Deliberating The 'Right' To Kill

[SavannahMann]

I simply love your autobiographical posts....
'

....but try to be more articulate.


Any point is hidden in garbled verbiage.

I expect a better job.

Whenever you are cornered you flip the switch and bury the reply in links to a dozen websites.

The point was painfully obvious to anyone with a spare brain cell.

 

[SavannahMann]

"It isn’t directly mentioned."

It isn't mentioned at all.


The only job any judge or justice has is to tie their decision to the words of the Constitution, you dunce.



Here is your lesson, from the great Rehnquist, about any decision by a judge not based on the text of the Constitution.

"The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Excellent. So you will support my plan to have all electronic communications monitored constantly?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Excellent. So you will support my plan to have all electronic communications monitored constantly?

Read it again, and have someone with a greater education explain it to you......any third grader will do.


"It isn’t directly mentioned."

It isn't mentioned at all.


The only job any judge or justice has is to tie their decision to the words of the Constitution, you dunce.



Here is your lesson, from the great Rehnquist, about any decision by a judge not based on the text of the Constitution.

"The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

Read it again, and have someone with a greater education explain it to you......any third grader will do.


"It isn’t directly mentioned."

It isn't mentioned at all.


The only job any judge or justice has is to tie their decision to the words of the Constitution, you dunce.



Here is your lesson, from the great Rehnquist, about any decision by a judge not based on the text of the Constitution.

"The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal

judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own,

quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s

problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority

of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied

to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a

judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a

quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of

the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately

situated people with a roving commission to second-guess

Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative

officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely

there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal

government, and there is even less justification for a federal

legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws

enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

Whenever you are cornered you flip the switch and bury the reply in links to a dozen websites.

The point was painfully obvious to anyone with a spare brain cell.

So.....explain it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

My point was that those rights lauded by a bit are impossible to guarantee. It’s probably why the Founders did not include them in the Constitution.

I point out these things are not mentioned in the Constitution. No right to life, liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness. But that doesn’t stop the fools from waving the banner as if it proves their point.

The right to Privacy is implied. It is why Phone Calls and Electronic Communication is protected from Government Surveillance. Even though it is not directly mentioned.

The Right to Privacy is the foundation of the right to Abortion. It isn’t directly mentioned. But since we are eradicating rights not directly mentioned. We should go all the way shouldn’t we?

You're just not very bright.

The right to life means that government cannot deprive you of life and will outlaw acts by others that take your life.

You REALLY were too fucking stupid to grasp that?

 

[SavannahMann]

You're just not very bright.

The right to life means that government cannot deprive you of life and will outlaw acts by others that take your life.

You REALLY were too fucking stupid to grasp that?

Perhaps I was. Show me where it is in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps I was. Show me where it is in the Constitution.

Listed under 'abortion.'

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps I was. Show me where it is in the Constitution.

Show me where the Constitution mentions rape?

How about residential burglary?

As I said, You're just not very bright.

 

[SavannahMann]

Listed under 'abortion.'

Abortion is the argument you are making. You are arguing that it isn’t there. All I want to know is where the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is found in the Constitution.

 

[SavannahMann]

Show me where the Constitution mentions rape?

How about residential burglary?

As I said, You're just not very bright.

You guys aren’t very bright. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness is not listed in the Constitution. The dolt argued as if it was and I called her on it. And you rush in throwing more smoke.

Now you are arguing that people have a right to rob or rape or whatever. Idiot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Abortion is the argument you are making. You are arguing that it isn’t there. All I want to know is where the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is found in the Constitution.

It is the American creed.

So you're a government school grad?

 

[SavannahMann]

It is the American creed.

So you're a government school grad?

I’m thinking you should have gone to school a little more. Perhaps a day or two in Civics Class would have helped you.

Those Unalienable Rights are listed in the Second Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It was technically a Declaration of War, but since the US Continental Congress was an unofficial body technically under pain of death for even existing, then we can call it whatever.

