As presumptive leader of the GOP, Trump states his position on abortion.

[johnwk]

.
The fact is, our presumptive GOP leader, former President Trump, supports and defends our Constitution's big tent system called federalism, guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. And that system guarantees that the states, and people therein, are to make their own decisions concerning those objects . . .

". . . which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." See Federalist Paper 45 and get educated.

The unfortunate truth is, our extremist Democrat Leadership detests people being free in each state to determine their own destiny.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

 

[Greenbeard]

The unfortunate truth is, our extremist Democrat Leadership detests people being free in each state to determine their own destiny.

It'll probably come as a shock to the radical anti-choicers and their abortion/IVF bans, but allowing people the freedom to determine their own destiny is exactly what the Dems (and most Americans, for that matter) support.

Your Bible salesman's bid to restrict those choices is doomed to fail in the long run.

 

[Rambunctious]

Sooner or later a court challenge on Roe would have happened... Trump knows it was bad law and anti constitutional and would be undone.... as it was...
So allowing the states to work out their own rules was the right thing to do... at the end of the day the states will come upon a similar amount of time to have an abortion of a healthy baby and mother...
If congress can come together and make a federal law regarding abortion again... one where the states can agree on that's fine too... as long as its not forced down the throat's of people... like Roe did...

 

[johnwk]

It'll probably come as a shock to the radical anti-choicers and their abortion/IVF bans, but allowing people the freedom to determine their own destiny is exactly what the Dems (and most Americans, for that matter) support.

You gaslighting shit head.


Last time I checked, the Democrat Leadership is in full throttle trying to prevent the people from being allowed to elect Trump as the next president and decide the destiny of our country.

 

[Greenbeard]

You gaslighting shit head.


Last time I checked, the Democrat Leadership is in full throttle trying to prevent the people from being allowed to elect Trump as the next president and decide the destiny of our country.

Last I checked you anti-IVF nut bars are about as popular as shit on a hot sidewalk.

 

[Foxfyre]

.
The fact is, our presumptive GOP leader, former President Trump, supports and defends our Constitution's big tent system called federalism, guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. And that system guarantees that the states, and people therein, are to make their own decisions concerning those objects . . .

". . . which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." See Federalist Paper 45 and get educated.

The unfortunate truth is, our extremist Democrat Leadership detests people being free in each state to determine their own destiny.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

Yep which is what the Supreme Court overturning Roe was all about. It was acknowledging that the Constitution authorizes neither the U.S. central government nor the courts to dictate what laws will govern abortions. Abortion law should be a matter for the people within the various states to decide based on their convictions and ethics and whatever other criteria they choose to use to regulate that if it is regulated at all.

And that is what Clarence Thomas meant when he opined that sooner or later the high Court should address its ruling on same sex marriage. He was not at all saying there should be no same sex marriage, but that ALL other marriage laws/regulation are put into place by the various states and same sex marriage should be no different. The Constitution gives the central government or the court no authority to regulate marriage. They should neither legalize nor forbid such things that are intended for the people to decide.

We need a government and court system that will stop overstepping its constitutional authority in all matters and thereby remove political motive to misuse the government and the courts for personal opinions and desires of one particular group.

So score one in the CORRECT column for President Trump.

 

[playtime]

that

&

that

will not be forgotten.

 

[22lcidw]

that

&

that

will not be forgotten.

It's time to get over it. Abortions are not banned.

 

[playtime]

this was why donny didn't get elected in 2020 & why he won't get elected again because now it has come to pass.



of course, he might be behind bars b4 then...

 

[Lemmi]

We can't let our womenfolk have abortions can we? What is Trump thinking?

 

[playtime]

It's time to get over it. Abortions are not banned.

lol ... ain't no one getting over it. as seen in election after election.

ohio. kansas. alaBAMa. kentucky. virginia. & FLA is gonna decide as well.

as for abortion not being banned?

uh ...

Abortion Laws by State - Center for Reproductive Rights


sit down.

 

[johnwk]

Yep which is what the Supreme Court overturning Roe was all about. It was acknowledging that the Constitution authorizes neither the U.S. central government nor the courts to dictate what laws will govern abortions. Abortion law should be a matter for the people within the various states to decide based on their convictions and ethics and whatever other criteria they choose to use to regulate that if it is regulated at all.

And that is what Clarence Thomas meant when he opined that sooner or later the high Court should address its ruling on same sex marriage. He was not at all saying there should be no same sex marriage, but that ALL other marriage laws/regulation are put into place by the various states and same sex marriage should be no different. The Constitution gives the central government or the court no authority to regulate marriage. They should neither legalize nor forbid such things that are intended for the people to decide.

We need a government and court system that will stop overstepping its constitutional authority in all matters and thereby remove political motive to misuse the government and the courts for personal opinions and desires of one particular group.

So score one in the CORRECT column for President Trump.

As I correctly pointed out above, our extremist Democrat Leadership detests people being free in each state to determine their own destiny.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

 

[Catsnmeters]

.
The fact is, our presumptive GOP leader, former President Trump, supports and defends our Constitution's big tent system called federalism, guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. And that system guarantees that the states, and people therein, are to make their own decisions concerning those objects . . .

". . . which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." See Federalist Paper 45 and get educated.

