Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

Artillery:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
Definition of ARTILLERY

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

The federal government only has the power given to it in the document, when courts decide they can make up rights, they are exceeding their role in the document, its that simple.

Also, you still seem to think government CAN violate the rights of those bakers, and you are A-OK with that. It shows your general hypocrisy on the topic.

 

[Skylar]

The Establishment gave us Juan McCain, Boehner and McConnell. It's long past time that they worry

As far as I know none of those men are fascists. Donald Trump is. That's a huge difference.


And Ben Carson is a certified idiot in every aspect of knowledge outside of medicine. Brain surgeons everywhere are now relieved he has destroyed the stereotype that they must be geniuses at everything.

Its interesting to watch many republicans demonstrate that they don't actually believe the nonsense they've been spouting all these years.

They complained that Obama didn't have enough experience. And now a TV reality star and an ex surgeon are leading in the polls for the GOP candidate.

They complained about Hillary's health. And nominated John McCain. A man older and in arguably poorer health.

'I was sort of dumbfounded. They went to all this trouble to say she had staged what was a terrible concussion that required six months of very serious work to get over, something she never lowballed with the American people, never tried to pretend didn't happen" -- BJ CLinton

So your concerns.....are that she had a concussion that she got over?

 

[martybegan]

Abortion isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a figment made up by some guys in robes, nothing more. Shift the balance of the court and its gone, poof.

An amendment would make it a constitutionally guaranteed right, and if you treated it the way you idiots want to treat the 2nd, not even then.

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

Wait, you think the state should issue licenses for people to have sex like they do to people that engage in business?

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

Nothing in there about regulating commerce, huhhhhhhhhhh

Interstate commerce, and again, it has to be applied against the free exercise of one's religion.

If a whole town wanted to not bake cakes for gay weddings, then the government would have a compelling reason to stop said bakers from discriminating, if its only one however, a person's religious freedom outweighs hurt feelings and 20 extra minutes needed to find another baker.

 

[Valerie]

look it up marty... educate yourself.

About what? And I'm educated already, thank you very much.

you asked to be shown where anti discrimination law is in the constitution... it's laughable.

you could always look into any related scotus rulings, if you really care to comprehend the constitutional rationale.

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

maybe you do understand but you just disagree with the CONSTITUTIONAL rationale...

maybe you'd rather get angry with internet posters while you desperately try to WIN discussion threads.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

 

[martybegan]

The FIRST part gives the States the right to form militias. It was to prevent the federal government from claiming exclusive right to armed force. The SECOND part gives the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.

It's your side that uses the courts to crush others, not us.

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

"strict constitutionists" didn't exist as a credible paradigm until rhenquist took the bench. and it wasn't an effective paradigm until scalia and his boys polluted our body of constitutional law. i'd refer you back to Marbury v Madison for a more rational and credible perspective on constitutional construction.

but I know that the wingers have been shouting this for years and have managed to infect public discourse with their propaganda.... which isn't very effective with a single judge or attorney I know... but seems to resonate with lay people.

Anyone who uses the word paradigm should not be trusted. Too corporate-buzzwordy.

And marbury vs. madison is about Judicial REVIEW, not "Judicial creation of shit out of thin air", which is the progressive method of government. Like all good authoritarians they prefer to go to small groups of people to make their points, instead of to the people.

And your inability to find a "single judge or attorney" you know that follows this speaks less of the lack of them with the viewpoint, and more about your narrow social circle.

Do you mean anyone who uses language which goes beyond your level of education should not be trusted? Or that Romney and by extension Wall St. (people who earn money by using other people's money) should not be trusted?

Judicial Review has no mention in COTUS, but is clearly part of the Common Law and is only scrutinized by malcontents who don't get the opinion they want.

A proper / rational criticism of Judicial Review is under circumstances when the Supreme Court become predictable, and issues always seem to be decided 5-4 by members of the same caucus; such a circumstance creates in thinking persons to question: 1) Why allow a justice - chief or otherwise - a life appointment; 2) Why is the Supreme Court the only trier of facts without a Code of Ethics?