Those words were intended to spur people to support the Insurgency against the rule of Britain.

They were never the American Creed, I have no idea where you got that. The actual American Creed circa 1918 again to gin support up for the war was this.

American Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, I’m not sure where Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness came in to your version of the American Creed, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Rabid Trumpsters love to rewrite history. So you’re in good company.

That’s the problem with you all. You grasp an idea, and decide it was the intent of the Founders. You don’t bother to actually learn anything about the Founders, or what they actually thought. You don’t grasp the brilliance of the Constitution, a document written intentionally vague so that the people, the future, could decide what it means.

For example, let’s take Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time that was written, hangings, whippings, and other such punishments were common. Yet today, they are considered cruel and unusual. Society moved the bar, and did so perfectly in line with the Constitution. As the Constitution does not declare what is Cruel and Unusual, just that it is prohibited. Whatever it is.

Each generation decides what is Cruel and Unusual, and declares it prohibited by the Constitution. Again, it’s fine, because the Constitution was written to last, to be flexible enough to adapt to the changes of society while protecting the rights of the individuals.

Of course, idiots like yourself, cut and paste morons who don’t grasp what they write or paste, don’t understand that.

You are like fools who have browsed the Bible once, and decide they know what God wants, and what God intended. You have no understanding of the history, and no understanding of the context in which the Bible was written, and you have no understanding of the Covenants.

So go on, sprout your hatred. Use your pocket Constitution, which you’ve never read, as a prop as you scream that this isn’t Constitutional.

But even if you win the Abortion argument in the Supreme Court, you’ll lose in the long run. I’ve never seen a group so determined to commit suicide before. Hell, even Lemmings are more restrained than this.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You guys aren’t very bright. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness is not listed in the Constitution.

So?

Who said it was?

Oh, you're building a straw man, I get it.

The dolt argued as if it was and I called her on it. And you rush in throwing more smoke.

What "dolt?" You?

As I've long said, without fallacy you Nazis would have no relation to logic at all.

Now you are arguing that people have a right to rob or rape or whatever. Idiot.

Are you on drugs?

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is the American creed.

So you're a government school grad?

I doubt he finished elementary studies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Perhaps I was. Show me where it is in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I’m thinking you should have gone to school a little more. Perhaps a day or two in Civics Class would have helped you.

Those Unalienable Rights are listed in the Second Paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. It was technically a Declaration of War, but since the US Continental Congress was an unofficial body technically under pain of death for even existing, then we can call it whatever.

Those words were intended to spur people to support the Insurgency against the rule of Britain.

They were never the American Creed, I have no idea where you got that. The actual American Creed circa 1918 again to gin support up for the war was this.

American Creed - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now, I’m not sure where Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness came in to your version of the American Creed, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Rabid Trumpsters love to rewrite history. So you’re in good company.

That’s the problem with you all. You grasp an idea, and decide it was the intent of the Founders. You don’t bother to actually learn anything about the Founders, or what they actually thought. You don’t grasp the brilliance of the Constitution, a document written intentionally vague so that the people, the future, could decide what it means.

For example, let’s take Cruel and Unusual Punishment. At the time that was written, hangings, whippings, and other such punishments were common. Yet today, they are considered cruel and unusual. Society moved the bar, and did so perfectly in line with the Constitution. As the Constitution does not declare what is Cruel and Unusual, just that it is prohibited. Whatever it is.

Each generation decides what is Cruel and Unusual, and declares it prohibited by the Constitution. Again, it’s fine, because the Constitution was written to last, to be flexible enough to adapt to the changes of society while protecting the rights of the individuals.

Of course, idiots like yourself, cut and paste morons who don’t grasp what they write or paste, don’t understand that.

You are like fools who have browsed the Bible once, and decide they know what God wants, and what God intended. You have no understanding of the history, and no understanding of the context in which the Bible was written, and you have no understanding of the Covenants.

So go on, sprout your hatred. Use your pocket Constitution, which you’ve never read, as a prop as you scream that this isn’t Constitutional.

