A Win For Originalism…And America

A total fabrication.


Let's see some support for that after you pry your hoof out of your mouth.

stirrups.jpg
 
Legally, morally, historically, scientifically.



1.The two views of the Constitution are, either Originalism, or “winning is all that matters.”
The former for conservatives, the latter, Democrats.


An example that might resonate with conservatives, if you sit down to a game of Chess, and agree to ‘touch-move,’ then the other player must make the move if a piece is handled in any way….no taking back a move.

To pose the example for Democrats, when involved in a tough game of Chutes and Ladders, ….no spinning twice.



2. The decision presented this week, of abortion revives America’s founding, based on federalism, where each state retains a great degree of sovereignty, see amendment 10, and reminds that the country is made up of 51 “laboratories of democracy.”

“In its main brief in the case, Mississippi condemns Roe v. Wade and the 1992 decision reaffirming it, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, as “irreconcilable with constitutional text and ‘historical meaning.’” This expresses an “originalist” viewpoint, emphasizing the Constitution must be interpreted based on its text and where necessary on its original meaning at the time it was enacted. Mississippi insists that the Constitution’s silence on abortion, combined with the lack of historical legal protections for it, means the 14th Amendment doesn’t safeguard the abortion right. This gloves-off originalism even maintains that Roe and Casey being non-originalist opinions “provides compelling grounds to overrule them.”




3. This decision by the Supremes represents the simple, yet significant view, that the Constitution is important to what America is. The fact is that the only document that Americans have agreed to be governed by is the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution calls itself the "supreme law of the land." This clause is taken to mean that when state constitutions or laws passed by state legislatures or the national Congress found to conflict with the federal Constitution, they have no force, no moment, no effect.

The conflict arises due to the major political party, the Democrat Party, advancing the view that what they wish, and their minions say, supplants the actual English language written in the Constitution. Their political will is more important than the text of the document.



4. Here, the villain who advanced that view:

In July 5, 1935, in a letter to Representative Samuel B. Hill of Washington, the President manifested his contempt for the Constitution. Hill was chairman of the subcommittee studying the Guffey-Vinson bill to regulate the coal industry: the purpose of the legislation was to re-establish, for the coal industry, the NRA code system which the Supreme Court had unanimously declared unconstitutional. Roosevelt wrote: "I hope your committee will not permit doubts as to constitutionality, however reasonable, to block the legislation."



This was the same Roosevelt who had sworn an oath on his 300 year old family Bible, to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Chesly Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 65.





5. “The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.”
Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” Calabrisi, p. 262.



Of course, the understanding requires ethics, morality, and integrity, rarely found in Democrats.


Articulate your "disagree."

Do it now.
 
I understand your difficulty with words......but try to articulate what this is supposed to mean.


I double dog dare you.



And when you can't......mull this over:


a. when does science say life begins?(when two strands of DNA join to form a new and distinct human being)

b. what does science say about the two separate bodies involved in an abortion? (It’s not ‘her body’)

c. what percent of the 63 million abortions done via Roe are for rape or incest? (if we make exception for rape and incest, will you ban abortion?)

d. at what point does the prospective mom have the ability not to have a child, without the step of murder? (she already had her chance not to have a child)

e. Is ending the life of another human being murder? (or at least homicide?)
 
I understand your difficulty with words......but try to articulate what this is supposed to mean.

you know EXACTLY what it means. i know you're slow ... but not that slow.

are you?


I double dog dare you.

<pfffft>

Countries in which abortion is completely illegal/prohibited:​

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note: This is a list of countries in which abortion has been completely prohibited. For a more complete and detailed list of countries and their various legal stances on abortion, see the table further down the page.
Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal 2022

can you understand this?

2nd-class-citizen.jpg
 
And when you can't......mull this over:
lol ...


a. when does science say life begins?(when two strands of DNA join to form a new and distinct human being)

life with human DNA. b4 viability?

not a person.

b. what does science say about the two separate bodies involved in an abortion? (It’s not ‘her body’)

that the last final word is the person who is already here ... fully independent, with a life history already in existence for years.

sorry but science will tell you that an acorn is not an oak tree.


c. what percent of the 63 million abortions done via Roe are for rape or incest? (if we make exception for rape and incest, will you ban abortion?)

THAT doesn't matter. because it's none of yer biz'nez. nor the smaller, less intrusive gov'ment.

d. at what point does the prospective mom have the ability not to have a child,

answered above, chicklet.


without the step of murder? (she already had her chance not to have a child)

it's not murder. & the 2nd part - - - still none of yer biz'nez.