I know what paradigm is, I hate the word, its too "Office Space' for me.

The real question is why is the court allowed to change judicial review into legislating from the bench, which is what it is doing now.

 

[martybegan]

look it up marty... educate yourself.

About what? And I'm educated already, thank you very much.

you asked to be shown where anti discrimination law is in the constitution... it's laughable.

you could always look into any related scotus rulings, if you really care to comprehend the constitutional rationale.

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

maybe you do understand but you just disagree with the CONSTITUTIONAL rationale...

maybe you'd rather get angry with internet posters while you desperately try to WIN discussion threads.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

SCOTUS rulings are not the constitution. There is no language in the document that says the right of a person to buy a cake eliminates your right to free exercise of religion over hurt feelings.

I have been remarkably consistent in my opinions on these things, you are the one that bends reality to suit your viewpoints.

 

[Valerie]

I have been remarkably consistent in my opinions on these things, you are the one that bends reality to suit your viewpoints.

this thread is about the Republican party, not the Republican marty

 

[martybegan]

this thread is about the Republican party, not the Republican marty

This thread was derailed a long time ago.

 

[Ravi]

So if I am forced to pay into Medicare for 10 years I don't have a right to use it if I need it in the manner that I need it?

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

that's up to a doctor, and "I don't want the kid "just because"" isn't a medical reason.

Pay for it your damn self.

Now you are backpeddling. It's between the doctor and the patient, then. None of your business whatsoever.

Setting guidelines, not backpeddling, and only for government funds, and only for birth control abortions.

Who died and made you the decider?

 

[Skylar]

How about full auto? A SAW light machine gun? Maybe a nice 50 calibur?

How about grenades? Rocket launchers? Anti-personnel mines?

These are all cutting edge weapons of the standard infantry.

The 9th and 14th amendment contradict that assumption. As you're using the constitution as an exhaustive list of rights. It isn't one. Its an exhaustive list of powers. And the lack of enumeration in the constitution doesn't mean that a right doesn't exist. As the 9th amendment make ludicrously clear.

Just as the Federalist Papers make it clear that its the role of the judiciary to interpret the constitution. And to overturn laws that violate it. With the 14th amendment extending this power to the States.

Rights aren't powers. Nor vice versa. I have no problem with a government recognizing rights. As these are restrictions on government power.

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

Artillery:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
Definition of ARTILLERY

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?

Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?

Show me. Don't tell me.

You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.

The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th amendment of the constitution of the United States

And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.

You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Seriously

There is no way anyone with a degree of intelligence could support Trump
There is also no way anyone who rejects bigotry could support Trumps antics

Trump's supporters are less educated than the average Republican voter.

http://www.people-press.org/files/2015/10/10-02-2015-2016-release1.pdf

But ...

He's speaking to the anxieties of the white, working middle-class. He's speaking to the Reagan Democrats. He's speaking to social conservatives who have not seen an economic advancement for the past two generations. And it's resonating.

True, and have NOT been brainwashed in the college indoctrination process.

A very interesting comment ^^^mindful of doublethink in 1984: Ignorance is Strength.

NOt at all.

There is nothing "doublethink" about accusing college faculty of abusing their position to push their leftist ideology.

I see your ignorance is not willful. My condolences.

 

[Ravi]

You don't need an amendment. Neither the state nor the federal government has a right to touch my body against my will. I have the right to decide for myself.

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

Wait, you think the state should issue licenses for people to have sex like they do to people that engage in business?

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

Nothing in there about regulating commerce, huhhhhhhhhhh

Interstate commerce, and again, it has to be applied against the free exercise of one's religion.

If a whole town wanted to not bake cakes for gay weddings, then the government would have a compelling reason to stop said bakers from discriminating, if its only one however, a person's religious freedom outweighs hurt feelings and 20 extra minutes needed to find another baker.

States, cities, and counties are also free to regulate commerce. And no, a "religious" right does not trump someone's feelings. They are both the same thing, only justified differently.

