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

[Remodeling Maidiac]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/u...-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all

Yeah FACTS can sure be real hateful---

Call it whatever you like. The fact remains you post thread after thread about him. You don't stand for any one issue on solid ground. Anything santorum did in congress Newt had already mastered. Yet it didn't stop you from supporting Newt. You simply can't deal with Newts loss. There is no other logical explanation for you to be using Obamas created fake issue to tear down our party.

So then you're O.K. with his record as long as he will ban the use of birth control contraceptives and prohibit women from getting abortions--even in the instance of rape and incest.

GOOD JOB--

Except he ISN'T proposing to ban it.

Your head must be dizzy from all the spinning.

 

[Avatar4321]

Human rights involve the PRIVACY of what goes on between a husband and wife--& their human right to how they institute family planning. Their human right to make a decision on how many children they have, etc.

The FEDERAL or STATE government has no business in their bedrooms--but Santorum thinks they do--LOL.

States may not have the right to ban birth control outright but I see nothing that would prevent them from banning the sale of birth control. There are plenty of things which are banned from state to state. Counties ban the sale of alcohol, some states and counties ban the sale of fireworks, guns etc.

And no, I'm quite sure that birth control is not a basic human right. Here we arrive at the problem that we have created. This case precedence that the legal world uses offers no predictability as far as what can and cannot happen. Instead of everyone pushing for legislation you should be pushing for Constitutional amendments. That way there would be no question about is it or is it not Constitutional.

Instead what we have done is figure out ways to bend and twist the Constitution. See any of the arguments I've had (with both conservatives and liberals) about the authority between levels of government.

Mike

That's already been addressed by the Court. see above.

i'm not quite sure how outlawing sale of birth control ISN'T impeding that right. if a state outlawed the sale of all guns, would you say your second amendment rights were being impaired?

And you seriously don't see how Dread Scott is relevant here?

 

[jillian]

I know nothing about the Constitution because I've read it and agree with Justice Black and Justice Stewart who opposed the Griswold decision? I figure Im in good company. The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government to have any say in birth control. Therefore according to the 10th Amendment, the right to regulate remains with the States.

Why anyone would want to ban contraceptives is beyond me. But just because it's a stupid law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional any more than an intelligent law means it is Constitutional.

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

so the justices DIDN'T understand the 9th, but you do? lol.. seriously, mike?

 

[oreo]

Have you filled out your democratic voter registration card yet?

you know, i can maybe think of three times oreo and i have agreed. but do you not see the contradiction between claiming you're for "small government" and thinking its ok for government to keep you from using birth control? seriously? you people whine if you have to wear a seatbelt and claim it's too much government intrusion, but it's ok for a state to make sure women are barefoot and pregnant. or is it that you want to enforce your religious conviction that we should "multiply and be fruitful"?

either way, it's not government's place to do.

and the court was very clear about it.

the current level of stupidity that leads us to a debate on birth control in the 21st century may well be one of the more bizarre things i've ever seen....

ever.

read the case. learn.

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

RIGHT HERE:--You can watch it on video--and THEN explain to me how Rick Santorum beats Barack Obama?---

Rick Santorum: States Should Have the Right to Outlaw Contraception | Video Cafe

 

[DontBeStupid]

I know nothing about the Constitution because I've read it and agree with Justice Black and Justice Stewart who opposed the Griswold decision? I figure Im in good company. The Constitution gives no authority to the Federal government to have any say in birth control. Therefore according to the 10th Amendment, the right to regulate remains with the States.

Why anyone would want to ban contraceptives is beyond me. But just because it's a stupid law doesn't mean it's unconstitutional any more than an intelligent law means it is Constitutional.

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

Happy to be of service. I notice you didn't point out what I missed, so I'm left to assume you don't understand the Ninth Amendment. It happens.

