Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
[
Roe V Wade was horrible constitutional law, creating something out of nothing. The Militias are to be regulated by the states, but the right to bear arms remains the with PEOPLE, not the militia. commas mean something.
And nope, that's infringement.
Um, that's an interpretation. Other people have other interpretations.
Clearly, I don't think that the Founders ever meant for Adam Lanza to be armed like the Zombies were coming.
Actually sir, our Revolutiony War was fought primarily by PRIVATE Armies hired by the USG, and in fact until the CIvil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was better armed than the US military. Those are facts.
What's changed since then that's made it more dangerous to trust people with guns?
[
Roe V Wade was horrible constitutional law, creating something out of nothing. The Militias are to be regulated by the states, but the right to bear arms remains the with PEOPLE, not the militia. commas mean something.
And nope, that's infringement.
Um, that's an interpretation. Other people have other interpretations.
Clearly, I don't think that the Founders ever meant for Adam Lanza to be armed like the Zombies were coming.
Actually sir, our Revolutiony War was fought primarily by PRIVATE Armies hired by the USG, and in fact until the CIvil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was better armed than the US military. Those are facts.
What's changed since then that's made it more dangerous to trust people with guns?
1) Guns are a lot more deadly than they were back then.
2) Guns have become cheaper and easier to buy, even by people like Adam Lanza who shouldn't have them.
3) Today we have professional police and military, so we don't need to do that shit ourselves.
[
Roe V Wade was horrible constitutional law, creating something out of nothing. The Militias are to be regulated by the states, but the right to bear arms remains the with PEOPLE, not the militia. commas mean something.
And nope, that's infringement.
Um, that's an interpretation. Other people have other interpretations.
Clearly, I don't think that the Founders ever meant for Adam Lanza to be armed like the Zombies were coming.
Actually sir, our Revolutiony War was fought primarily by PRIVATE Armies hired by the USG, and in fact until the CIvil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was better armed than the US military. Those are facts.
What's changed since then that's made it more dangerous to trust people with guns?
1) Guns are a lot more deadly than they were back then.
2) Guns have become cheaper and easier to buy, even by people like Adam Lanza who shouldn't have them.
3) Today we have professional police and military, so we don't need to do that shit ourselves.
and that changes our rights HOW exactly?
[
Roe V Wade was horrible constitutional law, creating something out of nothing. The Militias are to be regulated by the states, but the right to bear arms remains the with PEOPLE, not the militia. commas mean something.
And nope, that's infringement.
Um, that's an interpretation. Other people have other interpretations.
Clearly, I don't think that the Founders ever meant for Adam Lanza to be armed like the Zombies were coming.
Actually sir, our Revolutiony War was fought primarily by PRIVATE Armies hired by the USG, and in fact until the CIvil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was better armed than the US military. Those are facts.
What's changed since then that's made it more dangerous to trust people with guns?
1) Guns are a lot more deadly than they were back then.
2) Guns have become cheaper and easier to buy, even by people like Adam Lanza who shouldn't have them.
3) Today we have professional police and military, so we don't need to do that shit ourselves.
and that changes our rights HOW exactly?
It's a matter of what's practical in the modern world.
There's no good reason for a civilian to have a gun.
A gun inthe home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
And you are never going to overthrow the government with those guns. The government has tanks and bombs and drones. Rock beats Scissors, baby.
If you care about these women having abortions, you wouldn't be keeping the clinics in substandard conditions.
[
Roe V Wade was horrible constitutional law, creating something out of nothing. The Militias are to be regulated by the states, but the right to bear arms remains the with PEOPLE, not the militia. commas mean something.
And nope, that's infringement.
Um, that's an interpretation. Other people have other interpretations.
Clearly, I don't think that the Founders ever meant for Adam Lanza to be armed like the Zombies were coming.
Actually sir, our Revolutiony War was fought primarily by PRIVATE Armies hired by the USG, and in fact until the CIvil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was better armed than the US military. Those are facts.
What's changed since then that's made it more dangerous to trust people with guns?
1) Guns are a lot more deadly than they were back then.
2) Guns have become cheaper and easier to buy, even by people like Adam Lanza who shouldn't have them.
3) Today we have professional police and military, so we don't need to do that shit ourselves.
and that changes our rights HOW exactly?
It's a matter of what's practical in the modern world.
There's no good reason for a civilian to have a gun.
A gun inthe home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
And you are never going to overthrow the government with those guns. The government has tanks and bombs and drones. Rock beats Scissors, baby.
so get the 2nd repealed. good luck
I'd suggest you start smaller myself. I mean when was the last time the government tried to house soldiers in your home without permission?
Texas republicans who tried to force unreal regulations on Plan parenthood would have cause about 27 offices to close if the new law went into affect ... well yesterday it was was considered unconstitutional
Shallow interpretation.
Pro-lifers attempted to close most or all abortion clinics known to provide abortions with little to no level of standards. A liberal court struck it down. Big surprise.
You frame it as a systemic fault of a political party. You reduce the life and death of fetuses to a political volleyball. That is as pathetic as it is disgusting.
