State Pot Laws Usurping the Fed Means Abortion Is Next...

[martybegan]

More rights bullshit. Rights don't involve others beyond the individual.

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.
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.

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.
2/3 or 3/5 doesn't matter. Math accuracy is irrelevant for leftovers.

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

 

[martybegan]

The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.

Slippery Slopes actually exist.

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?

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them. There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

 

[Skylar]

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.
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.

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.
2/3 or 3/5 doesn't matter. Math accuracy is irrelevant for leftovers.

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

It will be settled in the courts.....So watch out baby-here comes de judge...

 

[hunarcy]

The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.

Slippery Slopes actually exist.

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?

Then they'll be practicing the same "nullification" argument that Democrats put forward back in the first half of the 19th century...you know, the one that led to the Civil War.

 

[Skylar]

The ole 'Slippery Slope' argument.
When you can't actually think of any real reason to disagree.

Slippery Slopes actually exist.

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?

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them.

And if you look at the 9th amendment, there is no need for a right to be enumerated to exist. The right to abortion exists. The right to marry exists. The right to smoke pot doesn't.

There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

There are recognized and protected rights that exist on both. That you disagree with the existence of such rights is legally meaningless in a slippery slope argument. As your agreement isn't a legal standard recognized by the courts or the law.

There is no slippery slope here. Rights and powers aren't the same thing, nor are they treated the same way.

 

[martybegan]

And the constitution made blacks 2/3 of a person as a right.
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.

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.
2/3 or 3/5 doesn't matter. Math accuracy is irrelevant for leftovers.

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.


As an aside, what would stop Alabama from shutting down all it's abortion clinics and daring the feds to do something about it?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Slippery Slopes actually exist.

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?

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them.

And if you look at the 9th amendment, there is no need for a right to be enumerated to exist. The right to abortion exists. The right to marry exists. The right to smoke pot doesn't.

There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

There are recognized and protected rights that exist on both. That you disagree with the existence of such rights is legally meaningless in a slippery slope argument. As your agreement isn't a legal standard recognized by the courts or the law.

There is no slippery slope here. Rights and powers aren't the same thing, nor are they treated the same way.

There is no right to abortion anymore than there is a right to murder.

 

[martybegan]

Slippery Slopes actually exist.

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?

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them.

And if you look at the 9th amendment, there is no need for a right to be enumerated to exist. The right to abortion exists. The right to marry exists. The right to smoke pot doesn't.

There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

There are recognized and protected rights that exist on both. That you disagree with the existence of such rights is legally meaningless in a slippery slope argument. As your agreement isn't a legal standard recognized by the courts or the law.

There is no slippery slope here. Rights and powers aren't the same thing, nor are they treated the same way.

It can exist all it wants, without enumeration the feds don't have to protect it or defer to it. Same thing at the State level.

And stop appealing to authority and argue why instead of how. You are using the equivalent of "just because I like them" to defend abortion and SSM and imposed concepts via the constitution without them actually being PROTECTED by the constitution.

And that is the crux of the argument between strict constructionists and "what ever I feelz" interpretation-ists such as yourself.

Its why I have nothing but contempt for those who swear by abortion rights and SSM rights but feel free to ignore the 2nd amendment "just because"

Try being consistent.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

On the abortion issue you will see a sudden reversal of Liberal states rights advocates. Since neither drugs or abortion are specifically mentioned in the Constitution they are a States rights issue.

 

[Skylar]

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.

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.
2/3 or 3/5 doesn't matter. Math accuracy is irrelevant for leftovers.

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

 

[Skylar]

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?

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them.

And if you look at the 9th amendment, there is no need for a right to be enumerated to exist. The right to abortion exists. The right to marry exists. The right to smoke pot doesn't.

There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

There are recognized and protected rights that exist on both. That you disagree with the existence of such rights is legally meaningless in a slippery slope argument. As your agreement isn't a legal standard recognized by the courts or the law.

There is no slippery slope here. Rights and powers aren't the same thing, nor are they treated the same way.

It can exist all it wants, without enumeration the feds don't have to protect it or defer to it. Same thing at the State level.

Then why is same sex marriage and abortion legal in the states that oppose it? Simple: because the right to marry and the right to abortion trump laws that would abrogate those rights. No law, state or federal, can abrogate rights.

State and Federal laws come into conflict all the time. As they are based in *powers*. Not individual rights. The difference in question is a stark as the 9th and 10th amendments.

And stop appealing to authority and argue why instead of how.