Ninth Amendment basically says even if something is not spelled out in the Constitution, we still have the right to it. For example, no where does the Constitution say Paris Hilton can make a sex tape and carry a dog in a purse, but, clearly she has that right and can exercise that right.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

you know, i can maybe think of three times oreo and i have agreed. but do you not see the contradiction between claiming you're for "small government" and thinking its ok for government to keep you from using birth control? seriously? you people whine if you have to wear a seatbelt and claim it's too much government intrusion, but it's ok for a state to make sure women are barefoot and pregnant. or is it that you want to enforce your religious conviction that we should "multiply and be fruitful"?

either way, it's not government's place to do.

and the court was very clear about it.

the current level of stupidity that leads us to a debate on birth control in the 21st century may well be one of the more bizarre things i've ever seen....

ever.

read the case. learn.

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.

No more dangerous than a president that proclaims by decree that I must buy a product from a private company. Or that that private company must give away products FOR FREE.

Get some perspective

 

[Avatar4321]

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government and the State Government?

The US Constitution is silent on birth control. Therefore, according to the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, the authority to address regulation of birth control relies in the States.

I don't know what is difficult to understand about this. What part of this do you not understand? Please tell me. What is dangerous about actually following what the Constitution says?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

you know, i can maybe think of three times oreo and i have agreed. but do you not see the contradiction between claiming you're for "small government" and thinking its ok for government to keep you from using birth control? seriously? you people whine if you have to wear a seatbelt and claim it's too much government intrusion, but it's ok for a state to make sure women are barefoot and pregnant. or is it that you want to enforce your religious conviction that we should "multiply and be fruitful"?

either way, it's not government's place to do.

and the court was very clear about it.

the current level of stupidity that leads us to a debate on birth control in the 21st century may well be one of the more bizarre things i've ever seen....

ever.

read the case. learn.

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

RIGHT HERE:--You can watch it on video--and THEN explain to me how Rick Santorum beats Barack Obama?---

Rick Santorum: States Should Have the Right to Outlaw Contraception | Video Cafe

There is a difference in saying something can be done and actually proposing to do it you know.

And Santorum beats Obama by getting more votes. Pretty simple really.

 

[oreo]

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

Happy to be of service. I notice you didn't point out what I missed, so I'm left to assume you don't understand the Ninth Amendment. It happens.

Ninth Amendment basically says even if something is not spelled out in the Constitution, we still have the right to it. For example, no where does the Constitution say Paris Hilton can make a sex tape and carry a dog in a purse, but, clearly she has that right and can exercise that right.

Thank you--VERY GOOD point--I doubt there is anything in the constitution regarding "breathing" too--LOL You know when it's O.K. to breath--and when it's O.K. to exhale--or what times we can have sex, etc. etc. etc, and if we decide to use contraceptives or not.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.

No more dangerous than a president that proclaims by decree that I must buy a product from a private company. Or that that private company must give away products FOR FREE.

Get some perspective

The President has not decreed you must buy a product. And a corporation is not a person and therefore not a citizen.

Get some perspective.

 

[DontBeStupid]

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.

Do you understand the difference between the Federal Government and the State Government?

The US Constitution is silent on birth control. Therefore, according to the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, the authority to address regulation of birth control relies in the States.

I don't know what is difficult to understand about this. What part of this do you not understand? Please tell me. What is dangerous about actually following what the Constitution says?

What's difficult to understand is your utter and total ignoring of the Ninth Amendment. Do you just not know what it means?

 

[jillian]

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

RIGHT HERE:--You can watch it on video--and THEN explain to me how Rick Santorum beats Barack Obama?---

Rick Santorum: States Should Have the Right to Outlaw Contraception | Video Cafe

There is a difference in saying something can be done and actually proposing to do it you know.

And Santorum beats Obama by getting more votes. Pretty simple really.

i'm guessing you haven't bothered looking at any of the 'personhood' laws that are currently being proposed. those would ban most birth control

try again, gramps.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The issue is that 40% of those who voted, and a GOP NOMINEE, all think the State and Federal Government have the right to do it. That is so completely wrong that it's dangerous.

No more dangerous than a president that proclaims by decree that I must buy a product from a private company. Or that that private company must give away products FOR FREE.