Is ending the life of another human being murder? (or at least homicide?)

you think it's homicide? m'k, i'll play just this once.

if - as you say, it's 'homicide' ... then abortion b4 viability is justified 'homicide'.
 
you know EXACTLY what it means. i know you're slow ... but not that slow.

are you?




<pfffft>

Countries in which abortion is completely illegal/prohibited:​

Abortion is completely illegal in the following countries: Andorra, Aruba (territory), Republic of the Congo, Curaçao (territory), Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Jamaica, Laos, Madagascar, Malta, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, San Marino, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Suriname, Tonga, and West Bank & Gaza Strip (Palestinian territories). Note: This is a list of countries in which abortion has been completely prohibited. For a more complete and detailed list of countries and their various legal stances on abortion, see the table further down the page.
Countries Where Abortion Is Illegal 2022

can you understand this?

View attachment 664262



You didn't answer the question.


Focus like a laser: that is the basis of your lie....er, claim, about "second class citizenship"????
 
lol ...




life with human DNA. b4 viability?

not a person.



that the last final word is the person who is already here ... fully independent, with a life history already in existence for years.

sorry but science will tell you that an acorn is not an oak tree.




THAT doesn't matter. because it's none of yer biz'nez. nor the smaller, less intrusive gov'ment.



answered above, chicklet.




it's not murder. & the 2nd part - - - still none of yer biz'nez.



you think it's homicide? m'k, i'll play just this once.

if - as you say, it's 'homicide' ... then abortion b4 viability is justified 'homicide'.




OK,OK.....stop begging.....


Here are the facts:

Long story short: you lie about everything.



1. "On Wednesday December 1, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson. This case involves a Mississippi law that limits abortion to 15 “weeks’ gestation except in medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”

During the hearing, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott G. Stewart defended the law by asserting that the State of Mississippi has an interest in preventing “the purposeful termination of a human life,” but Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged him and declared:

How is your interest anything but a religious view? The issue of when life begins has been hotly debated by philosophers since the beginning of time. It’s still debated in religions. So, when you say this is the only right that takes away from the state the ability to protect a life, that’s a religious view.

Contrary to Sotomayor and regardless of what any philosopher or religious leader may think, the facts of science are clear that each human life begins at fertilization. As documented below, these facts are from credible science publications that don’t argue for or against abortion. In other words, they are not polemics from people with science degrees but facts from neutral scientific authorities.




2. The American Heritage Dictionary of Science—which was written by nine highly credentialed scientists under a “precise editorial review” to maintain “a standard of excellence”—defines “life” as:

the form of existence that organisms like animals and plants have and that inorganic objects or organic dead bodies lack; animate existence, characterized by growth, reproduction, metabolism, and response to stimuli.

Those four defining characteristics of life are all present during or soon after fertilization, which occurs when a sperm and egg unite to form a zygote, or the earliest stage of a human embryo:

  1. Growth: Per the textbook Essentials of Human Development: A Life-Span View, “Fertilization begins the period of the zygote,” and “the zygote grows rapidly through cell division.”
  2. Reproduction: Per a paper in the Biochemical Journal, “Sexual reproduction in mammals results in the formation of a zygote, a single cell which contains all the necessary information to produce an entire organism comprised of billions of cells grouped into multitudinous cell types.”
  3. Metabolism: Per the medical text Human Gametes and Preimplantation Embryos: Assessment and Diagnosis, “At the zygote stage,” the human embryo metabolizes “carboxylic acids pyruvate and lactate as its preferred energy substrates.”
  4. Response to stimuli: The Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology defines a “stimulus” as “any event or phenomenon, such as radiation, electrical potential, or addition of molecules that leads to excitation of a tissue or cell.” Experiments have found that human zygotes respond to such stimulants. For example, a paper in the journal Human Reproduction Update documents that a compound called platelet-activating factor “acts upon the zygote” by stimulating “metabolism,” “cell-cycle progression,” and “viability.”




3. As explained in Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia, “At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.”

In keeping with the facts above, clinical literature is explicit that each new human life begins at fertilization:





What can abortion be other than “the purposeful termination of a human life"?

Under what understanding can government allow one human being to kill another, innocent, harmless, human?????
 
lol ...




life with human DNA. b4 viability?

not a person.



that the last final word is the person who is already here ... fully independent, with a life history already in existence for years.

sorry but science will tell you that an acorn is not an oak tree.