 

[Skylar]

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

that's up to a doctor, and "I don't want the kid "just because"" isn't a medical reason.

Pay for it your damn self.

Now you are backpeddling. It's between the doctor and the patient, then. None of your business whatsoever.

Setting guidelines, not backpeddling, and only for government funds, and only for birth control abortions.

Who died and made you the decider?

That would be Marty. You'll quickly realize when discussing anything with him that his arguments hopelessly rely on his personal opinions being accepted as authoritative facts.Even when he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about.

You'd be shocked how many conservatives rely on the old 'my opinion is objective truth' nonsense.

 

[jillian]

If Republicans allow George Soros to choose their candidate as well as The Democrat Party candidate then, yeah, America loses.

Again.

I was really kind of hoping for some actual responses... you know, where people think.

You should have indicated that in your OP.

why? do you think that would have changed anything?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's exactly what you did.

If the democratic party was somehow permanently marginalized, it would mean that the agenda and interests of the majority of blacks would never again be represented at the national level.

That would NOT mean that the Democratic Party is the party of Black People only.

Do you understand?

Now you're telling me that the GOP wouldn't represent the rights of black people. You are getting repetitive.

The GOP has it's ideology and agenda. It's poor showing among blacks shows that this platform is NOT that of the vast majority of blacks.

The Democratic Party's does.

Yet, I do not try to claim that the Dems are the party of Black People only.

It would not be true, and would not contribute to any debate or discussion.

Why would I try such a tact?

Oh, to just slam the dems whether it is true or not?

No, I'm not that type of person.

Who else are the GOP a party of? Hispanics? Jews? Asians? Muslims?

Americans, just like the Democrat Party.

It's people like you that are trying to Balkanize this country, making everyone run back to their own little tribe.

And if you go by the presidential candidates, the Dems are the party of old washed up white people.

You and me must have different sources, either you've made your's up, or the WP Poll is made up:

The 10 most loyal demographic groups for Republicans and Democrats

 

[Valerie]

Jimmy LaSalvia unloads on GOP, opens up on why he left:
“They protect bigotry in order to win”

GOP leaders are "afraid that they won’t win without the bigots,"
former conservative GOP activist tells Salon

Gay conservative Jimmy LaSalvia unloads on GOP, opens up on why he left: “They protect bigotry in order to win” - Salon.com


"Anyone looking to criticize the Republican Party for failing to modernize in recent years has an ocean of evidence at their disposal. On immigration, on tax cuts, on foreign policy and on race, the orthodoxy of the GOP today is barely different from what it was 10 years ago. In fact, what differences there are tend to be shifts in the wrong direction..."

“No Hope: Why I Left the GOP (and You Should Too)”

 

[Valerie]

This past June, in the heat of their outrage over gay rights, congressional Republicans revived a nasty bit of business they call the First Amendment Defense Act. It would do many things, but one thing it would not do is defend the First Amendment. To the contrary, it would deliberately warp the bedrock principle of religious freedom under the Constitution.

The bill, versions of which have been circulating since 2013, gained a sudden wave of support after the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. It is being hawked with the specter of clergy members being forced to officiate such marriages. This is a ploy, as the bill’s backers surely know: There has never been any doubt that the First Amendment protects members of the clergy from performing weddings against their will.

In reality, the act would bar the federal government from taking “any discriminatory action” — including the denial of tax benefits, grants, contracts or licenses — against those who oppose same-sex marriage for religious or moral reasons. In other words, it would use taxpayers’ money to negate federal anti-discrimination measures protecting gays and lesbians, using the idea of religious freedom as cover.

For example, a religiously affiliated college that receives federal grants could fire a professor simply for being gay and still receive those grants. Or federal workers could refuse to process the tax returns of same-sex couples simply because of bigotry against their marriages.

It doesn’t stop there. As critics of the bill quickly pointed out, the measure’s broad language — which also protects those who believe that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” heterosexual marriages alone — would permit discrimination against anyone who has sexual relations outside such a marriage. That would appear to include women who have children outside of marriage, a class generally protected by federal law.