The unfortunate truth is, our extremist Democrat Leadership detests people being free in each state to determine their own destiny.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

If Trump supported the constitution he would have railed against 50 years of constitutional precedent overturned by an activist right wing court.

Todays republican party seems hell bent on losing a bevy of unenumerated rights because they wish to ignore the 9th amendment.
James Madison put a lot of work to prohibit this type of pseudo legal affirmation.

9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Madison, in order to salvage a bill of rights and it's addition to the constitution had this to say...

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system.7

Justice Story articulated the need for the 9th amendment.

As Justice Joseph Story explained, the clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others.

It seems to me today's republicans want to negate the 9th amendment and all states to be able to revoke all the unenumerated rights all in the name of the 10th amendment.

Roe v Wade is gone. Shall we ignore the 9th further and allow states to strip other unenumerated rights? The right to marriage? Presumption of innocence? The right travel?

This is what the right is asking for. Don't let them do it. Don't let your states revoke your rights.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/

 

[johnwk]

.
The fact is, our presumptive GOP leader, former President Trump, supports and defends our Constitution's big tent system called federalism, guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment. And that system guarantees that the states, and people therein, are to make their own decisions concerning those objects . . .

". . . which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." See Federalist Paper 45 and get educated.

The unfortunate truth is, our extremist Democrat Leadership detests people being free in each state to determine their own destiny.

JWK

Today's Democrat Party Leadership is infested with Authoritarian Revolutionaries, the same kind that took over Cuba, stole people’s property, and now rule over the people with an iron fist!

If Trump supported the constitution he would have railed against 50 years of constitutional precedent overturned by an activist right wing court.

Todays republican party seems hell bent on losing a bevy of unenumerated rights because they wish to ignore the 9th amendment.
James Madison put a lot of work to prohibit this type of pseudo legal affirmation.

9th amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Madison, in order to salvage a bill of rights and it's addition to the constitution had this to say...

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system.7

Justice Story articulated the need for the 9th amendment.

As Justice Joseph Story explained, the clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others.

It seems to me today's republicans want to negate the 9th amendment and all states to be able to revoke all the unenumerated rights all in the name of the 10th amendment.

Roe v Wade is gone. Shall we ignore the 9th further and allow states to strip other unenumerated rights? The right to marriage? Presumption of innocence? The right travel?

This is what the right is asking for. Don't let them do it. Don't let your states revoke your rights.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt9-2/ALDE_00013642/

My goodness, you have no understanding whatsoever why the first twelve amendments were presented to the States for ratification. The sole reason was stated in a Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in . . . "

And for addition evidence confirming what is stated above, see James Madison’s speech before Congress with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and confirming their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And Madison, who you point to, in Federlist No. 45 identifies the powers reserved by the States, and people therein:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."


Finally, my good friend, the Tenth Amendment declares:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

So, tell me, do you agree with what Trump laid out in the following video?
.



.

 

[Catsnmeters]

My goodness, you have no understanding whatsoever why the first twelve amendments were presented to the States for ratification. The sole reason was stated in a Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

What gives you that idea?

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution:

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in . . . "

And for addition evidence confirming what is stated above, see James Madison’s speech before Congress with reference to the adoption of these specific amendments, and confirming their adoption is to preserve and protect “federalism”, our Constitution’s big-tent system which reserves to the States and people therein, all powers not delegated to Congress. He says:

“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution

And Madison, who you point to, in Federlist No. 45 identifies the powers reserved by the States, and people therein:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

And yet the 9th amendment exists and we have unenumerated constitutional rights based on that amendment despite the 10th amendment.

Finally, my good friend, the Tenth Amendment declares:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

But some powers not specifically mentioned are protected by the 9th amendment.

Your post does nothing to negate that.

So, tell me, do you agree with what Trump laid out in the following video?
.



.

Based on the current context of the law, yes; I agree with what Trump was told to say in a desperate attempt to sway moderate voters.

Who the heck knows what he really thinks?

 

[johnwk]

But some powers not specifically mentioned are protected by the 9th amendment.

Your post does nothing to negate that.

Whatever those "powers" may be, they are, by the legislative intent of the federal "Bill of Rights", to be exercised by each State and people therein as they think proper.

Do you support Trump's positions stated in the video without the editorializing comment you made and attached to your approval?

 

[Rawley]

If Trump supported the constitution he would have railed against 50 years of constitutional precedent overturned by an activist right wing court.

Plessy v Fergeson was constitutional precedent for Jim Crow laws for way more than 50 years. Are you saying it should not have been overturned?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Whatever those "powers" may be, they are, by the legislative intent of the federal "Bill of Rights", to be exercised by each State and people therein as they think proper.

So you believe a state can go forego presumption of innocence? A state can ban travel?

Do you support Trump's positions stated in the video without the editorializing comment you made and attached to your approval?

I have already stated my opinion on this.

Certainly you can glean my position despite my editorializing?

 

[johnwk]

So you believe a state can go forego presumption of innocence? A state can ban travel?


I have already stated my opinion on this.

Certainly you can glean my position despite my editorializing?

I would not, at this time, take the liberty to "glean" your position.

Do you support Trump's positions stated IN THE VIDEO?

 

[Catsnmeters]

I would not, at this time, take the liberty to "glean"your position.

That is unfortunate.

Do you support Trump's positions stated IN THE VIDEO?