Get some perspective

The President has not decreed you must buy a product. And a corporation is not a person and therefore not a citizen.

Get some perspective.

I didn't mention corporations being citizens. Nice diversion.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

RIGHT HERE:--You can watch it on video--and THEN explain to me how Rick Santorum beats Barack Obama?---

Rick Santorum: States Should Have the Right to Outlaw Contraception | Video Cafe

There is a difference in saying something can be done and actually proposing to do it you know.

And Santorum beats Obama by getting more votes. Pretty simple really.

i'm guessing you haven't bothered looking at any of the 'personhood' laws that are currently being proposed. those would ban most birth control

try again, gramps.

link?

 

[Outback]

That's right the U.S. Supreme court has already decided this issue in the Griswold v Connecticut case.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And Rick Santorum is still complaining about this 1965 case. He can't control married couples sex lives for crying out loud--

Look at the outcry from Roe vs Wade. I remember studying it and thinking wow and then wondering at the US being called a Republic. I still wonder.

 

[oreo]

I don't know of any govt, local or national, that is seeking to ban birth control. Hence I believe this is a bogus issue. To propose such a ban is idiotic to say the least. So where is the issue?

RIGHT HERE:--You can watch it on video--and THEN explain to me how Rick Santorum beats Barack Obama?---

Rick Santorum: States Should Have the Right to Outlaw Contraception | Video Cafe

There is a difference in saying something can be done and actually proposing to do it you know.

And Santorum beats Obama by getting more votes. Pretty simple really.

Well--me living in Colorado can give you proof of why a Rick Santorum candidate has no possible way of defeating Barack Obama.

Midterm 2010 election--we republicans thought we had a great conservative candidate in Ken Buck to run against democrat encumbant Michael Bennet. All polls showed Buck leading--we were headed for victory--UNTIL he went on Face the Nation and made an off the wall comment about homosexuality--stating that it was like a disease--similar to alcoholism. That single statement went global on all news stations--political boards around the country. He too was against abortions even in the instances of rape or incest.

This loss was very painful because it was republicans to win. After the vote was studied--we discovered that Ken Buck had LOST the female vote in the state--including large sections of El Paso County--Colorado Springs--HOME TO FOCUS ON THE FAMILY woman vote also. Now keep in mind that Ken Buck was never against birth control.

You see--even pro-life conservative women understand abortions in the circumstances of rape and incest--and they were VOTING against the conservative in this race over that issue. Now can you possibly imagine what women across this country will be doing to Rick Santorum in November 2012?---LOL.

 

[DontBeStupid]

No more dangerous than a president that proclaims by decree that I must buy a product from a private company. Or that that private company must give away products FOR FREE.

Get some perspective

The President has not decreed you must buy a product. And a corporation is not a person and therefore not a citizen.

Get some perspective.

I didn't mention corporations being citizens. Nice diversion.

It's not a diversion. If the President decreed certain gas mileage in cars would you think that's unconstitutional because it violates the rights of the car? No. Then why are you crying over corporations?

Back on subject ... Ninth Amendment. I'm still waiting for any of you to address it.

 

[Texanmike]

That's already been addressed by the Court. see above.

i'm not quite sure how outlawing sale of birth control ISN'T impeding that right. if a state outlawed the sale of all guns, would you say your second amendment rights were being impaired?

This is the problem with modern politics. Judicial legislation is a dangerous road to take but we have been more than happy to take that road. When it comes to guns, it is an enumerated right in the bill of rights, much like the fifth amendment. It wasn't until almost a century after the ratification of the BoR that we began to try to define rights via legislation and judicial decisions.

You may or may not be willing to admit it but the court case is a matter of interpretation. I don't know why all of the people that want birth control listed as a right don't ask for it to be part of the Constitution. Even if there were an amendment that gave congress legislative authority over a specific list of human rights, then we could clear a lot of this stuff up. There was another thread I was arguing about religion, speech etc and where the state stands in all of that. It took literally 50 years of court cases before the judicial system was able to redefine both the 14th and 1st amendment and now it is accepted as fact.

