NewsVine_Mariyam
Platinum Member
- Thread starter
- #41
That doesn't make sense, it can't be both.You know a law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
If it were truly constitutional it wouldn't be ruled unconstitutional.
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.
That doesn't make sense, it can't be both.You know a law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Gun owners should sue the states in question for damages?A statutory cause of action and statutory damages would be a good start, in my opinion.
Clayton will explain.That doesn't make sense, it can't be both.
If a law is ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are you saying that until that ruling it was constitutional?Clayton will explain.
Since the law was enacted, he's been avoiding the issue, because he knows the law is constitutional - and doesn't want to admit it.
He knows this, because it has not been ruled unconstitutional, and he know any law is constitutional until ruled otherwise.
Ask him. Mention "Caroline Products" and "footnote 4".
It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong. Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful? You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus. Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
See how that works?
Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'
The best repercussion would be that this goes to the Supreme Court and they finally reach the consensus that this is a medical matter between a woman and her doctor and no person. Government entity or court has the right to interfer with their decisions. Roe vs Wade was a start but the government and the courts need to step back from it entirely now and forever. the last thing this world needs is more miles to feed, especially unwanted ones, ones that aren't even here yet. The pro-lifers complain about a few hundred thousand immigrants come across the border, good they want 40 to 60 million more people here who weren't supposed to be here in the first place. So much for their pro-life stance.It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong. Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful? You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus. Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
See how that works?
Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'
Until that ruling it hasn't been tested in the courts. The legislation was blatantly unamerican, asking your neighbor spy on you and rewarding them to do so sounds like a Nazi law if there ever was one.If a law is ruled to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution, are you saying that until that ruling it was constitutional?
That's your point of view.Abortion doesn't involve murder.
This is a temporary injunction, until there is SCOTUS review.It seems to me that there should be repercussions of some type when laws are passed that are blatently and knowingly unconstitutional because they deprive people rights and allow harm to them while they are in effect even though they are eventually overturned or ruled to be unconstitutional.
There is a member here on U.S. Message board who repeatedly made the assertion that no woman is allowed to have an unlawful abortion, completely overlooking that the act was only recently made unlawful and now the court is saying that the law was wrong. Well what about the people who have been harmed while this "law" was in effect?
How would you feel if you were a gun owner and someone was able to pass a law, knowing it would not pass constitutional muster and would be overturned eventually, that made ownership of all semi-automatic pistols unlawful? You didn't go out and buy one, you were already the legal owner of the semi-auto but know because of someone else's angst, you're suddenly a criminal even though you and they both know that this new law is bogus. Nonetheless, it's currently the law and while it stands you're a criminal unless you get rid of your semi-autos.
See how that works?
Federal judge blocks Texas restrictive abortion law, says women faced 'irreparable harm'
It's not my point of view, it's both the dictionary and legal definition of the word "murder".That's your point of view.
You should respect others and let them have their points of view...
There will never be peace or understanding in this world, nor will we find solutions, till everyone is allowed their own truth.
If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.
I wasn't referring solely about this case in reference to repercussions or more aptly restitution.This is a temporary injunction, until there is SCOTUS review.
Talking about repercussions is, IMO, premature.
Murder hinges on when one considers life to begin.I'm not my point of view, it's both the dictionary and legal definition of the word "murder".
.. .. well, I've made my POV clear else where on the forum.I wasn't referring solely about this case in reference to repercussions or more aptly restitution.
Why would you think I would desire respect from people who can't tell fact from fiction? And are so dishonest that when they are provided with the information so that they can see for themselves that they are mistaken, they just double down on their mistaken and uninformed point of view?If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.
No it doesn't. That is just what you want and think how things should work.Murder hinges on when one considers life to begin.
You wrote this yet you support a law that allows a bunch of strangers to get involved in the lives of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, motivated by the thought of making an easy $10,000?A person has to be responsible for their own life,
Others are more than welcome to their opinion on it that's why Roe vs Wade came into being. To protect everyone's opinion.That's your point of view.
You should respect others and let them have their points of view...
There will never be peace or understanding in this world, nor will we find solutions, till everyone is allowed their own truth.
If you want respect and others to believe your truth, you must understand theirs.
All laws are made by “a bunch of strangers” to get involved in all of our lives. It’s called living in a civilized society with laws.You wrote this yet you support a law that allows a bunch of strangers to get involved in the lives of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy, motivated by the thought of making an easy $10,000?