The life and death of fetuses is not a "women's rights" issue any more than the minimum wage issue is a living wage issue.....TWO DIFFERNT ISSUES, yet the libs, in their never ending crusade to fundamentally transform the country, must logically show disdain for tradition and must always confuse the issues.
Just what are "unreal regulations?" Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Do you mean stopping the killing of viable fetuses? Because really, that is what this is all about. Nobody is talking about medical emergencies or the morning after pill, etc....
1. Who determined which, "abortion clinics (are) known to provide abortions with little to no level of standards"? Are the standards the same for all similar medical clinics, or are they different for those which provided abortons?
2. Better you complain to those who want to withhold age appropratie sexual education in the public schools, and the open and frank discussions of STD's and their means of transmission, plus methods to protect oneself from diseases and pregnancy.
[
Roe V Wade was horrible constitutional law, creating something out of nothing. The Militias are to be regulated by the states, but the right to bear arms remains the with PEOPLE, not the militia. commas mean something.
And nope, that's infringement.
Um, that's an interpretation. Other people have other interpretations.
Clearly, I don't think that the Founders ever meant for Adam Lanza to be armed like the Zombies were coming.
Actually sir, our Revolutiony War was fought primarily by PRIVATE Armies hired by the USG, and in fact until the CIvil War, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was better armed than the US military. Those are facts.
What's changed since then that's made it more dangerous to trust people with guns?
1) Guns are a lot more deadly than they were back then.
2) Guns have become cheaper and easier to buy, even by people like Adam Lanza who shouldn't have them.
3) Today we have professional police and military, so we don't need to do that shit ourselves.
and that changes our rights HOW exactly?
It's a matter of what's practical in the modern world.
There's no good reason for a civilian to have a gun.
A gun inthe home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.
And you are never going to overthrow the government with those guns. The government has tanks and bombs and drones. Rock beats Scissors, baby.
so get the 2nd repealed. good luck
I'd suggest you start smaller myself. I mean when was the last time the government tried to house soldiers in your home without permission?
We don't need to repeal it. Just get judges who read it our way.
Also incorrect.[
And considering any other outpatient facility can meet this requirements, why are you so keen on Abortion Clinics being treated as something else? How about meeting the standards? If it costs more, what is expense in the face not not allowing women their "freedom of choice"???
Can't all these Hollywood types raise money to let these doctors meet the new laws?
None of these requirements are really about making abortion clinics safer. They are about making life difficult for abortion providers and seekers because you don't like abortions.
If you want to go that route.
We should require all gun owners to carry 1 million dollars of insurance... with exorbitant premiums. Every gun should have biometric triggers so only the owner can fire it. It'll make guns prohibitively expensive.
and you guys should happily meet the standards. You can get the Koch Brothers to underwrite these things for you.
After all, 32,000 deaths and 78,000 injuries due to guns trump the whopping few dozen deaths due to botched abortions in this country.
again, shall not be infringed. I don't see that about abortion in the constitution. Besides, medical procedures can be regulated by the States, its within their powers to do it.
I have no issue with abortion, if put to a vote, i would vote against any restrictions save public funding restrictions, and minor's being able to get one without the consent of the parents OR a court order. What I am against is ignoring the constitution, and the document gives this to the state legislatures.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly. And the citizens who reside in the states are first and foremost citizens of the United States, where the states are subordinate to that – citizens' civil liberties are not subject to 'popular vote' or the 'will of the majority,' one does not forfeit his civil liberties merely as a consequence of his state of residence, nor may the states decide who will or will not have his civil liberties.
By advocating that the states have the 'authority' to decide who will or will not have his civil liberties is in fact to ignore the Constitution, where the Founding Document clearly states in Article VI that Federal laws, the rulings of Federal courts, and the Federal Constitution itself are the supreme law of the land, inviolate by the states, where the states may not interfere with the relationship between the people and their National government, nor violate the rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution, the Constitution the people themselves created, not the states.
...
Nope, I have no issue with the end result, what I have an issue with is Roe V Wade is horrible case law. My view is individual states have the right to restrict or allow abortion as they see fit, as it is not mentioned in the constitution, and thus devolves to the State Legislatures.
I live in New York State. Abortion here is protected, and is the right of the state. If Mississippi wants to ban it, they should be able to, with the limits of they can only ban its performance within their borders, not ban their citizens from having one.
I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the constitution, I am fairly libertarian when it comes to social issues, however I recognize the State Legislatures rights to create laws on those issues as long as not constitutionally prohibited.
educate yourself...
US CONSTITUTION
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
Article III Constitution US Law LII Legal Information Institute
Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy...
In a 7-2 decision written by Justice Harry Blackmun (who was chosen because of his prior experience as counsel to the Mayo Clinic), the Court ruled that the Texas statute violated Jane Roe's constitutional right to privacy. The Court argued that the Constitution's First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's "zone of privacy" against state laws...
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Roe v. Wade 1973 PBS
c clayton jones already schooled you in detailed posts above, marty.
you can continue to claim the court was wrong but the court has continually reaffirmed that states have no right to violate a woman's privacy in the first trimester...it's unconstitutional!
