Constitutional Rights Have Limits

[bripat9643]

Grow up

PLEASE

How is that not grown up, asshole?

 

[App'z]

Oh Boy the interview with Boland is mazing Sammich !

Law professor who taught Merrick Garland predicts he will indict Trump

 

[App'z]

Have you noticed that every answer the Demo's have is to create more costs to American Taxpayers and now the Big Guy wants to cut Home Loan Interest costs, more taxpayer eating surcharges all around the clock. Simply let the Energy Sector move forward and stop the Crap idea that you can plug in your EV and all our problems are over by spending Taxpayer funds on a program with High Paying Government appointed employees and instead why not Build & Let the Nuke Plant Technology builders create for every town and City smaller power plants and lets get the Billionairs out of their chairs there. Right now with Wind and Solar generatuin I pay about $50 every month, approximately 1/5 of what I need. So immediately 6 X power production simply meet current needs. The 300,000,000 EV cars of our future are each like using a Welder for 2 to 3 continuous hours charging in every home at Least . and that doesn't fill the Semi or Train needs. That means huge amplification of Power supply Trunk lines for every town and City nationwide and the many 1000's of miles of transportation, IE need local small nuke plants to generate asap.

 

[App'z]

Obviously separation of Church and State has to go to the Supreme Court of these USA to clarify a rather shady statement about Government and Church Separation. Right now why would a Church have to endure a Pandemic of infection when the Government said they couldn't hold group gathering inside them for a very long time ! Get Government back to Public owned places, not private church building is the need here. When you look at states facts 2/3 of poling places are in church buildings. Absolutely no need to be doing that there !

 

[App'z]

The most obvious fact about the Pandemic was Courthouse closing of offices to public, yet the Churches are supposed to hold public election poling places open to the general public and all their membership is open to infection / or closed to them because of public concern / politicians not wanting them open. Yea we got a lot of old politicians Masked, scared to death, offices completely closed down, people at home with land lines/computers and doing at home government; placed at home, basically cowards in hiding! Yea its been a proven fact of governments.

 

[woodwork201]

you don;t have to be married to be held legally responsible for your children.

Most people marry before they have kids anyway so once again the only real issue is property
More and more married people aren't having children as well.

I was trying to avoid responding to the older messages in this thread, saving my input, if any, until I saw if there were more current posts of interests but this one needs correction:

Most Americans do not wait to be married to have children. Over 50% of children in the US are born out of wedlock.

Assuming that many parents do, at some point, get married, that would mean that the number of parents who have children without being married is actually significantly higher than 50%. Those parents also might get counted more than once in the category of parents who are married when they have their 2nd, 3rd, etc., child.

 

[woodwork201]

Whatever eyou may think of Roe, it is settled law.

How settled was it, exactly, gun controller?

 

[woodwork201]

The Constitution doesn't mention lots of things which is the reason for the Ninth Amendment

And everything the 9th Amendment might cover is a State issue according to the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court got it right on the Mississippi case in overturning Roe.

 

[woodwork201]

Read the Ninth Amendment

Roe wasn't decided on the 9th Amendment - not even a little bit. It was decided on the made-up idea of substantive due process - which every scholar I have ever read on the topic admits was made up in the early 20th century. No one believes that substantive due process is an actual constitutional concept.

 

[badbob85037]

The guarrantee of freedom of religion does not cover human sacrifice or multiple wives or use of dangerous drugs.

The right to bear arms does not cover bombs or machine guns or flame throwers or artillery. Private citizens may not own fighter jets or missiles.

The right of free speech does not protect Perjury, Obstruction of justice, extortion, obscenity or liable or slander.

These limits set forth in statutes or case law.

Are you a gun grabber? I asked because you know as much as a gun grabber on laws. Like I will own the biggest flame thrower I want, all nice and legal. Protect perjury?! You must of not seen any of those January 6th testimonies

 

[woodwork201]

For one noise complaints are a state matter not a federal one. the federasl government doesn;t enforce state laws BUT all state laws are subject to SCOTUS rulings and there have been many instances where state laws have been found unconstitutional.

What Enumerated and Unenumerated Rights Does an American Have?

United States citizens enjoy written Constitutional rights and unwritten rights. What enumerated and unenumerated rights does an American have?

constitutionus.com

In most cases where the Supreme Court overturns a State law it is done based on the idea that the State laws come under the Police Power of the States and on substantive due process, an idea magically pulled out of the 14th Amendment, that the Court uses to give itself power over what the 10th Amendment clearly grants to the States. Police Powers in this case have nothing to do with men in blue; it's the power to create laws, according to the Supreme Court itself, that provide for the public health,safety, and morals of the States.

As recently as 1991 the Supreme Court spoke in Barnes v. Glen Theatre of "[t] he traditional police power of the States" as one which "we have upheld [as] a basis for legislation"; this plurality opinion of the Court defined it as "the authority to provide for the public health, safety, and morals."
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=jcl

States, by design and the 10th Amendment, have all of the power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government or specifically forbidden to the States with a few exceptions of powers reserved to the people.