Unfortunately they love us having this discussion. I hope all of you pawns realize that while you are busy bickering over who can and cannot do what they are busy usurping more of your rights than you ever dreamed. Uggh... It is almost hopeless at this point.

Mike

it's "judicial legislation" for the court to acknowledge it is beyond the scope of governmental activity to interfere in our personal choices and the private spheres of our lives?

do me a favor... make your own decisions. be happy. be well. stay out of my business.. and government certainly shouldn't have anything to do with my decisions.

once again, try getting out from under the talking points and tell me on what planet you think government CAN'T tell you that you need to purchase health insurance (particularly given that the constitution has a general welfare clause) and HAS the right to tell me i can't by birth control.

i'll wait.

It is judicial legislation to take something like the 14th amendment or the commerce clause and try to adopt them to fit any and all situations.

As for talking points, what talking points do I have? I don't have a party and I don't have an ideology.

For reference there is not such thing as the "general welfare clause". I suggest you read very carefully what Article 1 Section 8 says. general welfare and common defense are restrictions not empowering statements.

I'm not in favor of government telling me what to do at all. I don't need a baby sitter. You are talking to someone who is anti-federal-drug law period. Not because I use, I don't use drugs, I don't drink, nothing... Hell I am fine with selling rat poison if you want to drink it... knock yourself out.

None of that means that a state can't regulate any of those things. I would like to live in a state where there were there was a prohibition on drugs... but I recognize that there are other people who want a lifestyle that lets them fill their body full of toxins. Part of the problem with all of these issues is we have people in maine trying to tell people in arkansas how to live.

What all of you morons on both sides are going to wind up with is an all or nothing country. There is a reason that the States were granted so much authority in the Constitution. It is because everyone has a different idea of what freedoms are important and how life should be. Imagine if all of the conservatives and liberals broke away from each other, would you be ok with that? Hell at this point I would. I would prefer 1 50 state country with a bunch of different rules. Instead everyone makes this some kind of national debate. That is contrary to the Constitution and contrary to any idea prior to the 1850's.

Enjoy ripping eachother to pieces over social issues.

Mike

 

[Londoner]

Santorum wants to turn women into incubators for the Holy seed of Christ. He wants to Christianize Child berth from Washington.

He wants government to tell every state what to do.

He is no better than the liberals.

The conservatives are taking us back to the dark ages, when the Church drove science and reason under ground.

Conservatives leaders are not as religious as they claim. They are merely using Religion as populism to seduce rural America into voting values over economic interests. Conservatives are doing the work of Big Business, which wants people to be stupid and scared - and easily manipulated by frauds promising national security and moral renewal.

Santorum is going to put Washington in every bedroom. He is going to police the womb on behalf of Jesus.

This is exactly like the dark ages. And it explains why America has become the most radically religious place on earth.

Is it any wonder that we are now last in math and science, behind every other advanced industrial nation. The conservatives have won. We are superstitious and scared. We believe in Creationism. Darwin and the periodic chart are myths.

 

[Texanmike]

And according to the Ninth Amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

But hey, you were saying?

Wow. You've been reading your Constitution. You missed the point of the 9th but I'm glad somebody reads something other than the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 14th. Nice to see.

Mike

so the justices DIDN'T understand the 9th, but you do? lol.. seriously, mike?

The justices don't know much at all these days. You may put them on some pedestal but they are all nominated because of their political and partisan beliefs. I laugh my ass off when I read someone who thinks that the SCOTUS is some kind of impartial body, it could not get more partisan. Want proof? There is really only one justice who's decision you cannot predict on ANY court case. What does that tell you? That they are not impartial. That their politics drive every decision you they make.

Can you tell me the logic behind the 9th amendment? Can you tell me ANYTHING about the situation surrounding the ratification? Who was its biggest proponent? Who argued against it? Why weren't all of the 12 amendments drafted passed? Much less ratified?

No, you can't tell me any of that. You base your opinions on pieces written 200 years later and then you laugh at me... sad.

Mike