This bizarre fixation on what grown-ups do in their bedrooms — which has long since been rejected by the Supreme Court and the vast majority of Americans — is bad enough. The bill makes matters worse by covering for-profit companies, which greatly multiplies the potential scope of discrimination against gays and lesbians.

These are radical proposals, but they are accepted without question by many in today’s Republican Party. In its current form, the bill has 148 co-sponsors in the House and 36 in the Senate — all Republicans but one, Representative Daniel Lipinski of Illinois. It has been endorsed by the Republican National Committee and at least four Republican presidential contenders. It is, in other words, a fair representation of right-wing reaction to the long overdue expansion of basic civil and constitutional rights...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/o...y-bigotry-threatens-first-amendment.html?_r=0

 

[martybegan]

Does medicare cover elective procedures not medically necessary? That's what abortion for birth control is.

Split the costs with the father, sue him for it, you won't here me complain about that at all.

Who are you to decide for me if it is medically necessary or not?

that's up to a doctor, and "I don't want the kid "just because"" isn't a medical reason.

Pay for it your damn self.

Now you are backpeddling. It's between the doctor and the patient, then. None of your business whatsoever.

Setting guidelines, not backpeddling, and only for government funds, and only for birth control abortions.

Who died and made you the decider?

it's called having an opinion, twatwaddle.

 

[martybegan]

We can eliminate grenades and such, as they are more like artillery, not arms. And crew serviced weapons are also usually not considered arms. What I dont see is government's right to say I can't concealed carry a 9mm handgun "because they feel like it". It's infringement.

But is it? Mortars would be more artillery. But grenades are hand thrown. A rifle is more artillery than a grenade is. Artillery is just large calibur guns. And a grenade isn't part of a gun. The interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're offering is the standard equipment of an infrantry man.

Grenades are pretty standard.

As are automatic weapons. SAW machine guns. Grenade launchers. Anti-personnel mines.

The constitution provides protection for rights, true, it does not create them. However it only protects the ones explicit in the document at the federal level, and incorporated to the states so the states can't prevent people from exercise protected rights in the federal document.

The constitution never says that it only protects those rights explicitly in the document. And I defy you to show me where in the constitution that passage is located. You'll find you imagined it.

On the contrary, the 9th amendment is quite clear that enumeration in the constitution is NOT a requirement for a right to exist.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

9th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

And of course you already know this. You've read the 9th amendment. Making your 'only those explicitly in the document' nonsense all the more bizarre. As nothing in the constitution or constitutional convention backs your narrative. And the 9th amendment explicitly contradicts it.

Meaning you're wrong twice. The constitution is not, never was, nor was ever intended to be an exhaustive list of rights as you claim. Its an exhaustive list of powers.

However judges making up rights, and then considering it part of the document is laughable, unless you favor more power in the hands of less people. There is no reason other than "we wanted it" that allows the feds to say states cant ban abortion, or can't refuse to issue SSM licenses, its the will of 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers, nothing more.

The 9th amendment makes it clear that there are unenumerated rights held by the people. These rights, like any enumerated in the constitution, would limit government action. And the judiciary is cited by the Federalist Paper as the body to interpret the constitution. And decide when a given law violates it.

Far from 'laughable', defining the limits of government power under the constitution is the role and sacred duty of the government. You favor government power over rights....if that government is the State.

And as the 14th amendment makes clear, the State doesn't have the authority to violate the privileges or immunities of Federal citizens. Which every American is.

As I said, you don't favor liberty over government coersion....if that government is the State. You actively favor such coersino

A grenade is not an arm, stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about when it comes to weapons ( a hint, you don't).