But even if you win the Abortion argument in the Supreme Court, you’ll lose in the long run. I’ve never seen a group so determined to commit suicide before. Hell, even Lemmings are more restrained than this.

"creed" with a lower case 'c' covers the beliefs in question.

Creed Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com​

https://www.dictionary.com › browse › creed
any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination. · any system or codification of belief or of opinion. · an authoritative, formulated ...

creed - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com​

https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › creed
A creed can be a formal doctrine, or system of beliefs, for a church or religious group, or it can be a philosophy, or personal set of beliefs. The origins of ...

 

[SavannahMann]

View attachment 572019

Ok. Now point me to the section of the Constitution that says that.

 

[Natural Citizen]

"creed" with a lower case 'c' covers the beliefs in question.

Creed Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com​

https://www.dictionary.com › browse › creed
any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination. · any system or codification of belief or of opinion. · an authoritative, formulated ...

creed - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com​

https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › creed
A creed can be a formal doctrine, or system of beliefs, for a church or religious group, or it can be a philosophy, or personal set of beliefs. The origins of ...

Relevant reading...


A Principle of the Traditional American Philosophy

1. The Spiritual is Supreme

". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." (Declaration of Independence)


The Principle

1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.


Religious Nature

2. This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.


An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.


The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential-- spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.


Some Things Excluded

5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.


The Truly American Concept

6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.


America a Haven For All Religions

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion.

This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.


The Conclusion

8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.

Goodreads

Discover and share books you love on Goodreads.

www.goodreads.com

 

[SavannahMann]

"creed" with a lower case 'c' covers the beliefs in question.

Creed Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com​

https://www.dictionary.com › browse › creed
any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination. · any system or codification of belief or of opinion. · an authoritative, formulated ...

creed - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com​

https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › creed
A creed can be a formal doctrine, or system of beliefs, for a church or religious group, or it can be a philosophy, or personal set of beliefs. The origins of ...

According to Congress and the Archives. It has never been the creed. Of course I don’t expect you to grasp that. What is funny is that you RW nutters always claim the Left is stupid. Yet when shown proof, I gave you the paragraph where it was found on the Declaration of Independence, you persist and argue with a silly comic.

Well that proved your point. Not.

But this is an old story. One I have seen many times before. Conservatives misquoting things. When they are shown the error. One would think an intellectually honest person would admit it. RW types never do.

It is idiocy like this that lets me say accurately that the Right and Left hate the Constitution. You are clueless as to what it says. The damned thing is online. You could read it. The Federalist Papers have been available for 200 years. You could read them and learn what the Founders really intended. Instead you get your information from an idiotic comic.

You are obviously ignorant of the founding of the nation. You are ignorant of our founding documents. You pass that into stupidity by refusing to admit you misattributed the quote. That is simply put. Cowardice.

I wonder how you will react if you get what you want? Let’s say Roe is overturned. You should realize that means in one generation the Republican Party is dead.

More babies means more kids. More kids means the parents and communities will educate those kids to reject Republicans. That means the Republicans are destroying their own electoral future.

Every year another million children will be born. And a vast majority of them will be raised as Democrats. And those kids will vote. And they won’t vote for your side.

And yes. I’ve argued before that the Democrats were aborting their chance at a Majority. In the end. I honestly believe it is none of my business what a woman does. The implied right to privacy says it is her business. Just as it is none of my business what two consenting adults do in private. It doesn’t matter if they are straight or gay. It is none of my business.

The foundation of your argument was wrong. It wasn’t the Constitution. It was the Declaration of Independence that asserted a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.

It was not part of the creed of America.

And let me save you some time now. No. E Pluribus Unim is not the Right to Life.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ok. Now point me to the section of the Constitution that says that.

Why?

I just taught you what the American creed it, and it includes this:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson.

And based on the above, every American worthy of our heritage is pro-life.
The abortion/infanticide view is an iteration of this: "We must rid ourselves once and for all of the Quaker-Papist babble about the sanctity of human life." Leon Trotsky