When we're talking about the law and discussing legal consequences, there is an authority. You're literally ignoring the constitution, the courts and the law....and then insisting that in a legal argument, they can't be cited.

Laughing, um yeah. They can. Its the entire basis of our system of law. And both abortion and marriage a legally recognized rights. Pot smoking isn't. You can't get around this.l

This simply is. IF we're discussing legal consequences and slippery slopes, the law as it is is the only relevant standard.

 

[martybegan]

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.
2/3 or 3/5 doesn't matter. Math accuracy is irrelevant for leftovers.

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

 

[martybegan]

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?

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them.

And if you look at the 9th amendment, there is no need for a right to be enumerated to exist. The right to abortion exists. The right to marry exists. The right to smoke pot doesn't.

There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

There are recognized and protected rights that exist on both. That you disagree with the existence of such rights is legally meaningless in a slippery slope argument. As your agreement isn't a legal standard recognized by the courts or the law.

There is no slippery slope here. Rights and powers aren't the same thing, nor are they treated the same way.

It can exist all it wants, without enumeration the feds don't have to protect it or defer to it. Same thing at the State level.

Then why is same sex marriage and abortion legal in the states that oppose it? Simple: because the right to marry and the right to abortion trump laws that would abrogate those rights. No law, state or federal, can abrogate rights.

State and Federal laws come into conflict all the time. As they are based in *powers*. Not individual rights. The difference in question is a stark as the 9th and 10th amendments.

And stop appealing to authority and argue why instead of how.

When we're talking about the law and discussing legal consequences, there is an authority. You're literally ignoring the constitution, the courts and the law....and then insisting that in a legal argument, they can't be cited.

Laughing, um yeah. They can. Its the entire basis of our system of law. And both abortion and marriage a legally recognized rights. Pot smoking isn't. You can't get around this.l

This simply is. IF we're discussing legal consequences and slippery slopes, the law as it is is the only relevant standard.

It is only "legal" because the States that don't want it don't feel like saying "Fuck you feds, try to enforce it" Their laws still are on the books for the most part.

Stop arguing the how and get back to the why. I DONT CARE what the courts said. They were wrong, just like they were wrong when they decided Plessey and Kelo.

 

[Skylar]

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.

On the abortion issue you will see a sudden reversal of Liberal states rights advocates. Since neither drugs or abortion are specifically mentioned in the Constitution they are a States rights issue.

Nope. Abortion was already legal in the liberal states before Roe V. Wade. Roe V. Wade made abortion legal in the States that criminalized abortion.....based on individual rights.

Do you guys genuinely not get this? Do you not understand the difference between powers and rights? Because this is basic, Constitution 101 stuff.

 

[theHawk]

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.

It pretty much already is that way. In blue states it’s very easy to get an abortion, while in red states it is typically much more difficult.

 

[Skylar]

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

 

[hunarcy]

Says you. The nonsense about what 'rights' are that you tell yourself has no relevance to the law. ANd under our laws, women have a right to unrestricted access to abortion. That you don't believe they should, or you don't believe that's a right is irrelevant. They do and it is.

You're not making a legal argument. You're making a philosophical one. And there is no 'slippery slope' of 'unintended consequences' because you disagree with the law.

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

The SC also found at one time Separate but Equal a "right", moving s slave to a free territory and keeping it "a right", and a bunch of other things you probably disagree with. (Citizens United). Why are the ones you like "SET IN STONE" and the ones above not? Your biases and desires make you OK with the ones you like, and ignore the ones you don't even WHEN enumerated.

Again, why ISN'T smoking pot a right under the 9th?

Because under Federal law, it is illegal. States right now are saying, "We don't like this law, so we are going to ignore it (or nullify it) and that's wrong because when State law and Federal law conflict, Federal law prevails. If this is not stopped, some state like Texas would be able to say, "We don't support gay rights, so we'll just ignore Federal protections." and that can't be allowed.

 

[Skylar]

There is no 'right to smoke pot'. There is a right to access to abortion or marry.

Your equivalence of the two issues breaks on these simple facts.

If you look at the constitution there i no enumerated "right" to any of them.

And if you look at the 9th amendment, there is no need for a right to be enumerated to exist. The right to abortion exists. The right to marry exists. The right to smoke pot doesn't.

There is just bad supreme court decisions in the cases of abortion and marriage, and fecklessness on the part of congress with regards to Pot.

