I got your 'it's not in the constitution' right here

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jun 26, 2022.

  1. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Justice's on the Supreme Court, their power of judicial review, IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION, but is law created by a COURT DECISION, this is the very power the current court is exercising to repeal Roe v Wade.

    The U.S. Supreme Court case Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review—the power of the federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional --https://guides.loc.gov/marbury-v-madison

    They used penumbra reasoning to make that ruling, i.e., you can't be an effective justice without the power of judicial review. Why, because the court can make mistakes, and it needs the power to correct itself. Penumbra reasoning became an official legal doctrine in 1916, well, read about it here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penumbra_(law)

    But that isn't the point, the point is, it's not in the constitution, and many on this forum are basing the argument to repeal R v W because 'it's not in the constitution'.

    Common sense is not in the constitution, either. Common sense is the basis for penumbra reasoning, such as, though purchasing a gun isn't in the constitution, you need to purchase a gun before you can 'keep and bear' arms.

    So I don't wanna hear any more 'it's not in the constitution' crap.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2022
  2. XXJefferson#51

    XXJefferson#51 Banned

    Joined:
    May 29, 2017
    Messages:
    16,405
    Likes Received:
    14,885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    By those standards roe vs Wade should never have happened in the first place.
     
  3. Buri

    Buri Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,723
    Likes Received:
    6,426
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well you’re gonna hear it anyway.
     
  4. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what standard would that be?
     
  5. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The standard that says the abortion issue should be left up to the states. Its called Federalism.
     
  6. Sirius Black

    Sirius Black Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2011
    Messages:
    7,559
    Likes Received:
    6,403
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So abortion should exist in all states that wish to allow it and the courts or the Federal government can't change that.
     
  7. Gateman_Wen

    Gateman_Wen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    3,796
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Unenumerated rights.

    Look it up.
     
    Noone and omni like this.
  8. lemmiwinx

    lemmiwinx Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    8,069
    Likes Received:
    5,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's right. The Federal government only has powers granted to it by specifically in the Constitution.
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I usually agree with you but on this one I vehemently disagree.

    The Supreme Court has no Article III authority to create law or "interpret" the Constitution. Those powers were unconstitutionally granted to itself in Marbury v Madison (1803). The power of judicial review ONLY refers to the power granted to the judiciary in Article III to determine if laws are constitutionally compliant, not to "interpret" the Constitution such that it can really mean a law is compliant or not as the wind blows. That would be the tail wagging the dog. The power to create law was exclusively granted to Congress in Article I, not the judiciary.

    The 10th Amendment prohibits the federal government from exercising powers not specifically granted by the Constitution. In 1803 SCOTUS permanently violated the Constitution and has incrementally destroyed the Republic in the process.

    Breathing is not in the Constitution either but it is a right protected by the 9th Amendment which protects ALL unenumerated rights, that is rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, including the protected right to an abortion and more broadly bodily autonomy.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2022
  10. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Abortion is not in the Constitution....period. Sorry you xo not like it but these are the facts. The SCOTUS's job is the interpret the Constitution not engage in social engineering.
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Breathing is not in the Constitution either, sorry but that's a fact. You are in violation of the Constitution 24/7.
     
    Rampart, Lucifer, Noone and 1 other person like this.
  12. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The court granted a woman's right abortion in 1973, and that right has been upheld for 50 years.

    the right was voted 7-2 of whom 5 of the justices were republicans.

    Scores of cases and justices for the last 50 years have upheld that right.

    Recently they took it away and the Chief Justice Roberts did not rule, he asserted that he wouldn't have repealed Roe.

    If Barrett had not become Justice, the 5/4 court would have upheld Roe 4/5.

    One appointment decided this.

    this is a party line vote, and barely.

    The vote of one unelected person appointed by a president who had 3 million fewer votes than his opponent
    decided for 115 million women that they no longer have a right they previously enjoyed for 50 years.


    None of the arguments as to why they did it will matter to whose who previously enjoyed that right.
     
  13. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,662
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You just mentioned Judicial Review. That Texas law would never have gotten to the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade would never have happened.

    I love it when the left argues the constitution!
     
