If Roe Is Overturned, It Will Mark The First Time In The History Of The Constitution Civil Rights Were Taken Away, Not Expanded

[Yarddog]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

There IS some debate you know? of wether a baby at 8 0r 9 months who could live outside the womb also has civil rights. Of course a baby at 8 or 9 months is not capable of talking and expressing its feelings that it may want to live... but do keep in mind that in Liberal, progressive.. ahead of it's time San Francisco,... peoples pets are offered civil rights and they cant talk either.
Whichever side of this you're on for whatever reasons... do keep in mind that one person's limits to civil rights end where another person's civil rights begin. Most states will still offer rights to have an abortion but there may be limits in certain situations, and if need be, one can travel to any state of their choosing and no one will stop them.

 

[mudwhistle]

Agree. The right to privacy is a manufactured construct that is necessary to justify this kind of overreach.

The right to privacy isn't absolute.
It's highly ironic considering the fact that Big Brother is watching us at all times.
I've come to understand that everything the left says is a lie.....and this very fact is what they are hoping to use to subjugate us.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. When we hear pundits bemoaning the injuries to Stare Decisis, they never quite get around to explaining that precedent can be used to guide but it certainly does not take away the ability to change law in ways not previously considered. Those two examples are the perfect retort.

If Stare Decisis was absolute Plessey would still be in effect.

 

[HikerGuy83]

The right to privacy isn't absolute.
It's highly ironic considering the fact that Big Brother is watching us at all times.
I've come to understand that everything the left says is a lie.....and this very fact is what they are hoping to use to subjugate us.

There is no right to privacy the way Douglas termed it.

There is inherent privacy in things like the first amendment, but not Douglas's term.

 

[Thunderbird]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

The Constitution has been used in the past to limit rights!

Margaret Sanger’s extreme brand of eugenics

Even Planned Parenthood now seems embarrassed by Sanger’s support for forced sterilization, writes John J. Conley. Her targeting of the black population to reduce birth rates is equally troubling.

www.americamagazine.org

And protecting small humans is an expansion of rights.

 

[jbrownson0831]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

Anybody ever tell you that you are a wacko??

 

[bripat9643]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

Nope. The 18th Amendment took away your right to drink alcohol.

 

[Pellinore]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

As a matter of legal history, it has happened before, but it is exceedingly rare. The last time was in the 1920s or 1930s, when the Supreme Court removed a right to contract with a decision that gave more protection to consumers.

So, it hasn't happened in any of our lifetimes, but it has happened in the dim and hazy past.

 

[Pellinore]

There is no constitutional civil right to abortion.

Except there is. You have your own perfectly legitimate opinion that there shouldn't be, but since the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that there is, it is a legal fact that (as of now) that right does exist. The system worked the exact same way for gun control, when the Supreme Court ruled in an equally legitimate 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment applies to personal ownership. You can hate the ruling, but it does exist. That's how the system works.

And protecting small humans is an expansion of rights.

This is also a perfectly legitimate opinion, but even if we accept it as fact, it would still mean stripping a segment of society of a constitutional guarantee in order to assert a different one to a different segment. Something would still be lost.

I know it's all a bit ridiculous and nitpicky, but that kind of comes with the territory.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

Overturning Roe does not place a limit on rights.

 

[woodwork201]

"Overturning Roe v. Wade would be such a significant decision because it would be the first time in the history of the Constitution that precedent would be overturned to limit civil rights, not expand them," according to Neama Rahmani, the president of West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

If Roe v. Wade is tossed it would mark the first time the Supreme Court overturned precedent 'to limit civil rights, not expand them,' expert says

"Instead of using the Constitution to expand rights" overturning Roe v. Wade would limit the rights of Americans, an expert told Insider.

www.businessinsider.com

You're completely wrong. This will be a case of protecting the civil rights of the unborn and the 5th Amendment requirement that life cannot be taken without due process. The government had no authority to give permission to take the life of the unborn without due process. Overturning Roe fits exactly in the pattern, authority, and obligation of the government to protect rights.

 

[woodwork201]

Except there is. You have your own perfectly legitimate opinion that there shouldn't be, but since the Supreme Court decided in 1973 that there is, it is a legal fact that (as of now) that right does exist. The system worked the exact same way for gun control, when the Supreme Court ruled in an equally legitimate 2008 ruling that the Second Amendment applies to personal ownership. You can hate the ruling, but it does exist. That's how the system works.


This is also a perfectly legitimate opinion, but even if we accept it as fact, it would still mean stripping a segment of society of a constitutional guarantee in order to assert a different one to a different segment. Something would still be lost.

I know it's all a bit ridiculous and nitpicky, but that kind of comes with the territory.

It is not a fact that right now the right exists. The only fact is that precedent dissuades government at all levels from enforcing laws to protect the unborn. Supreme Court rulings do not create or strip rights. The Court can only create precedent.

