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

Yes it is. Without the mother using her body to care for it, it will die. It is as dependent, and in some ways, more dependent on the mother's body to care for it.

Being outside the uterus doesn't change that.

Bye.

 

And there we have it. According to leftwingers, the mother owns the little baby, like a slave. And once again, rightwingers had to free the little slaves.

 

Don't need a dictionary, I have the Constitution.

 

You forgot the "it's not a person" argument that they've also used in both cases.

 

No you don't. The government has the Constitution and it's just a gddamn piece of paper to them and that's exactly how they deal with it. Just ask George Bush.

 

Cursing is a lazy brain's attempt to exert itself forcefully. Do better.

And yes, I do have the Constitution.

 

Furthermore the mother without the father or government to care for her will die. It is as dependent, and in some ways more dependent on the father to care for it.

 

Well... if it's simple english that doesn't need any interpretation, why have a court at all?

There should be no disagreements about the meaning, right?

 

Sorry you're uninformed. I was paraphrasing Bush, take it up with that useful idiot. Keep dreaming about that Constitution if it makes you feel better. If it wasn't trashed the day after it was ratified, it certainly was back in 1803. Sweet dreams

 

You make a decent point but greatly over simplify a very complex situation. You are correct that Marshall used Maybury v Madison (which he decided wrongly BTW) to establish a court authority not explicitly stated in the Constitution. However, it is not all that open and shut. The Constitution states, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, ......... " This raises the question for instance if congress passes a law that is clearly unconstitutional, like establishing a national religion, who or what is find that the law is unconstitutional and stop them?

People have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution as stated in the 9th amendment. However those rights are not universal and all encompassing. Some rights the people have, others they don't. The constitution does not say I have the right to murder someone; that does not mean that I actually have that right.

 

See Constitution - Article III for an explanation.

A petition for Writ of Certiorari is generally filed when there is a question of LAW. That means the LAW is in question, not the Constitution. And the question is usually is the LAW (or a section of the LAW) constitutionally compliant or not. So there might be disagreement about the text of the LAW in question because often laws are written such that they are ambiguous or conflicting. Kapish?

 

Lefties need to learn how to lose.

 

LMAO... Leftists oppose Marbury v. Madison, now.

I guess that horseshit about the court can "interpret" the Constitution isn't cool anymore.

We been telling y'all that for years. Welcome to planet Earth.

 

The court exists to settle disputes between the Executive and Legislative branches and to handle petitions for the redress of grievances.

 

Where do y'all get this idea from, because the 9th Amendment doesn't say anything about protecting unenumerated rights.

 

I'm saying we already picking Jews what we let the government get away with violating in the Constitution.

They should not be able to violate the constitution in any way shape or form

 

Yeah but that's a bad, unworkable, and mindless idea. Same for guns.

 

How is leaving aspects of our lives to be determined by local states mindless and unworkable? I'm sure it's being done successfully somewhere in the world today.

 

You really, truly, are mystified by this??????? Holy crap.

 

No one is taking away bodily autonomy? Have you been sleeping for the last year?

Do you know how many people have been injected with toxic serum ordered against their will? I don't know the number, but it's very large. In our fascist country corporations and government have colluded to eradicate bodily autonomy. Thank Anthony Fauci for that.

 

In this particular case of abortion.

Forcing experimental vaccines on people at the end of a gun is more analogous to the government forcibly impregnating women to sustain population levels.

I'm against both of those.

 

No, not Kapish.

The Constitution has been interpreted since it was drafted. It is true that the Supreme Court is tasked with determining if laws passed are compliant with the Constitution, but in order to do that they must understand what the Constitution says, including interpreting it.

The Second Amendment has been one of the longest standing disagreements related to the interpretation of the Constitution. How can you claim that the court is not tasked with interpreting it?

 

Don't we have amendments to change the constitution:

 

If these black robed lawyers don't understand the Constitution after more than 2 centuries of its existence they are incompetent and should be impeached. I'm not that gullible, that "interpretation" scam is for bridge buyers who have no clue that the real objective is to "interpret" the Constitution to benefit whatever purpose serves best at the time it is being "interpreted". Whether abortion is a protected right or not does not change in interpretation as the wind blows. It is protected by the 9th Amendment and that never changes. States have no authority under the Constitution to legislate any protected right.

 

Ok, so tell me definitively without question what the 2nd Amendment means and how it's applicable to current issues.