THAT doesn't matter. because it's none of yer biz'nez. nor the smaller, less intrusive gov'ment.



answered above, chicklet.




it's not murder. & the 2nd part - - - still none of yer biz'nez.



you think it's homicide? m'k, i'll play just this once.

if - as you say, it's 'homicide' ... then abortion b4 viability is justified 'homicide'.





b. what does science say about the two separate bodies involved in an abortion? (It’s not ‘her body’)

"that the last final word is the person who is already here ... fully independent, with a life history already in existence for years."



Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?
A mother breast feeding her new born is just as nourishing and just as necessary to that organism....but you want the a "right" to kill that one too.


Oh....but you demand the "right" to slaughter those, too.





1656595510329.png








And Democrats demand the ability to slaughter it......even well after birth:

Infanticide now mainstream Democrat policy.



1. "Rhode Island and Vermont Democrats Propose Radical Abortion Bills"

Rhode Island and Vermont Democrats Propose Radical Abortion Bills



2. "Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’

The former [Democrat] governor of Colorado, who has expressed support for population control and said that the elderly have a “duty to die,” has come out against a state amendment that would recognize the rights of unborn children, calling the pro-life measure “a monster.”

Democratic governor who believes elderly have a ‘duty to die’ calls pro-life initiative ‘a monster’ — The Rights Writer





The Democrats are true to their forebears:

"We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky





3. The Democrat administration in Virginia offered a law for...in favor of....infanticide....stopped by Republicans.



4. The Democrat governor of Virginia agreed with the bill for infanticide.




5. "New York abortion law changes allow infanticide"



New York abortion law changes allow infanticide




6. "Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats"



Anti-infanticide bill blocked by Senate Democrats







Pa Democrat John Fetterman
 
You didn't answer the question.


Focus like a laser: that is the basis of your lie....er, claim, about "second class citizenship"????

it's 2nd class CITIZEN.

Second-class citizen


A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically and actively discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or a legal resident there. ~ wiki
 
it's 2nd class CITIZEN.

Second-class citizen


A second-class citizen is a person who is systematically and actively discriminated against within a state or other political jurisdiction, despite their nominal status as a citizen or a legal resident there. ~ wiki


You're not actually claiming that being declined the ability to kill another human being makes you 'second class'...????????????


You imbecile.....who are the 'first class citizens' who get to kill others on a whim????????????


This is your third opportunity to articulate a position, not just mumble the Democrat bumper sticker.
 
don't think it hasn't gone unnoticed that PoliticalChic has yet to address the FACT that the decision to allow females the right to their own autonomy thru the passage of ROE V WADE was a 7-2 decision by a (R) majority SC.

A Win For Originalism…And America

AND

she has failed to acknowledge that i proved how she is dead wrong when she said that no firearms were carried by donny's traitorous flying monkeys during the insurrection.

A Win For Originalism…And America

instead, she throws anything & everything she could to deflect & deny.


she is now dismissed yet again.

:113:
 
don't think it hasn't gone unnoticed that PoliticalChic has yet to address the FACT that the decision to allow females the right to their own autonomy thru the passage of ROE V WADE was a 7-2 decision by a (R) majority SC.

A Win For Originalism…And America

AND

she has failed to acknowledge that i proved how she is dead wrong when she said that no firearms were carried by donny's traitorous flying monkeys during the insurrection.

A Win For Originalism…And America

instead, she throws anything & everything she could to deflect & deny.


she is now dismissed yet again.

:113:

The FBI said there were no guns.


OK, OK.....you've forced me to PROVE that you are an imbecile.

Let's stick to your claim that you have the "right" to kill the unborn.

And now for the biology lesson you missed in government school:

1656592827002.png


The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

  1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
  2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
  3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
  4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
  5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
  6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
  7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
  8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
  9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"
Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

  1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:
As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

  1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
  2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
  3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.
www.abort73.com

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,
www.abort73.com



Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?







Don't be stupid your entire life......


.....take a day off.
 
don't think it hasn't gone unnoticed that PoliticalChic has yet to address the FACT that the decision to allow females the right to their own autonomy thru the passage of ROE V WADE was a 7-2 decision by a (R) majority SC.

A Win For Originalism…And America

AND

she has failed to acknowledge that i proved how she is dead wrong when she said that no firearms were carried by donny's traitorous flying monkeys during the insurrection.

A Win For Originalism…And America

instead, she throws anything & everything she could to deflect & deny.


she is now dismissed yet again.

:113:


The only guns were in the hands of your troops who shot a Trump protester.


We have learned….from the state media….that none of the hundreds of Biden voter riots count…..the only one that matters is the ‘Armed Insurrection at the Capitol”!!!
When a Republican calls their lie, well…then PolitiFact calls him a liar…’Pants On Fire!’

