What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Dobbs & Bruen – the crudeness of the decisions is its own message

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
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???

where in the constitution does it give government the power to know what goes on in our bedrooms, or in our doctor's offices, about our own medical conditions, to even know we have had sex and gotten pregnant??? :dunno:
Do you think women are utterly helpless and can't control any aspect of their lives?
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
The opposite! It strengthens it!


And we have fundamental rights granted to us, in the constitution...rights not mentioned.... The constitution specifically says we have so many more rights not mentioned in the constitution, and specifically states that our rights are NOT LIMITED to what they listed in the bill of rights?
The purpose of the Constitution is not to grant rights to Americans; it never was. Its purpose is to set limits on the power of the Federal government. The 10th Amendment says the powers not granted to the government are reserved for the States and the People; the People then decide what regulations they wish.

Far too many people don't understand this.
 

Care4all

Warrior Princess
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
63,358
Reaction score
20,474
Points
2,290
Location
Maine
Do you think women are utterly helpless and can't control any aspect of their lives?
I think most women do control every aspect of their lives, except when the few make a mistake, and don't.... We all fall short of the glory of God, as the Bible states. 10 million child bearing age females are on birth control....taking the pill...and millions of others using other forms of birth control like sponges, diaphrams and IUDs etc..... and millions of other women wanting pregnancy and million abstain from sex until marriage.... there are about 800,000 abortions a year now, (down from 1.5 million a year...) It's been going in the preferred direction of fewer and rare.... for near 40 years now....

While 800k is still a lot, as a percentage it's quite low, below 5-10% of child bearing age women, having abortions....so, as I said, most women do control every aspect of their lives....

as much as men, or even moreso. :D
 

Papageorgio

The Ultimate Winner
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
55,508
Reaction score
14,724
Points
2,220
Location
PNW
Bullshit. SCOTUS can over turn laws just as easily
It depends on how a case is presented, however Congress didn’t do a damn thing for 50 years and could have put this to bed a long time ago and our Congress failed us as usual, the Republicans and Democrats are too busy playing games and we allow it. This is totally on the American people.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
I think most women do control every aspect of their lives, except when the few make a mistake, and don't.... We all fall short of the glory of God, as the Bible states. 10 million child bearing age females are on birth control....taking the pill...and millions of others using other forms of birth control like sponges, diaphrams and IUDs etc..... and millions of other women wanting pregnancy and million abstain from sex until marriage.... there are about 800,000 abortions a year now, (down from 1.5 million a year...) It's been going in the preferred direction of fewer and rare.... for near 40 years now....

While 800k is still a lot, as a percentage it's quite low, below 5-10% of child bearing age women, having abortions....so, as I said, most women do control every aspect of their lives....

as much as men, or even moreso. :D

800K is just under the 2022 population of San Francisco, 884,108.

Imagine killing all the people in San Francisco in a year.

Does that sound normal to you? Does that sound reasonable to you?

It shouldn't. You should be horrified.
 

Godboy

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
25,919
Reaction score
10,718
Points
940
‘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.
"Individual" and "self defense" rights are too obvious to be required in writing. Dont you think that if they didnt mean for private citizens to own firearms, they would have made it more clear the day after they wrote the Constitution... you know, when everyone was still wearing guns on their hips and stuff? No one ever made any attempts to clarify this?

This theory of yours make absolutely no sense.
 
Last edited:

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,484
Reaction score
4,197
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
Why would a government, the source of POWER in the country need to codify a Right for itself?

That is such a ridiculously stupid interpretation it could only come from a progressive.

The Bill of Rights, was SPECIFICALLY for the citizens of this country.

It LIMITED what government is allowed to do to the individual, and the 2nd was specifically about empowering the PEOPLE the means to remove a corrupt government.
I know that the Bill of Rights was specifically for the citizens of the U.S. but SCOTUS has ruled, prior to Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd was not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but a right of the state.

I was opining that during the time SCOTUS deemed the second to not be a personal right that our 2nd amendment rights were being violated.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
101,056
Reaction score
30,198
Points
2,180
Location
Canis Latrans
Do you think women are utterly helpless and can't control any aspect of their lives?
Apparently you do since you feel the government has to.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
101,056
Reaction score
30,198
Points
2,180
Location
Canis Latrans
"Individual" and "self defense" rights are too obvious to be required in writing. Dont you think that if they didnt mean for private citizens to own firearms, they would have made it more clear the day after they wrote the Constitution... you know, when everyone was still wearing guns on their hips and stuff? No one ever made any attempts to clarify this?

This theory of yours make absolutely no sense.
A right to bodily autonomy would seem too obvious to be required in writing as well. :rolleyes:
 

westwall

WHEN GUNS ARE BANNED ONLY THE RICH WILL HAVE GUNS
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
81,346
Reaction score
38,856
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
I know that the Bill of Rights was specifically for the citizens of the U.S. but SCOTUS has ruled, prior to Heller, that the right protected by the 2nd was not an individual right to keep and bear arms, but a right of the state.

