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.
Abortion is not a right as it involves two or more individuals. You just call it that as an excuse.I'm not anti-abortion. I'm only pointing out the possible ramifications of states usurping the Fed.If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.
Guy, they rarely arrested abortion providers when abortion was "illegal".
The problem you anti-choice nutters make is you think that before 1973, America was a happy land free of evil abortions.
Nope. Before 1973, women had abortions, doctors wrote down something else on their charts, and the only time someone got arrested is if the provider messed up and sent the woman to the hospital.
They never arrested women for having them, because no one would have tolerated that.
Moron.
No, you're not. As there is a right to abortion. There is no right to not have pot sold in a State.
Completely different basis.
And the constitution made blacks 2/3 of a person as a right.More rights bullshit. Rights don't involve others beyond the individual.If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.
Selling pot doesn't violate any right. Restricting abortion does.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Rights are protection from government interference. Women have the right to have an abortion without the government interfering with them.
Pot laws are conflicts between state and federal powers.
Rights and powers are *not* the same thing. The conflicts you're speaking of have entirely different bases.
And the constitution made blacks 2/3 of a person as a right.More rights bullshit. Rights don't involve others beyond the individual.If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.
Selling pot doesn't violate any right. Restricting abortion does.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Rights are protection from government interference. Women have the right to have an abortion without the government interfering with them.
Pot laws are conflicts between state and federal powers.
Rights and powers are *not* the same thing. The conflicts you're speaking of have entirely different bases.
Enough with the lame rights bullshit argument attempt.
True. However, they were not as common as the left would like everyone to think they were.I seriously pray we never go back to the days where women have to resort to using coat hangers again. Those weren't pleasant times.
True. However, they were not as common as the left would like everyone to think they were.I seriously pray we never go back to the days where women have to resort to using coat hangers again. Those weren't pleasant times.
I think this is a bad example as the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
A more apt incident of the left supporting the feds to flay the States would be marriage licenses.
Either way, this is clearly a conflict of competing rights. States vs Feds.
It is an excellent example.True. However, they were not as common as the left would like everyone to think they were.I seriously pray we never go back to the days where women have to resort to using coat hangers again. Those weren't pleasant times.
I think this is a bad example as the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
A more apt incident of the left supporting the feds to flay the States would be marriage licenses.
Nope. Still a shit example.....as same sex marriage is a legally recognized right.
There is no right to smoke pot. Or a right to live in a state that outlaws it. There are no rights involved. Its a *powers* question, with the State power to legalize pot coming in conflict with the Federal power to criminalize it.
Which has nothing to do with rights.
Either way, this is clearly a conflict of competing rights. States vs Feds.
Neither the States nor the Federal government have 'rights'. They have powers. Only people have rights.
It is an excellent example.True. However, they were not as common as the left would like everyone to think they were.I seriously pray we never go back to the days where women have to resort to using coat hangers again. Those weren't pleasant times.
I think this is a bad example as the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
A more apt incident of the left supporting the feds to flay the States would be marriage licenses.
Nope. Still a shit example.....as same sex marriage is a legally recognized right.
There is no right to smoke pot. Or a right to live in a state that outlaws it. There are no rights involved. Its a *powers* question, with the State power to legalize pot coming in conflict with the Federal power to criminalize it.
Which has nothing to do with rights.
Either way, this is clearly a conflict of competing rights. States vs Feds.
Neither the States nor the Federal government have 'rights'. They have powers. Only people have rights.
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.
You're clearly wrong.It is an excellent example.True. However, they were not as common as the left would like everyone to think they were.I seriously pray we never go back to the days where women have to resort to using coat hangers again. Those weren't pleasant times.
I think this is a bad example as the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
A more apt incident of the left supporting the feds to flay the States would be marriage licenses.
Nope. Still a shit example.....as same sex marriage is a legally recognized right.
There is no right to smoke pot. Or a right to live in a state that outlaws it. There are no rights involved. Its a *powers* question, with the State power to legalize pot coming in conflict with the Federal power to criminalize it.
Which has nothing to do with rights.
Either way, this is clearly a conflict of competing rights. States vs Feds.
Neither the States nor the Federal government have 'rights'. They have powers. Only people have rights.
Nope. Its a garbage example. As marriage is about rights. This conflict is about powers.
Powers, for the Feds anyway, are exhaustive. Rights for people aren't. Rights don't need to be enumerated to exist. The people reserve rights that aren't in the bill of rights. The Federal government on the other hand has no more powers than they are granted by the federal government.
Its a very, very different situation. The 9th amendment is a great guide on this issue related to rights, the 10th on powers retained by the State. By precedent, the Feds have the upper hand on this one. But I always found the interstate commerce clause adaptions of the Federal government to be some weak fucking tea, constitutionally.
If intrastate commerce is effectively the same thing as interstate commerce, why did the Framers bother with the distinction? Simple: because they aren't the same thing. I think the Supreme Court got this one very wrong.
You're clearly wrong.It is an excellent example.True. However, they were not as common as the left would like everyone to think they were.I seriously pray we never go back to the days where women have to resort to using coat hangers again. Those weren't pleasant times.
