government policing forces will leave you alone-maybe- you also might want to read up on your National Emergencies Act. There are 2 infringements in that act against the Constitution, that I have read about.

Sorry to burst your 'bubble'

---

Roe v. Wade was never actually intended to be the "right to abortion" case. The Supreme Court, extrapolating from the 4th amendment, weighed the interests of the mother in her own physical and bodily integrity, and in her intangible right to decide whether or not to become a parent, against the state's interest in the life of the unborn child. The ulitmate goal of the decision wasn't for all women to have the uncontested constitutional right to abortion at will. The goal was to remove abortion from the political arena and place it where it belongs: in the medical arena. The Court decided that abortion is a medical decision where a woman, in conjunction with her physician, are supposed to decide whether abortion is a medically advisable procedure. Recognizing that the likely result of this would be abortion at will, the Court tried to temper this decision by explaining that that the state very much does have an interest in the life of the child, but that this interest begins small and becomes larger as the pregnancy continues. Essentially, the Court was taking a stab at saying fetal viability is the point where abortion should be illegal, but since that was a tough line to draw, they just boldly (and probably a little bit inaccurately) drew the line at the third trimester.

People focus entirely too much on Roe. It was future interpretations of Roe and later cases that solidified the "right to abortion," and to be honest, it's not Roe that's keeping abortion alive. If Roe v. Wade was overturned tomorrow, abortion wouldn't suddenly become illegal. The matter would simply go back to where it was before: the 10th amendment instead of the 4th. With the states individually making laws. Before Roe, abortion-at-will was legal in quite a few states, and abortion under special circumstances (i.e. mother's life in jeopardy) was legal in many more. It was illegal in many states as well. The end result would be increased sale of plane tickets to California to get abortions, not some kind of righteous nation with a federal prohibition against abortion.

---

At 1/27/09 01:47 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

WRONG !
You might want to go read the CRS report for Congress -National Emergency Powers-

You're wrong.

As the Constitution already stipulates what the Executive and Legislative branches can do during war time.

Example: Habeas Corpus.

Article 1 Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Sorry to burst your 'bubble'

Yes, I'm so sorry.

---

In reality, from what I'm seeing is that the true argumen is if the 14th Amendment does indeed form the basis for the right to privacy, as indicated by Griswold vs. Conneticut, Doe vs Bolton and Roe vs Wade.

That is if one wishes to argue on the legal ramifications instead of the moral ramifications.

This is actually a very nice quote for why the Supreme Court has ruled that that the Due Process clause indeed guarentees the right of privacy as stated by the 14th ammendment.

the full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints

John Marshall Harlan II

---

At 1/27/09 03:32 PM, Memorize wrote: You're wrong.

As the Constitution already stipulates what the Executive and Legislative branches can do during war time.
Article 1 Section 9: The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Yes, I'm so sorry.

;;;;;
My goddes you are one dense MF'er. if you look at the line of text you wrote just above this you will see after "suspended" there is the word UNLESS.
Which means HE CAN DO WHATEVER HE F^(&!#@ WANTS TO....and there S.F.A. you or anyone can do about it...although I believe he has a 2 year statute of time limit.

THe public safety.... 9/11 was considered a safety problem, & now you have people locked up for years no trial no charges (pssst Gitanamo Bay ring any bells ?)
Homeland security, wire taps, no warrants, search & seizures...no warrants .
Oh, yeah your always right Memorize, I , & anyone with any sense can see that LMFAO & ROTF

---

At 1/27/09 01:06 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Marijuana law is =/= abortion law.

My point was that you can prosecute the supplier without prosecuting the consumer.

About prosecuting clinics, why?

I know that you're trying to draw this into a debate about the morality or ethics of abortion, but you have to realize that that's been discussed too many times to count on this forum. If you want to refer to those arguments, feel free to do so.

Also note that, as I have already stated, I am not supporting any particular action on the part of the legislature, only their authority to make laws which are not unconstitutional.

You seriously need to knock the crap off if you expect to get anywhere in this. I'm trying, but you need to understand that an all-out ban creates derision between the state and federal governments. Last I checked, the north won the civil war and federalism > states rights, especially when it comes to life/death scenarios.

