Do States have the RIGHT to BAN birth control devices as Rick Santorum stated?

[Mustang]

Remember prohibition?

making our own condoms. now there's a scary thought.

Maybe Americans will suddenly decide to become shepherds.

 

[Stephanie]

It really doesn't matter, Santorum will never win the Presidency.

They said about Reagan too. But after Jimma Carter. Remember what happened..

 

[Mustang]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Its total bullshit Oreo....

This is what Santorum said about it on Jan 6th

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

It's a sad day when some conservatives fall right into the trap that the liberals have made on this issue.

It's such a manufactured issue and I can't believe people are too stupid to realize it.

Conservatives jumped in with both feet.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The answer to the question is YES. If said state is in Communist China. Meanwhile here in the US, the answer is obviously NO.

 

[Stephanie]

well you all can continue to think this is Manufactured or not serious...but MANY more disagree with you.

Remember folks, this is NOT ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL...people can get that on every street corner...don't let them change the subject.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Griswold says that you cannot make it illegal to USE contraception...it doesn't say it makes it illegal to ban the sale of contraception...or tax the crap out of it, like cigarettes and alcohol.

It doesn’t need to say states may not ban the sale of contraceptives, as such a ban would clearly be an idiotic and disastrous policy. States shouldn’t need the threat of a lawsuit to refrain from enacting bad legislation.

if you’re such a constitutional scholar you’ll know that the “right” to privacy established in Griswold in 1965 was what the Court used to justify the Roe decision in 1973. So, Santorum is absolutely right when he argues that there are unintended consequences when the Court oversteps elected legislatures and invents “rights.”

The Court ‘invented’ no rights, it merely acknowledged a right that existed as long as humans have existed:

We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred.

Griswold v. Connecticut

He said the States have a right to do it...he did not say they SHOULD. But he also said it's not constitutional....and that it should be up to the people to decide.

It’s up to neither the states nor the people to decide; civil rights aren’t determined by majority rule.

making our own condoms. now there's a scary thought.

Or having them smuggled in for sale in the black market. Likely one of the many reasons why no state would do something so stupid.

It really doesn't matter, Santorum will never win the Presidency.

True.

But there are a significant number of people who hold the same misguided beliefs, which is quite troubling.

 

[oreo]

Griswold says that you cannot make it illegal to USE contraception...it doesn't say it makes it illegal to ban the sale of contraception...or tax the crap out of it, like cigarettes and alcohol.

It doesn’t need to say states may not ban the sale of contraceptives, as such a ban would clearly be an idiotic and disastrous policy. States shouldn’t need the threat of a lawsuit to refrain from enacting bad legislation.

if you’re such a constitutional scholar you’ll know that the “right” to privacy established in Griswold in 1965 was what the Court used to justify the Roe decision in 1973. So, Santorum is absolutely right when he argues that there are unintended consequences when the Court oversteps elected legislatures and invents “rights.”

The Court ‘invented’ no rights, it merely acknowledged a right that existed as long as humans have existed:





It’s up to neither the states nor the people to decide; civil rights aren’t determined by majority rule.

making our own condoms. now there's a scary thought.

Or having them smuggled in for sale in the black market. Likely one of the many reasons why no state would do something so stupid.

It really doesn't matter, Santorum will never win the Presidency.

True.

But there are a significant number of people who hold the same misguided beliefs, which is quite troubling.

There is no RIGHT for the STATE or anyone for that matter to intervene between the intimacy between a man and a woman--or husband and wife--as to their intimacy--and their personal PRIVATE decision how to manage birth control--PERIOD.

Now while Rick Santorum sent a shiver up all the Christian rights legs--in his SPEECH that God gives you rights--not the government--it sure looks like he more than O.K. with STATES taking away your right to use birth control contraceptives.--

Here is the statement from Santorum that is absolutely astounding:

Regarding the U.S Supreme court:

“The state has a right to do that, I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that," he said. "It is not a constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whtever statutes they have. That's the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court--they are creating rights.

--
Rick Santorum: States Should Have Power To Ban Birth Control, Sodomy

No Santorum they are protecting individual rights from social freak nut-cases like you.

 

[Stephanie]

So re posting the same crap from Hufferpost is suppose to prove something?

what the hell exactly has your panties all in a bunch? or do you even know?

 

[The T]

It really doesn't matter, Santorum will never win the Presidency.

Reagan was painted with the same brush and won twice in TWO lanslides.

Go figure...

 

[Avatar4321]

The answer is that it depends.

The 10th amendment gives the States the right to do anything not in the jusidiction of the Federal government. Even the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the States, it's only been applied to them through the 14th amendment and Case law.