I think this is a bad example as the SCOTUS has ruled on this.
A more apt incident of the left supporting the feds to flay the States would be marriage licenses.
Nope. Still a shit example.....as same sex marriage is a legally recognized right.
There is no right to smoke pot. Or a right to live in a state that outlaws it. There are no rights involved. Its a *powers* question, with the State power to legalize pot coming in conflict with the Federal power to criminalize it.
Which has nothing to do with rights.
Either way, this is clearly a conflict of competing rights. States vs Feds.
Neither the States nor the Federal government have 'rights'. They have powers. Only people have rights.
Nope. Its a garbage example. As marriage is about rights. This conflict is about powers.
Powers, for the Feds anyway, are exhaustive. Rights for people aren't. Rights don't need to be enumerated to exist. The people reserve rights that aren't in the bill of rights. The Federal government on the other hand has no more powers than they are granted by the federal government.
Its a very, very different situation. The 9th amendment is a great guide on this issue related to rights, the 10th on powers retained by the State. By precedent, the Feds have the upper hand on this one. But I always found the interstate commerce clause adaptions of the Federal government to be some weak fucking tea, constitutionally.
If intrastate commerce is effectively the same thing as interstate commerce, why did the Framers bother with the distinction? Simple: because they aren't the same thing. I think the Supreme Court got this one very wrong.
I'm not anti-abortion. I'm only pointing out the possible ramifications of states usurping the Fed.
Moron.
Abortion is not a right as it involves two or more individuals. You just call it that as an excuse.
If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.
Unless the woman performs the abortion on herself, aborting a man's baby is a privilege skewed as a right. You leftovers keep doing that 1960's 'rights' bs dance.And the constitution made blacks 2/3 of a person as a right.More rights bullshit. Rights don't involve others beyond the individual.If states get away with disregarding federal law and continue to legalize pot at the state level, state legislatures can then arrest abortion providers if they enact state laws prohibiting abortion. The Fed be damned.
Pothead lefties better watch out for what they wish for.
Selling pot doesn't violate any right. Restricting abortion does.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Rights are protection from government interference. Women have the right to have an abortion without the government interfering with them.
Pot laws are conflicts between state and federal powers.
Rights and powers are *not* the same thing. The conflicts you're speaking of have entirely different bases.
Enough with the lame rights bullshit argument attempt.
That was 3/5ths, not 2/3rd.
And you simply imagining that rights you don't like don't exist isn't a legal argument. The gibberish you tell yourself about rights is pseudo-legal nonsense that has no practical impact on the world the rest of us live in.
Under the law, abortion is a right. Pot isn't.
State Pot laws are a conflict of State and Federal powers. They have nothing to do with individual rights. Making your direct equivalence between State Powers and Individual Rights a staggering misunderstanding of how our laws and constitution work.
As rights and powers aren't the same thing.
Slippery Slopes actually exist.The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.
Sure they are. They're human beings, another word for people.Abortion is not a right as it involves two or more individuals. You just call it that as an excuse.
Well, no, it only involves ONE individual. Fetuses aren't people
Unless the woman performs the abortion on herself, aborting a man's baby is a privilege skewed as a right. You leftovers keep doing that 1960's 'rights' bs dance.And the constitution made blacks 2/3 of a person as a right.More rights bullshit. Rights don't involve others beyond the individual.Selling pot doesn't violate any right. Restricting abortion does.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Rights are protection from government interference. Women have the right to have an abortion without the government interfering with them.
Pot laws are conflicts between state and federal powers.
Rights and powers are *not* the same thing. The conflicts you're speaking of have entirely different bases.
Enough with the lame rights bullshit argument attempt.
That was 3/5ths, not 2/3rd.
And you simply imagining that rights you don't like don't exist isn't a legal argument. The gibberish you tell yourself about rights is pseudo-legal nonsense that has no practical impact on the world the rest of us live in.
Under the law, abortion is a right. Pot isn't.
State Pot laws are a conflict of State and Federal powers. They have nothing to do with individual rights. Making your direct equivalence between State Powers and Individual Rights a staggering misunderstanding of how our laws and constitution work.
As rights and powers aren't the same thing.
2/3 or 3/5 doesn't matter. Math accuracy is irrelevant for leftovers.
Slippery Slopes actually exist.The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.
Slippery Slopes actually exist.The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.
Not in this instance as the basis of legal disputes are entirely different.
As the right to abortion is based in individual rights.
Pot laws are about state and federal powers. Powers and rights are handled completely differently under the law and the constitution.
Slippery Slopes actually exist.The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.
Not in this instance as the basis of legal disputes are entirely different.
As the right to abortion is based in individual rights.
Pot laws are about state and federal powers. Powers and rights are handled completely differently under the law and the constitution.
When the Federal SC decided to weigh in it because a State vs. Federal issue. There are a lot of States with Abortion bans still on the books, they are just not enforced.
What happens when the States decide on this issue to say "screw it" like they do with Pot?