 

[fncceo]

It Will Mark The First Time In The History Of The Constitution Civil Rights Were Taken Away, Not Expanded​

Except that there never was a Constitutional Right to medical privacy. The 1973 Court did an end-run around Congress and Congress was grateful to avoid a no-win political hot potato.

The Court cannot expand or remove rights ... only Congress can do that.

 

[woodwork201]

Except that there never was a Constitutional Right to medical privacy. The 1973 Court did an end-run around Congress and Congress was grateful to avoid a no-win political hot potato.

The Court cannot expand or remove rights ... only Congress can do that.

Close but no cigar. Congress can not create, expand, or remove rights. Congress can grant some privileges and take them away, but not rights. Within limits, Congress can limit the exercise of rights but they can never remove them.

It's impossible to know where we would be with the Federal Government today had the Federalists not agreed to the demands of the anti-Federalists but we are where we are. The 9th Amendment protects rights not explicit in the Constitution as amended but, unfortunately, we're stuck with the Court deciding what is a right and what is not.

 

[fncceo]

Congress can not create, expand, or remove rights.

Wrong!

Every single amendment to The US Constitutionsince the original Constitutional Convention in 1891 was voted on and ratified by state legislatures.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

There is no civil right to kill an innocent person. Think of some other right.

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong!

Every single amendment to The US Constitutionsince the original Constitutional Convention in 1891 was voted on and ratified by state legislatures.

Ok. I'll take that.

I've argued in the past that even the Bill of Rights didn't create rights but the right to trial by jury mentioned in the 6th Amendment might be the one exception. There is a natural right to a fair trial but the jury of peers case is a specialization of the fair trial right. So did the 6th Amendment create the right to a fair trial or did it tell America how it was required to protect and preserve that right?

I've also considered whether the 13th Amendment created a right to not be a slave but that right always existed, the 13th just enforced it in the United States.

Also, does the 15th Amendment create a right for blacks to vote? Not really; it is a natural right to have a say in the government.

Did the 19th Amendment create a right to vote for women? Or did it just restrict the government from limiting the exercise of that right by women? The actual text of the Amendment says the latter. Like the text of the 2nd and other Amendments, the 19th Amendment acknowledges the right to vote as a preexisting right and requires the government to not restrict the right based on sex.

Then there's the 26th Amendment. Did it expand the right to include 18-year-olds or did it restrict government's authority to deny the right for anyone 18 or older based on age. The Amendment actually states the latter case. It states, "The right of the citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." The opening phrase actually refers to the right of 18-year-olds to vote as an existing right and simply restricts government power to deny it while leaving in place an implication of government power to deny the vote to those under 18.

If Pelosi passes her stated wish of giving 16-year-olds the vote in Federal elections, that doesn't even take an Amendment she can do that with a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. That the 26th Amendment enforces that the government cannot prevent 18 year olds from voting it doesn't restrict 5-year-olds from voting. That's a scary thought that we should get fixed if we ever have an Article V convention.

So I have long argued that the Bill of Rights, and possibly the entire Constitution, creates or grants no rights at all; it only protects them or otherwise limits government's authority to limit the exercise of preexisting rights. I've also challenged my own view and go back from time to time to read and consider it again. Without an in-depth review again, I still cannot think of a case where any amendment created or granted a right.

Since you're the one making the argument, please tell which right was created by an Amendment ratified by Congress and the State Legislatures.

 

[woodwork201]

That may be true. I'm not going to assume it is because the West Coast Trial Lawyers president says it.

I do agree that this overturning would be a limit on rights because it overturns a previous ruling that granted a right. Someone may say that this ruling will grant the right to live to the unborn, but merely overturning Roe v. Wade will not do that.

I'm not sure that is the only overturning of precedent that has ever limited a right previously granted. In fact, it isn't. Brown vs. Topeka limited the right to discriminate previously granted by Plessy v. Ferguson. The right to discriminate by race in public accommodations is not a civil right.

I'm not sure if unlimited abortion could be called a "civil right." What definition of "civil rights" do you and/or Rahmani use to reach that conclusion?

Roe v. Wade did not grant a right. Even the left doesn't make that claim. The left claims that it recognized and protected an existing right. That is how it works in virtually, if not absolutely, every case of rights in the Constitution, explicit or implied.

Of course it didn't actually recognize and protect an existing right; it was simply a lie and the authors of the ruling knew it was a lie.

They can not create a right by court order or by lie. Even when acting honestly or at least with the best of intent, they can only recognize a right or what they believe to be a right and protect that right. The never create or grant a right.

 

[woodwork201]

Really? Democrats : Infanticide is GOOD. Democrats Also: The death penalty is BAD. Do you detect hint of contradiction there?

I had the same question as death-ninja. It seemed like you were saying what you cleared up here but then you seemed to attack him for saying basically the same thing.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[woodwork201]

Agree. The right to privacy is a manufactured construct that is necessary to justify this kind of overreach.

Same thing with Substantive due process. Due process has a very narrow meaning but substantive due process was made up in the 20th century, to create both fake rights and fake powers of government.