So it would depend on what the State Constitutions said in regards to birth control.

At least it would be without the poor decision of Griswold v. Connecticut in which 7 Justices of the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional despite the Constitution being completely silent on the issue.

If you believe in following the US Constitution, then GvC is bad case law and yes the States have the right to do so.

Why they would do something as ridiculous as that, I don't know. But there are easy ways to prevent it if the people stay active in their local government as they should. And they can do it without judicial fiat.

 

[The T]

The answer is that it depends.

The 10th amendment gives the States the right to do anything not in the jusidiction of the Federal government. Even the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the States, it's only been applied to them through the 14th amendment and Case law.

So it would depend on what the State Constitutions said in regards to birth control.

At least it would be without the poor decision of Griswold v. Connecticut in which 7 Justices of the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional despite the Constitution being completely silent on the issue.

If you believe in following the US Constitution, then GvC is bad case law and yes the States have the right to do so.

Why they would do something as ridiculous as that, I don't know. But there are easy ways to prevent it if the people stay active in their local government as they should. And they can do it without judicial fiat.

And why Presential elections have consequences...

 

[oreo]

So re posting the same crap from Hufferpost is suppose to prove something?

what the hell exactly has your panties all in a bunch? or do you even know?

You just can't get over that this is your candidate spewing such Bull-shit can you?

Well here is another video--staring Rick Santorum--telling us that Birth control is BAD for women and our SOCIETY.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

I suggest more study of the Constitution. Particularly the 4th amendment. Because it doesnt say what you claim it says.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

states have the right to just about anything that is not in the Constitution....

 

[The T]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Is property being seized regarding birth control?

Son? May I suggest a review by you?

 

[oreo]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

I suggest more study of the Constitution. Particularly the 4th amendment. Because it doesnt say what you claim it says.

Argue your case with the author of the video on the original post--who states that it is unconstitutional for the STATES to BAN birth control contraceptives.

Watch it again if you have to--because he specifically mentions the U.S. Constitution and the 4th amendment.

 

[Stephanie]

So re posting the same crap from Hufferpost is suppose to prove something?

what the hell exactly has your panties all in a bunch? or do you even know?

You just can't get over that this is your candidate spewing such Bull-shit can you?

Well here is another video--staring Rick Santorum--telling us that Birth control is BAD for women and our SOCIETY.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MBO9tNNejo]Santorum: birth control harms women and society - YouTube[/ame]

you my dear are fucking losing it..just because I don't see the boogyman that you do in what he said..
and you don't KNOW who my candidate is SO don't Pretend you do...
Now..............rant on...this thread has become a bore anyway

 

[The T]

Oreo? The Fourth has zero to do with abortion...WHY do you cite it?

Explain...

And why the hard-on for Santorum?

 

[Avatar4321]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

Surging Republican Santorum thinks condoms should be outlawed? - YouTube

Its total bullshit Oreo....

This is what Santorum said about it on Jan 6th

“I was asked if I believed in it, and I said, ‘No, I’m a Catholic, and I don’t.’ I don’t want the government to fund it through Planned Parenthood, but that’s different than wanting to ban it; the idea I’m coming after your birth control is absurd. I was making a statement about my moral beliefs, but I won’t impose them on anyone else in this case. I don’t think the government should be involved in that. People are free to make their own decisions.’’

Someone didn't WATCH the above video--he most certainly did say it--it's right there. He states that STATES have the right to BAN birth control devices.

Under the US Constitution, they do.

Under bad case law, they don't.

According to state law, it depends.

You want to make this a black or white situation and focus on the emotional aspects of it. It really isn't because we arent a unitary government. We have a government where power is separated.

Just because a law is stupid doesn't mean it's unconstitutional.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

I found this very interesting explanation of the U.S. Constitution--along with the 4th amendment that says Santorum is WRONG on this issue.

No STATE can interfere with the intimate relationship between a Husband & Wife--or between Man & woman on their personal decision as to how many children they want--as it is considered a matter of privacy.

I suggest more study of the Constitution. Particularly the 4th amendment. Because it doesnt say what you claim it says.

Argue your case with the author of the video on the original post--who states that it is unconstitutional for the STATES to BAN birth control contraceptives.

Watch it again if you have to--because he specifically mentions the U.S. Constitution and the 4th amendment.

Then the author is WRONG, because the only limits the COTUS puts on STATES is that A) they can't take power specifically reserved for the federal government and B) federal ALWAYS supersedes state law. Since the COTUS in fact does NOT give the federal government power to dictate birth control that obviously means that states aren't precluded by the COTUS from passing their own laws concerning it.

I do however believe that each state has their own constitutions which would prevent them from doing so.