- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Roe v Wade officially overturned
Posted on 6/26/22 at 1:56 pm to jeff5891
Posted on 6/26/22 at 1:56 pm to jeff5891
quote:Not really. While I may think the government shouldn't dictate abortion policy (as it did with Roe), the state level is where it belongs. The voters for legislatures have a lot more access to their own state representatives than to US Congressmen. I generally vote based on what I think is right for our state/ country not what my beliefs are.
quote:
Again to be clear I'm against abortion but am also against the government making that decision.
Somehow giving states the power to enact their own laws.
You are a conundrum
quote:You're missing the point. Generally those against the Dobbs ruling were upset 24 hours earlier about the 2A ruling. The 2nd amendment is written explicitly in the Bill of Rights.
quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
And Hopefully, you don’t hink “retained by the people” means assigned to the hands of a state government.
And again more twisted liberal thought. It uses "denied or disparage". That does not equate to making anything you want a "Constitutional right". Laws are made by "the people" and the Federal government's role at the time was one mainly of regulating commerce between states and providing for a shared defense against other countries. So in the language (and meaning at the time it was written) it defers to the states ("the people") what hasn't been expressly stated as a right in the US Constitution. It simply means that the exclusion does not prohibit the states from passing laws to provide for its citizens.
Posted on 6/26/22 at 2:04 pm to MSUDawg98
quote:
So in the language (and meaning at the time it was written) it defers to the states ("the people") what hasn't been expressly stated as a right in the US Constitution.
You are wrong on two areas here. "The people" and "The states" are absolutely not the same. There are also rights protected by the Constitution that are not specifically listed in the Constitution (this is not in reference to abortion).
Posted on 6/26/22 at 2:18 pm to MSUDawg98
quote:
And again more twisted liberal thought. It uses "denied or disparage". That does not equate to making anything you want a "Constitutional right". Laws are made by "the people" and the Federal government's role at the time was one mainly of regulating commerce between states and providing for a shared defense against other countries. So in the language (and meaning at the time it was written) it defers to the states ("the people") what hasn't been expressly stated as a right in the US Constitution. It simply means that the exclusion does not prohibit the states from passing laws to provide for its citizens.
You and many others need to review the arguments between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists on enumerating rights before the Bill of Rights was created. Then, review James Madison’s response to them when he conceived the 9th amendment that is included in the BoR.
This post was edited on 6/27/22 at 8:28 pm
Popular
Back to top


2