The main restriction on the States is the 14th Amendment protecting from the States, all of the privileges and immunities protected against the Federal Government - mostly, but not only, the Bill of Rights. The Federal courts had to make something up to get involved so they invented substantive probable clause.

States could actually get pretty nasty with their laws and there's nothing, constitutionally, that the Federal Government can do about it.

 

[woodwork201]

The federal government is bound to protect that right by the 9th amendment because the Constitution protects all rights not just those listed in its text. ANYONE can run a case through the state courts right up to SCOTUS no matter what state they live in then SCOTUS will rule whether or not that law was Constitutional.

If that isn't protection of rights by the federal government then what is?

How can the Federal Government be bound to protect what the Constitution clearly, explicitly, says is a power of the State?

The Federal Government can only interfere in any state law if the law violates the Federal protections explicitly defined in the Constitution and protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. If that weren't the case, if there was already a Federal power to intercede on State police powers, then there would have been no need to have the 14th Amendment. The Federal Government would have already had the power to overturn the States.

 

[woodwork201]

Determined by a significant majority, by Justices nominated by both Ds and Rs, for three different justifications, more than fifty years ago, with a ton of rulings supporting it since. Good luck getting that overturned.

I wish I had read your post on the day you wrote it and bought a lottery ticket. Our luck was absolutely amazing, wasn't it? But I should have bought the ticket on election day, 2016, because luck doesn't just happen; Donald Trump brought this luck to us.

 

[woodwork201]

Griswold was a major foundation for Roe.

Since the Roe v. Wade decision does make some reference to the 9th, I don’t mind conceding that point. In fact, I already did. But I see no evidence that it’s the basis of the decision. The simply SCOTUS made up the law. The SCOTUS isn’t the legislature. It’s not supposed to make up law.

There was no need for you to concede; you were correct.

The references to the Ninth Amendment in Roe v Wade are about the fact that Roe argued it was a violation of the 9th Amendment and the Court also acknowledged that the District Court found for Roe based on the 9th Amendment but the Supreme Court was explicit that they did not find on the 9th but, instead, found on the 14th.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.​

Jane ROE, et al., Appellants, v. Henry WADE.

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[woodwork201]

What you attempted to grunt out, you incoherent shithead, Was that they don’t arrest people for murder because of the commission of an abortion.

The why is a political decision. But if a woman doesn’t seek an abortion but some asshole stabs her in the uterus thereby snuffing out the life of the fetus, that criminal could be and likely would be charged with murder. Why? Because Idaho law recognizes the personhood of that tiny victim.

So does California.

 

[woodwork201]

Great. So where are the arrests for the murder of these persons


I'm waiting

Irrelevant. If your contention is that no person has been convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus, that’s your burden. And your constant giggling doesn’t change a thing. I disproved your false claim.

Go ahead and admit your defeat. We all see it anyway, veggie.

There have been plenty of cases in California of conviction for murder for killing the unborn child. Here's just one.

Boyfriend Convicted of Double Murder of Pregnant Girlfriend, Unborn Son

A man was convicted for the 2001 murder of his pregnant girlfriend and unborn son. Prosecutors say he arranged the murder because the woman refused to have an abortion.

www.nbclosangeles.com

 

[woodwork201]

You need to watch Jordan Peterson more often, he covered responsibilities over rights

The difference between you and us is that you're a subject; we are not.

 

[woodwork201]

Why did you omit this important FACT:

• Intentional first-degree murder for the miscarriage of Naomi's fetus. The jury returned a not guilty verdict

Aggravated battery of Naomi based on great bodily harm with lesser included offenses of both domestic battery and battery based on bodily harm for lacing the pancakes with an abortifacient. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Distribution of adulterated food for giving the pancakes to Naomi, a misdemeanor violation of K.S.A. 65-657. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.

• Conspiring with Angel to commit intentional first-degree murder by causing Naomi to miscarry and identifying the online order for Mifepristone and Misoprostol as the overt act furthering the conspiracy. The jury found Bollig guilty.


Conspiracy to commit murder is not murder. Just like conspiracy to commit insurrection isn't insurrection.

I know this is way late in this conversation but it's a very pertinent thread topic with the recent Court rulings - especially abortion, don't you think?

But I'll respond to your harassment that the question from the vegas dude to BackAgain was where are the arrests for killing fetuses, not where are the convictions. There have been many of each, of course, but you're just trolling to try to keep readers from finding the real facts in between your trolling posts.

 

[woodwork201]

The sections concerning our rights are from intrusions from the government to us.
Do 'peaceful' protestors violating noise ordinances and so on fall under that, I doubt it.
Even the protesting justices statute, probably would be unconstitutional.
I could see blockades somewhat, above and below the houses under protest, letting very small groups to go by..that would be following the 1st. Or, designate specific protest areas, like the SS does with presidents.....usually blocks away from where he is going.

You protest government at the places of government, not at the places where families, neighbors, and children live.

 

[woodwork201]

Taking illegal drugs is agaianst the law and polygamy is illegal.

And yet you started a thread about the Constitution and it turns out you don't even believe in it.