When did I say that I wanted the state legislature to create abortion law that conflicts with any sort of federal legislation?

Are your legal grounds for banning abortion merely, "marijuana is outlawed, so abortions should be, too", solely on the grounds that it's government telling you what [not] to do with your body? I'm starting to wonder if maybe you'd like fellatio w/swallowing ejaculate prosecutable as murder.

Did you seriously not read my point about the marijuana laws, and not understand the context? I was pointing out that one could construct on abortion law that didn't violate due process.

...what would you sue the clinics on the grounds of, again?

Sue? You do realize that that's tort law, right?

I'm just glad Roberts made it in. There aren't enough like him or Thomas or Scalia.. ha

I see that you didn't try to address my point. Fair enough.

Meh, the SCOTUS is no more powerful than congress or the president. They just deal in spades. They get to say what MAY or MAY NOT as according to the constitution, and CASE LAW.

My point is that if they can interpret laws beyond what's literally written in the constitution, then the population has a greater interest in trying to stack the supreme court.

---

At 1/27/09 04:45 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

My goddes you are one dense MF'er. if you look at the line of text you wrote just above this you will see after "suspended" there is the word UNLESS.

That was my point, you doofus.

That it is WRITTEN in the Constitution that there is a requirement to suspend Habeas Corpus, HOWEVER...

They can not do the same with Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press, Search ect..

The Bill of Rights was intended to protect people from a tyanical and oppressive government. The suspension of "Habeas Corpus" was to protect the people, not give government more power.

Why would the founding fathers go through all the trouble of limiting the Federal Government and put in place "Rights" that were "Guaranteed by the creator" to defend the people against the government only to say that the Government can get rid of ALL of these rights on a moment's notice?

---

At 1/27/09 04:49 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/27/09 01:06 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Marijuana law is =/= abortion law.

My point was that you can prosecute the supplier without prosecuting the consumer.

..to what ends?

I know you don't wanna say, but it's a tired old fact of life. Speaking of life, shouldn't it be protected in a manner conducive to critical thought?

About prosecuting clinics, why?

I know that you're trying to draw this into a debate about the morality or ethics of abortion, but you have to realize that that's been discussed too many times to count on this forum.

I just want to know what the clinic did wrong by carrying out an abortion. If you say it's against state law, then you need to recognize federal law.

That's not a moral argument, it's actually a very very clean and succinct legal one.

If you want to refer to those arguments, feel free to do so.

A woman's health should be top priority when government displays interest (like a ban), especially over the non-person that a fetus is. A constitutional non-person, I may add.

Also note that, as I have already stated, I am not supporting any particular action on the part of the legislature, only their authority to make laws which are not unconstitutional.

And a blanket ban on abortion is, for the reason mortifiedpenguins pointed out.

Did you seriously not read my point about the marijuana laws, and not understand the context? I was pointing out that one could construct on abortion law that didn't violate due process.

I guess the context was so confusingly shockheaded, I assumed you knew how legal matters operate.

Where's your loophole again?

...what would you sue the clinics on the grounds of, again?

Sue? You do realize that that's tort law, right?

So you'd incarcerate the clinic. Cool.

If you don't wanna work with me it's your loss.

I'm just glad Roberts made it in. There aren't enough like him or Thomas or Scalia.. ha

I see that you didn't try to address my point. Fair enough.

You don't have a point, as you've admitted time and time again. You say the court can't make a ruling. Prove it.

Meh, the SCOTUS is no more powerful than congress or the president. They just deal in spades. They get to say what MAY or MAY NOT as according to the constitution, and CASE LAW.

My point is that if they can interpret laws beyond what's literally written in the constitution, then the population has a greater interest in trying to stack the supreme court.

That's a stupid point.

---

At 1/27/09 04:58 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

..to what ends?

I've said, over and over again, that I'm not debating for any particular abortion policy - nor am I debating the ethics or morals of abortion.

I know you don't wanna say, but it's a tired old fact of life. Speaking of life, shouldn't it be protected in a manner conducive to critical thought?

How is respecting the constitution not conducive to critical thought?

I just want to know what the clinic did wrong by carrying out an abortion. If you say it's against state law, then you need to recognize federal law.