“Says Jan. 6 Capitol riot “didn’t seem like an armed insurrection.”
U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, still claims accounts of the day’s events are being exaggerated. He made his case Feb. 15, 2021, in an appearance on "The Jay Weber Show" on WISN radio.

"The fact of the matter is this didn’t seem like an armed insurrection to me. I mean armed, when you hear armed, don’t you think of firearms?" Johnson said. "Here’s the questions I would have liked to ask. How many firearms were confiscated? How many shots were fired? I’m only aware of one, and I’ll defend that law enforcement officer for taking that shot." PolitiFact - Yes, Jan. 6 Capitol assault was an “armed insurrection”


But….the FBI supported the Republican's contention:

“How many firearms were confiscated in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds that day?

To my knowledge we have not recovered any on that day from any other arrests at the scene at this point.

So nobody has been charged with any firearm weapon in the Capitol or on Capitol grounds.

Correct.”
Update: FBI Counterterrorism Official Says She Has No Knowledge of Firearms Recovered During Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

And…






BREAKING: FBI official testifies that no guns were recovered from those arrested at the Jan. 6 Capitol siege

FBI assistant director for counterterrorism Jill Sanborn confirmed in a Senate hearing that no guns were recovered during the Capitol protests on Jan 6




www.lawenforcementtoday.com



They lie about everything.
 
don't think it hasn't gone unnoticed that PoliticalChic has yet to address the FACT that the decision to allow females the right to their own autonomy thru the passage of ROE V WADE was a 7-2 decision by a (R) majority SC.

A Win For Originalism…And America

AND

she has failed to acknowledge that i proved how she is dead wrong when she said that no firearms were carried by donny's traitorous flying monkeys during the insurrection.

A Win For Originalism…And America

instead, she throws anything & everything she could to deflect & deny.


she is now dismissed yet again.

:113:



"So much for 'armed insurrection': FBI official says no guns confiscated at Jan. 6 Capitol riot"






So we can agree that you are a mindless drone who simply repeats what your masters tell you to?
 
I just did.
Just like the looney tune I was responding to, you also CHOOSE to ignore.

Plain and simple.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You and her ignore the first part, cling to the second part.

Yeah, umm, I'm gonna to have to go ahead and disagree with that...

Political Fine Lady has already debunked your theories. Copyright law and patents don't only apply to science and useful arts.

And just as soon as you show me a constitutional amendment saying that a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free nation, we can start talking about the second half of that statement. Congress doesn't get to change the Constitution by passing a bill.
 
lol ...




life with human DNA. b4 viability?

not a person.



that the last final word is the person who is already here ... fully independent, with a life history already in existence for years.

sorry but science will tell you that an acorn is not an oak tree.




THAT doesn't matter. because it's none of yer biz'nez. nor the smaller, less intrusive gov'ment.



answered above, chicklet.




it's not murder. & the 2nd part - - - still none of yer biz'nez.



you think it's homicide? m'k, i'll play just this once.

if - as you say, it's 'homicide' ... then abortion b4 viability is justified 'homicide'.
A full term baby is not viable. If you put it on the table and leave it, as Democrats are wont to do, it will die. New born babies require support in order to survive. Babies in the womb require support in order to survive.

Are you suggesting euthanasia as a practice in the United States? Is a patient with terminal cancer viable?
 
" States Do Not Have A Legal Interest In Abortion "

* Ass Clowns Running The Show *


As a pro-choice republican and constitutional originalist , the legal entitlement to abortion is logical , of course , and overtly obvious .

However , the entire pro-choice movement is run and supported by imbeciles who care more about promoting and collecting money for charities , along with whining about their feelings , than actually presenting a valid argument .

Unfortunately , it is clear from their endless incompetence and stupidity that their loss of wrights is pitifully deserved .

* US Is Under Sedition By Sanctimonious Psychopaths *
https://usmessageboard.com/threads/equal-protection-of-citizenship-is-in-a-state-of-sedition-because-of-supreme-court-ruling-on-abortion.976513/… .


Equal Protection Of Citizenship Is In A State Of Sedition Because Of Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion
 
However , the entire pro-choice movement is run and supported by imbeciles who care more about promoting and collecting money for charities , along with whining about their feelings , than actually presenting a valid argument .

Because the life of the living, feeling, hearing, seeing, baby in the womb isn't a valid argument for the inconvenience of the consequences of recreational sex.
 

Forum List

Back
Top