Appeals Court Refuses To Lift Block On Trumps Restricting Birthright Citizenship

[BS Filter]

The 14th Amendment is the most abused Amendment in the Constitution. The purpose is to ensure full citizenship rights to ex-slaves and descendants. Period.

 

[pknopp]

The 14th Amendment is the most abused Amendment in the Constitution. The purpose is to ensure full citizenship rights to ex-slaves and descendants. Period.

If so it would have said so. It doesnt.

 

[DBA]

Sure. Was it wrong then but would be OK now?

You said that “people want to courts to rule on words that do not exist”. I merely pointed out that there is no specific mention of abortion. The courts ruled on words that did not exist in Roe v Wade. They interpreted and applied the law to extend to something our forefathers didn’t directly address.

Are you suggesting that Roe v Wade should have never existed in the first place because it was an interpretation of intent?

 

[pknopp]

You said that “people want to courts to rule on words that do not exist”. I merely pointed out that there is no specific mention of abortion. The courts ruled on words that did not exist in Roe v Wade. They interpreted and applied the law to extend to something our forefathers didn’t directly address.

Are you suggesting that Roe v Wade should have never existed in the first place because it was an interpretation of intent?

I said yours was a valid argument. (Go back and look)

Now, will you support rulings where the words aren't there?

 

[DBA]

I said yours was a valid argument. (Go back and look)

Now, will you support rulings where the words aren't there?

Oh, there are exceptions and those on both sides of the aisle routinely defend these exceptions.

Are you suggesting we only have a literal reading of the Constitution? If so, what is the purpose of the SC interpreting law? Do you think our forefathers were able to foresee email and social media? How about F-22s and Apache helicopters? Should someone wealthy enough be able to own those? Why or why not? Allowing the SC and judges to interpret the Constitution can certainly be dangerous, but it must be a part of our system, otherwise, the intent will often be lost. We should uphold the original intent of the Constitution, taking into account unforeseen events that would have been addressed had they been known.

 

[pknopp]

Oh, there are exceptions and those on both sides of the aisle routinely defend these exceptions.

Are you suggesting we only have a literal reading of the Constitution? If so, what is the purpose of the SC interpreting law? Do you think our forefathers were able to foresee email and social media? How about F-22s and Apache helicopters? Should someone wealthy enough be able to own those? Why or why not? Allowing the SC and judges to interpret the Constitution can certainly be dangerous, but it must be a part of our system, otherwise, the intent will often be lost. We should uphold the original intent of the Constitution, taking into account unforeseen events that would have been addressed had they been known.

If it ain't there pass an amendment making it there.

 

[DBA]

If it ain't there pass an amendment making it there.

In that case, I take it you were fine with Roe v Wade being overturned.

 

[pknopp]

In that case, I take it you were fine with Roe v Wade being overturned.

Complicated. On the one hand I understood the reasoning for it being overturned. It was a legally correct argument.

I understand the privacy argument also BUT I feel that really only holds sway where an individual is concerned. Being pro-life I believe there is two individuals involved. Enforcement there becomes tricky though.

Being pro-life I also understand that overturning RvW did nothing to curtail abortions.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

In that case, I take it you were fine with Roe v Wade being overturned.

It was legal, and so are the justices' correcting Donnie's overreaches.