I never said that abortion should be illegal, nor did I say that the clinic did anything wrong. My position is strictly that the supreme court interpreted the constitution far too loosely when they decided Roe v. Wade.

That's not a moral argument, it's actually a very very clean and succinct legal one.

Precisely, hence the reason why I created this topic.

"Roe v. Wade from a legal viewpoint"

A woman's health should be top priority when government displays interest (like a ban), especially over the non-person that a fetus is. A constitutional non-person, I may add.

I don't think that the constitution mentions any of this. To my knowledge there is no discussion of the personhood of fetuses, or to what extent health should be a priority in government decisions.

And a blanket ban on abortion is, for the reason mortifiedpenguins pointed out.

He never really gave a reason for why you couldn't give abortion clinics due process.

I guess the context was so confusingly shockheaded, I assumed you knew how legal matters operate.

Where's your loophole again?

"Shockheaded". I'm not sure that's a word. But if it is, I can assure you that my point about how an abortion ban wouldn't necessarily violate due process was not "shockheaded".

So you'd incarcerate the clinic. Cool.

I never said that. My position is strictly that the supreme court was wrong to rule Roe v. Wade unconstitutional.

If you don't wanna work with me it's your loss.

???

You don't have a point, as you've admitted time and time again. You say the court can't make a ruling. Prove it.

I already gave reasons for why the supreme court should interpret the constitution and not declare a law unconstitutional unless it clearly goes against the constitution.

---

yay for unwillingness to support your ideas.

---

At 1/27/09 05:49 PM, Al6200 wrote: I already gave reasons for why the supreme court should interpret the constitution and not declare a law unconstitutional unless it clearly goes against the constitution.

You've made 11 posts in this topic, yet you still can't come up with a specific judgment in the case that you think violates the conditions you're saying. All you're saying is that you can't get from the constitution to the overall end result in a single step. We know this. We've been telling you this since the topic started. It takes a culmination of successive steps to get to a final ruling like this. Either tell us what it is specifically in the ruling, not the overall ruling, but specifically in the ruling, that you disagree with, or admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Again, we already know that the constitution can't be directly interpreted in a single step to get to this ruling. What happened is there was a succession of small decisions which ultimately lead to the final one. If you can't find one of those decisions that you disagree with, or you can't find a flaw in the combination of those decisions, then you're not really saying anything relevant about the law or the supreme court. Either make a specific objection to something in the ruling, or just admit that you don't know what the supreme court actually does.

---

At 1/27/09 07:01 PM, Elfer wrote:

Again, we already know that the constitution can't be directly interpreted in a single step to get to this ruling. What happened is there was a succession of small decisions which ultimately lead to the final one. If you can't find one of those decisions that you disagree with, or you can't find a flaw in the combination of those decisions, then you're not really saying anything relevant about the law or the supreme court. Either make a specific objection to something in the ruling, or just admit that you don't know what the supreme court actually does.

Are you trying to say that the supreme court can't abstract the constitution to absurdity in one case, but can do so if it breaks it down into multiple rulings that slowly abstract and warp the document's meaning? I just want to get this clear because I want to make sure that I'm accurately representing your argument.

---

At 1/27/09 07:22 PM, Al6200 wrote: Are you trying to say that the supreme court can't abstract the constitution to absurdity in one case, but can do so if it breaks it down into multiple rulings that slowly abstract and warp the document's meaning? I just want to get this clear because I want to make sure that I'm accurately representing your argument.

What I'm saying is, you never see a mathematical proof that only uses a single step, why do you expect the same of legal proofs?

Anyway, since it seems you're actually incapable of coming up with a specific objection to the ruling, I don't think there's much left to discuss here. The reason the supreme court exists is to interpret the constitution, including the non-obvious consequences of the text of the constitution. That's why it's composed of extremely experienced legal professionals, rather than bloggers.

The very reason cases like Roe v. Wade are brought before the supreme court is because there is at least a somewhat compelling case for the law to be struck down. If you think the decision was wrong, argue against the case, not just the decision, otherwise everything you're saying is just bullshit and not at all relevant to the decision made in the case.