The only Constitutional means to change the MEANING of the Constitution.

[NYcarbineer]

There you go again...being retarded.

Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.

I really wish that would get absorbed by a bunch of simplistic morons.

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I said. Don't do that if you want to talk to me.

Of course it does. Are you on crack?

You stated a specific thing (fetal rights) that weren't in the constitution and argued that such rights, if they exist now are unconstitutional judicial additions.

I explained why they are NOT unconstitutional. What don't you get?

I never ever said they were UNCONSTITUTIONAL judicial additions. Did I?

 

[rightwinger]

You have had two people t say you did say it.

link?

Both members are within this link

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3172409-post44.html

If I said it as many times as you claim you should have no problem providing the link.

Lets see it

 

[Contumacious]

A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.

There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...

...to get back to the OP.

There you go again...being retarded.

Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.
.

HUH?

So why adopt a Constitution if the government is free to ignore it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

link?

Both members are within this link

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3172409-post44.html

If I said it as many times as you claim you should have no problem providing the link.

Lets see it

Hold your horses their zippy, I never said you said anything. I said two people have made claims that you did. Your comprehension skill are subpar.

 

[rightwinger]

Both members are within this link

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3172409-post44.html

If I said it as many times as you claim you should have no problem providing the link.

Lets see it

Hold your horses their zippy, I never said you said anything. I said two people have made claims that you did. Your comprehension skill are subpar.

Who gives a shit if more than one asshole is wrong?

 

[Vanquish]

There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...

...to get back to the OP.

There you go again...being retarded.

Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.
.

HUH?

So why adopt a Constitution if the government is free to ignore it?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.

See. This is why the Bachmanns of the world get so much traction. There are ideas...counter-intuitive to common sense ...that are valid.

Let's repeat...just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.

What does that mean? It means that there are constitutional doctrines and interpretations that have built up over the course of this great country that are

It's like the old adage "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." The Constitution is a framework...not a total enumeration of all possible rules and laws. Sure, there are things that are enumerated within it...but they couldn't put every single possible valid law in the damn thing.

So what did they do...they taught us to fish...i.e. gave us a structure for determining things ourselves...based on the first principles they set up.

That's why this hackneyed, simplistic idea that "I dont see it in the Constitution" is the be-all, end-all of Constitutional interpretation is just uneducated.

But it sure does play in the fly-over states!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If I said it as many times as you claim you should have no problem providing the link.

Lets see it

Hold your horses their zippy, I never said you said anything. I said two people have made claims that you did. Your comprehension skill are subpar.

Who gives a shit if more than one asshole is wrong?

Again two people have made a claim defend yourself or shut up.

 

[rightwinger]

Hold your horses their zippy, I never said you said anything. I said two people have made claims that you did. Your comprehension skill are subpar.

Who gives a shit if more than one asshole is wrong?

Again two people have made a claim defend yourself or shut up.

Sorry pal

Burden of proof lies with the accuser ....still waiting for that link

 

[Contumacious]

The Constitution is a framework...not a total enumeration of all possible rules and laws.

So The Supremacy Clause , Article VI, Clause 2, was abolished?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Who gives a shit if more than one asshole is wrong?

Again two people have made a claim defend yourself or shut up.

Sorry pal

Burden of proof lies with the accuser ....still waiting for that link

I am not the one that is accusing you, their that failure to comprehend thing happening again.

 

[Vanquish]

The Constitution is a framework...not a total enumeration of all possible rules and laws.

So The Supremacy Clause , Article VI, Clause 2, was abolished?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."

.

Quit being obtuse. Of course its the Supreme law of the land. Get over yourself.
But the point is that there's shit that's not in there that is still totally valid.

Obviously you've had no legal education if you don't understand that. I think this country has gone to hell in a handbasket because they havent been given a proper civics class.

 

[manifold]

Nobody pig sticks their own strawman with a flair for the ignorant quite like RGS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.

There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...

...to get back to the OP.

There you go again...being retarded.

Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.

I really wish that would get absorbed by a bunch of simplistic morons.

Especially when said simplistic moron actively argues that the said document supports his or her pet projects that are not mentioned.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ever think he was being sarcastic?

Is sarcasm incomparable with being a moron?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How can you be that stupid? If the fetus had constitutional rights as a person you certainly couldn't give the mother the right to terminate it, any more than you could give a mother the right to put her 2 year old to death.

A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.

Do you believe a state could legalize infanticide (chosen by the mother) and that law could pass constitutional muster?

It already has.

 

[NYcarbineer]

A living person has constitutional rights, yet it is entirely permissible for me to kill people under some conditions.

Do you believe a state could legalize infanticide (chosen by the mother) and that law could pass constitutional muster?

It already has.

Where is infanticide legal, by choice of the mother, and, why do I always have to ask you to elaborate?

Do you do that to be annoying, do you think that's cute?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no constitutional rights in the document, for fetuses. Any judge that finds fetal rights in the Constitution via interpretation is an activist judge who could be said to be changing the meaning of the Constitution...

...to get back to the OP.

There you go again...being retarded.

Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.

I really wish that would get absorbed by a bunch of simplistic morons.

Especially when said simplistic moron actively argues that the said document supports his or her pet projects that are not mentioned.

Where are the constitutional rights for fetuses stated in the Constitution? Where is the equivalence of a fetus to a born person declared in the Constitution? Where is it even implied in the Constitution?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There you go again...being retarded.

Just because it's not IN the constitution, doesn't mean something is un-constitutional.

I really wish that would get absorbed by a bunch of simplistic morons.

Especially when said simplistic moron actively argues that the said document supports his or her pet projects that are not mentioned.

Where are the constitutional rights for fetuses stated in the Constitution? Where is the equivalence of a fetus to a born person declared in the Constitution? Where is it even implied in the Constitution?

Where is the constitutional right to privacy listed? It not being listed doesn't change the fact that it exists.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Especially when said simplistic moron actively argues that the said document supports his or her pet projects that are not mentioned.

Where are the constitutional rights for fetuses stated in the Constitution? Where is the equivalence of a fetus to a born person declared in the Constitution? Where is it even implied in the Constitution?

Where is the constitutional right to privacy listed? It not being listed doesn't change the fact that it exists.

They are certainly implied and have certainly been established by constitutional law. No fetal rights are either stated, implied, or established by constitutional law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where are the constitutional rights for fetuses stated in the Constitution? Where is the equivalence of a fetus to a born person declared in the Constitution? Where is it even implied in the Constitution?

Where is the constitutional right to privacy listed? It not being listed doesn't change the fact that it exists.

They are certainly implied and have certainly been established by constitutional law. No fetal rights are either stated, implied, or established by constitutional law.

Do you realize you just made my, and Vanquish's, point? You are actually proving yourself to be quite capable fo making things up, twisting facts, and insisting that you are the only possible authority, thus proving yourself to be totally incorrect.