I was opining that during the time SCOTUS deemed the second to not be a personal right that our 2nd amendment rights were being violated.



That is not correct. The only ruling prior to Heller was US v Miller where SCOTUS stated a short barreled shotgun could be regulated because it had "NO FORSEABLE MILTARY PURPOSE".
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
86,606
Reaction score
23,093
Points
2,220
‘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.


Wow. Judges express negative emotions about rulings that they considered to be bad rulings....


Thank god I was sitting when I read this. The shock, it hit me like a freight train. I, I, I, I think I might have PTSD now.


1656295851481.png
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
86,606
Reaction score
23,093
Points
2,220
A right to bodily autonomy would seem too obvious to be required in writing as well. :rolleyes:


Please stop pretending that you are the only person involved. That has failed to work. Time to get real and write real laws.


Or, you can just run around in a panic while the republicans write all teh new laws...


Your choice.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
Apparently you do since you feel the government has to.
Not at all. I am not a leftist. Leftists believe women should not be held responsible for their actions; that's why they've been pushing abortion so hard for 5 decades. "Hey, a little trip to the clinic and you can get back out having fun! No need for a pesky brat to get in your way! It's just a clump of cells, a parasite! It's not human! It's not a person! Don't give it a second thought!"

And that has resulted in the deaths of over twice the population of Texas in the years since RvW.

But don't you spend any time thinking about it. You might realize what a horror you've been supporting.
 

Coyote

Varmint
Staff member
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
101,056
Reaction score
30,198
Points
2,180
Location
Canis Latrans
Not at all. I am not a leftist. Leftists believe women should not be held responsible for their actions; that's why they've been pushing abortion so hard for 5 decades. "Hey, a little trip to the clinic and you can get back out having fun! No need for a pesky brat to get in your way! It's just a clump of cells, a parasite! It's not human! It's not a person! Don't give it a second thought!"

And that has resulted in the deaths of over twice the population of Texas in the years since RvW.

But don't you spend any time thinking about it. You might realize what a horror you've been supporting.
You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
12,694
Reaction score
12,831
Points
2,268
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
why do you think a federal law regulating abortions would be unconstitutional?
Possibly because the the SCOTUS just finished noting that such authority isn't part of the authority granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
86,606
Reaction score
23,093
Points
2,220
You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.


That bit where you insist on others accepting your premise, that failed.


No one is going to do that.


Do you want to have input in to the new laws that will be covering this isssue, or do you want to play troll games?
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,484
Reaction score
4,197
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
That is not correct. The only ruling prior to Heller was US v Miller where SCOTUS stated a short barreled shotgun could be regulated because it had "NO FORSEABLE MILTARY PURPOSE".
Is it possible for you to post where the individual justices indicated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not one that must be connected to being a part of a militia or anything other than an individual right? I wasn't able to find anything but you are apparently more knowledgeable on this case than I am.

What I was able to find is the information on subsequent opinions that reference Miller.

Here are the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:

Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10 That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. However, compare the qualified language of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964); (concurring opinion of Black; Footnote 11) "... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);

Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".​
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.​
— Id., at 178-179.​
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.

Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8 (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).​
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas) Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense". Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)​
 

NewsVine_Mariyam

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2018
Messages
7,484
Reaction score
4,197
Points
1,030
Location
The Beautiful Pacific Northwest
That is not correct. The only ruling prior to Heller was US v Miller where SCOTUS stated a short barreled shotgun could be regulated because it had "NO FORSEABLE MILTARY PURPOSE".
Is it possible for you to post where the individual justices indicated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not one that must be connected to being a part of a militia or anything other than an individual right? I wasn't able to find anything but you are apparently more knowledgeable on this case than I am.

What I was able to find is the information on subsequent opinions that reference Miller.

Here are the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:

Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10 That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. However, compare the qualified language of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.​
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964); (concurring opinion of Black; Footnote 11) "... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);​
Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".​
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.​
— Id., at 178-179.​
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.​
Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8 (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).​
Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas) Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense". Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)​
 

BackAgain

Neutronium Member & truth speaker
Joined
Nov 11, 2021
Messages
12,694
Reaction score
12,831
Points
2,268
Location
Now a resident of a Red state! Hallelujah!
You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.
The premise of your argument is false. The being inside her is not her body. If any woman wants to get plastic surgery on her nose or to amplify her breasts or to reduce the size of her breasts or to liposuction off some fat on her thighs, etc., nobody else has a right to say diddly dog about that.

But to the extent that our founding charter, the Constitution, serves to protect our rights and liberties, the right to life itself is absolutely the prime right. The preborn human inside the mother has its own unique DNA. It is an individual whose life commenced at conception. It cannot defend itself, but society can protect it -- by law.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top