  14. Gateman_Wen

    Gateman_Wen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2015
    Messages:
    3,796
    Likes Received:
    2,342
    Trophy Points:
    113
    we had free choice by the individual up until yesterday. Why take it away and give it to the states?
     
    Rampart and lemmiwinx like this.
  15. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,423
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fake News. The Court declared the opposite, they stated they had no legitimate power to rule the State regulation unlawful.
    It's not. And where the Federal Constitution does not govern, the State Legislatures, or The People do.
    You are the one that brought it up.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2022
    vman12 likes this.
  16. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I like when leftists try so hard to understand things.
     
    SiNNiK, Trixare4kids, KalEl79 and 2 others like this.
  17. Cybred

    Cybred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    7,341
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    9th
     
  18. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    70,176
    Likes Received:
    89,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Would you argue that before the Supreme Court?
     
    Injeun likes this.
  19. Steve N

    Steve N Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2015
    Messages:
    70,176
    Likes Received:
    89,693
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’ll try to find the article and post it, but in that article the left is condemning RBG for not retiring when Obama was president. They’re blasting her real bad.
     
    Melb_muser likes this.
  20. Zorro

    Zorro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    76,423
    Likes Received:
    51,236
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here is a good source for the decision: https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/2022-Dobbs-Distribution.pdf

    The second paragraph asks the mirror of your question: "Why take it from the States?"

    "For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address this issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. Then, in 1973, this Court decided Roe v. Wade. Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one. It did not claim that American law or the common law had ever recognized such a right, and its survey of history ranged from the constitutionally irrelevant (e.g., its discussion of abortion in antiquity) to the plainly incorrect (e.g., its assertion that abortion was probably never a crime under the common law). After cataloging a wealth of other information having no bearing on the meaning of the Constitution, the opinion concluded with a numbered set of rules much like those that might be found in a statute enacted by a legislature."

    You ask a better question and one that I have been kicking around as well. The Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Dobbs has finally admitted the obvious, that Abortion is a power delegated to the Federal Government, but, then it assigns it to the States, but, why is it then presumed to be a State Power, rather than reserved to the People? I think that is roughly your question, I'm looking through the majority decision to see if they answer that question:

    Here as page 3 goes to pg 4 is a glimmer of an answer: "Petitioners’ primary defense of the Mississippi Gestational Age Act is that “the Act is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.”

    So - what's rational-basis review and how does this address your question? Doing a word search of the decision for "rational" the subject picks back up on pg 27 and I'll condense:

    Under our precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard. Procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our Nation’s history. It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson; United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938). That respect for a legislature’s judgment applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance. A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe (1993). It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Id., at 320; Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc. (1955). These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development; the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability. These legitimate interests justify Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act. Except “in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality,” the statute prohibits abortion “if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks.” The Mississippi Legislature’s findings recount the stages of “human prenatal development” and assert the State’s interest in “protecting the life of the unborn.” . . . These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents’ constitutional challenge must fail. ​

    So, I'd say that the Court's answer is that if the State has a legitimate interest and the regulation is rationally tailored to that interest that it may regulate the choice of the individual.
     
  21. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was being sarcastic, see post #9 which I would argue before the Supreme Court not that it would do any good. They are not the Article III judiciary the framers designed, they are a rogue unconstitutional entity.
     
  22. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "A rogue unconstitutional entity" .....unless they do what you approve.
     
  23. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,990
    Likes Received:
    11,046
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is precisely what they are when they make up Constitutional decisions such as Roe Vs Wade.

    Neither situation is satisfactory to a major part of the US population. A large portion consider abortion murder and a large portion consider abortion a woman's right to her own body.

    Turning it over to the states is a compromise. Not ideal by any means, but better than the alternative.
     
  24. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,752
    Likes Received:
    14,562
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Read the 10th amendment.
     
    Trixare4kids and Bob0627 like this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nonsense, I never said that. Roe v Wade was unnecessary, the right to an abortion is already protected by the 9th Amendment. Same with same sex marriages and a host of other decisions "granting" rights already protected by the Bill of Rights. The Supremes should be overturning all laws that abrogate those rights, including most drug laws.
     
    cd8ed and Eleuthera like this.

Share This Page