A grenade isn't an arm....according to who? You do realize that merely typing the words 'a grenade is not an arm' doesn't actually factually establish the assertion. Stop trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

And artillery is a large calibur gun. Says who? Says the dictionary:

Artillery:

1
: weapons (as bows, slings, and catapults) for discharging missiles
2
a : large bore crew-served mounted firearms (as guns, howitzers, and rockets) : ordnance

b : a branch of an army armed with artillery
Definition of ARTILLERY

A grenade doesn't launch a missile. Nor is it a large bore fire arm. As I said, a rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade is. But don't tell us......you know more than the dictionary?

And of course, what about machine guns? Automatic weapons? Missile launchers? These are all standard ground infrantry weapons. State of the art.

The 9th does not say the constitution has to protect it, just that they can exist. You really don't see the danger in letting a small group of people create "rights", do you? How naive.

You don't seem to get what a right is. A right is a limit to government action. You're insisting that the government doesn't have to be limited to limits to government action. You're literally arguing, with no exaggeration, that the government isn't required to recognize, be limited by, or abide rights of the people.

So much for your 'liberty over government coercion' horseshit.

The government cannot violate the rights of the people. And *no where* in the constitution does it state that a right must be in the document to be protected. You literally hallucinated that whole. It doesn't exist. And for the third time, I defy you to show me anywhere in the constitution this 'enumeration requirement' is articulated for rights.

You can't. You made it up.

Using argumentum ad absurdum to say I can't have a 9mm handgun is just that, absurd.

And when did I say you can't have a 9mm handgun? Can you quote me saying that? Or did you just offer up a silly, stupid little strawman to prop up a failed argument?

Quote me saying you can't have a 9mm pistol.......or admit that your 'argumentum ad adsurdum' was just more ignorant noise, and a hopeless strawman.

Its one or the other. Pick one.

I asked you what about automatic weapons? Light machine guns? Grenades? Missile launchers? All standard, start of the art issue for the infantryman. Grenades are not 'like artillery', as they aren't large bore guns or launchers of missiles.

and since a grenade explodes, it really isn't an arm, it's an explosive.

Says who? You already demonstrated you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about with your 'grenades are artillery' nonsense. Why then would I accept you citing yourself as having any relevance to this conversation?

A protected right is a right government cannot interfere with, without an explicit, compelling government interest, and then only in the most limited way possible. It's why felons can be banned from owning guns, but telling me I can't have a 9mm "just because" is unconstitutional.

And for the 5th time, where does the constitution say that a right must be explicitly written down in the constitution in order to be protected?

Show me. Don't tell me.

You can't. The constitution includes no such requirement, no such restriction on rights. You made that up, citing yourself. And you citing yourself is not the constitution. You making up imaginary restrictions on rights is not the constitution.

The 9th amendment? That's the constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

9th amendment of the constitution of the United States

And it destroys your imaginary 'enumeration requirement' for rights. Rights are limits to government actions. And the constitution draws *no* distinction between enumerated rights and unemuerated rights in terms of their restrictions on government action.

You've imagined it. And your imagination isn't the constitution either.

The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up. Right now I can't get a handgun unless i cough up $1000 or so and wait 3 months. That is infringement, machine guns notwithstanding.

The only imagination is with Justices that decide to create rights they like, they can just as easily remove rights they don't like.

 

[martybegan]

yet forcing bakers to bake cakes, is A-OK, interesting.

Wait, you think the state should issue licenses for people to have sex like they do to people that engage in business?

No, but show me where in the constitution it says you give up your rights when trying to sell something.

Nothing in there about regulating commerce, huhhhhhhhhhh

Interstate commerce, and again, it has to be applied against the free exercise of one's religion.

If a whole town wanted to not bake cakes for gay weddings, then the government would have a compelling reason to stop said bakers from discriminating, if its only one however, a person's religious freedom outweighs hurt feelings and 20 extra minutes needed to find another baker.

States, cities, and counties are also free to regulate commerce. And no, a "religious" right does not trump someone's feelings. They are both the same thing, only justified differently.

The right to free exercise is enshrined in the document, the right to not have your feelings hurt isn't. And no commerce is being affected in any way that requires government to ruin a person over not baking a fucking cake.