There are recognized and protected rights that exist on both. That you disagree with the existence of such rights is legally meaningless in a slippery slope argument. As your agreement isn't a legal standard recognized by the courts or the law.

There is no slippery slope here. Rights and powers aren't the same thing, nor are they treated the same way.

It can exist all it wants, without enumeration the feds don't have to protect it or defer to it. Same thing at the State level.

Then why is same sex marriage and abortion legal in the states that oppose it? Simple: because the right to marry and the right to abortion trump laws that would abrogate those rights. No law, state or federal, can abrogate rights.

State and Federal laws come into conflict all the time. As they are based in *powers*. Not individual rights. The difference in question is a stark as the 9th and 10th amendments.

And stop appealing to authority and argue why instead of how.

When we're talking about the law and discussing legal consequences, there is an authority. You're literally ignoring the constitution, the courts and the law....and then insisting that in a legal argument, they can't be cited.

Laughing, um yeah. They can. Its the entire basis of our system of law. And both abortion and marriage a legally recognized rights. Pot smoking isn't. You can't get around this.l

This simply is. IF we're discussing legal consequences and slippery slopes, the law as it is is the only relevant standard.

It is only "legal" because the States that don't want it don't feel like saying "Fuck you feds, try to enforce it" Their laws still are on the books for the most part.

Its legal because its a protected right.

Stop arguing the how and get back to the why. I DONT CARE what the courts said. They were wrong, just like they were wrong when they decided Plessey and Kelo.

This thread is about the slippery slope of pot laws related to rights like marriage or abortion.

There is no slippery slope. No one gives a shit if YOU agree with a court decision in a slippery slope argument. As your personal opinons have no legal authority or relevance in our system of laws. The constitution, recognized rights, and court rulings do.

 

[martybegan]

What "law" was passed that made this true nationally?

Rights aren't based in laws. Thus, no 'law' needs to pass for a right to exist or for it to be protected nationally.

What you have is States not enforcing their still on the books abortion bans in deference to a SC decision, not any actual law.

With the pot thing you have States removing State laws against Pot and ignoring the chance of the feds enforcing a law still on the books.

There is no right to smoke pot. Thus, pot smoking isn't a rights issue. Its a state power v. federal power issue.

You may not differentiate rights and powers. But the courts and laws most certainly do.

In the end, one shows a desire to ignore a federal decision, the other shows a willingness to ignore federal law.

Not the same at bat, but in the same ballpark.

In the end, rights and powers are completely different legal bases. And are treated very differently by the courts and the law.

Pot laws are about powers. Abortion and marriage are about rights. That Venn Diagram has no overlap. And simply ending the 'slippery slope' argument.

Enumerated rights are based on the Constitution, and supermajority votes at the time of the amendment that created them. Why is abortion a right and pot isn't. where is that written in the document?

Enumeration isn't the basis of rights. As 'reserve rights' that are unemumerated makes ludicrously clear by the 9th amendment:

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

Both the right to abortion and the right to marry are recognized as rights. Your disagreement that they should is irrelevant in a 'slippery slope' argument. As the courts don't cite you as a legal source.

You can declare any right you want, what protects them is enumeration in a State or the Federal Constitution prohibiting government from interfering in it.

My declaration isn't legally authoritative. The findings of the Supreme Court most definitely is. And they've found that both abortion and marriage are rights.

Again, don't bother disagreeing if they 'should'. They did. And in a 'slippery slope' argument, only the law as it is is relevant. Not as you think it 'oughta' be.

You only attribute rights to the first two and powers to the 2nd because of your own biases.

No, I attribute abortion and marriage to rights because they are legally recognized as such by our courts and laws. This is legal reality.

There is no legally recognized right to smoke pot. The conflict on State Pot laws v. Federal Pot laws is a conflict of State and Federal powers. Rights aren't involved. This too is legal reality.

The basis of protected rights is enough people decide it is a right, and it is added to the Constitution. The 9th doesn't say the courts can just make up rights, which was the case of Roe and Obergfell.

Irrelevant. Again, you're arguing what 'should' be a right. I'm discussing what is.

In a slippery slope argument only the rights and law as it exists now is relevant. Abortion and marriage are a right. Pot smoking isn't. Thus, there can be no erosion of rights when the behavior in question isn't one.

There is no slippery slope.

You are ignoring the discussion. "Just because it's so" isn't the answer to the debate I am trying to have.

This isn't a slippery slope, it's not what I am arguing.

I am asking you why two things are a right and one isn't, and I am not asking how, but why.