Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You do realize though that prior to the Heller v DC ruling in 2008 that SCOTUS claimed that the 2nd did NOT grant or rather protect the right of an individual to keep & bear arms, that instead that right belonged to "the state" (government).Yet there is a 2nd amendment to cite, your fantasy abortion rights, not so much. Did you hold conservative justices to such standards when they decided that atrocious gay marriage thing? Perhaps you should have. How about that tax that wasn't a tax? Who am I kidding, the only standards you progs have are double standards.
To have a well regulated militiaTry again why else would you have a right to keep and bear arms? But self-defense..
The problem with Griswold is there is no concensus as to where such privacy originates. Multiple Justices cite multiple clauses. That diminishes the legitimacy.The right to have access to and use contraceptives in not mentioned either in the U.S. Constitution but SCOTUS ruled that to be constitutionally protected, so it's not like it needs to be an explicit reference.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.[1] The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".[2]Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Roe v Wade was determined on a woman's right to privacy much in the same way Griswold was determined:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. The decision, which struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws,[2][3] fueled an ongoing debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. It also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
Only in your mindThe problem with Griswold is there is no concensus as to where such privacy originates. Multiple Justices cite multiple clauses. That diminishes the legitimacy.
Which directly contradicts how the Founders governed.You do realize though that prior to the Heller v DC ruling in 2008 that SCOTUS claimed that the 2nd did NOT grant or rather protect the right of an individual to keep & bear arms, that instead that right belonged to "the state" (government).
It's only been in the last 12 years that SCOTUS has conceded this since the ratification of the 2nd amendment in 1791.
In what respect?Which directly contradicts how the Founders governed.
Owning a gun is a Constitutional right, and abortion is not, our lawmakers had 50 years to clarify and make abortion legal forever but instead used it for political gain and division. Why would we the people allow our representatives to be so cavalier with such a law?‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
Store up some tears, no doubt you'll need them. It seems this Court wants to correct the massive overreaches of the past. High time somebody did.Only in your mind
If SCOTUS returns contraception to the States, do you see any states outlawing it? I don't.The right to have access to and use contraceptives in not mentioned either in the U.S. Constitution but SCOTUS ruled that to be constitutionally protected, so it's not like it needs to be an explicit reference.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.[1] The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".[2]Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Roe v Wade was determined on a woman's right to privacy much in the same way Griswold was determined:
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. The decision, which struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws,[2][3] fueled an ongoing debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. It also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.
But SCOTUS has ruled that people have a right to privacy and the "right to privacy" is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights unless you want to consider the 4th amendment's admonishment that the people have the right to be secure in their homes, persons, personal affects, etc. (paraphrased) as a stand-in for "privacy".Owning a gun is a Constitutional right, and abortion is not, our lawmakers had 50 years to clarify and make abortion legal forever but instead used it for political gain and division. Why would we the people allow our representatives to be so cavalier with such a law?
The individual right to keep and bear arms. Settlers and pioneers were not sent forth with an army or militia at their back, they were responsible for their own defense. Farmers and hunters did not require government permission to keep and bear arms in their daily lives. Signatories to the Constitution itself had privately owned firearms with no link to any militia.In what respect?
That's not the point.If SCOTUS returns contraception to the States, do you see any states outlawing it? I don't.
So all those years when the law of the land was that the 2nd only protects the state's right to KABA, not the individual rights of "the people", SCOTUS was violating our constitutional rights?The individual right to keep and bear arms. Settlers and pioneers were not sent forth with an army or militia at their back, they were responsible for their own defense. Farmers and hunters did not require government permission to keep and bear arms in their daily lives. Signatories to the Constitution itself had privately owned firearms with no link to any militia.
They were lying before.That's not the point.
SCOTUS has stated that a right to privacy exists under the Constitution when it comes to matters regarding the prevention of pregnancy. I realize that preventing an unwanted pregnancy and dealing with an unwanted pregnancy are not exactly the same thing but both of them were previously found to be Constitutional even though there is no direct reference to "right to privacy" in the Constitution.
That is the point. So were they lying before or are they lying now?
You done lying about banning and confiscating? We knownthat's what you want.‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’
Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.
The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.
Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’
Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.
Where in the constitution was power given to our government to force a 9 month pregnancy on a woman or girl if she and her husband or partner are not ready to have children in their lives yet? Not enough money to be a good parent, still in college, still a child and under age, date raped, or birth control didn't work, or partner left when they found out and were not ready to be a father etc etc etc???no constitutional right to an abortion.
same can't be said for firearms
For the security of a free state and to enable a well regulated militia.Try again why else would you have a right to keep and bear arms? But self-defense..
Your perspective is flawed. The individual right was practiced daily, there was no need to presume otherwise.So all those years when the law of the land was that the 2nd only protects the state's right to KABA, not the individual rights of "the people", SCOTUS was violating our constitutional rights?
That's my perspective.
Translation from Letchcrap to English:Only in your mind
