Roe v Wade?

[jillian]

In other words, he thinks it's okay for states to pass laws that throw people in jail for unmarried sex and masturbation (where they will get anally raped, ironically).

He's just jealous. Have you taken a good look at Scalia?

I don't want to live somewhere that permits that, even if we got funny bumper stickers in the process, like "When fornication is outlawed, only outlaws will fornicate" or "I'll stop masturbating when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers".

 

[Dogger]

Fuck! I didn't realize you could curse on this board.

 

[Ravi]

He's just jealous. Have you taken a good look at Scalia?

Scalia? I thought he was talking about Shogun.

 

[Annie]

The basic right will remain. But the States will have the right to determine what the threshold is, unless Congress does so, except Congress has no authority to do so.

Right. What I said.

 

[Shogun]

Scalia? I thought he was talking about Shogun.

to be honest there are quite a few people who see the error of the application of the 14th this side of the civil war. Sane people even. I wonder if any battle axes ever thought the same about prohibition.

sorry Ravir.. I didn't mean to whip out your latest glamour shot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We do not need to repel the 14th, we just need to get the court to stop claiming it means things it does not.

 

[Shogun]

We do not need to repel the 14th, we just need to get the court to stop claiming it means things it does not.

maybe not repeal but the 14th needs some serious amending. Section one needs to be clarified in many ways... but I just don't see a right to privacy that authorizes killing a fetus consisting of combined DNA.

 

[Dogger]

Sarge -

The GOP says the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution.

Please show me where in The United States Constitution there is a right called "Executive Privilege".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Sarge -

The GOP says the right to privacy is not found in the Constitution.

Please show me where in The United States Constitution there is a right called "Executive Privilege".

You have to be joking? The separate Branches have no legal means except through the courts to compel each other to do anything EXCEPT what the Constitution says they can. THAT is what "executive privilege" is. Plain and simple. The Congress has no power to compel the Executive to do anything just as the Executive has no power to compel the Legislative to do anything EXCEPT the specific powers granted each in the Constitution.

Now show me where in the Constitution the Congress can compel the President to tell them anything, or his aides or appointees, except through Impeachment. Just as the President can not compel Congress to tell him anything.

The Courts are the arbitor of what each can tell the other to do.

 

[jillian]

The Courts are the arbitor of what each can tell the other to do.

Only because of the Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison. No where in the Constitution is judicial review specifically provided for.

So you were saying?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Only because of the Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison. No where in the Constitution is judicial review specifically provided for.

So you were saying?

You could provide us with that portion of the Constitution that allows Congress to compel the President, his aides or appointees to tell them anything except through Impeachment. Ohh wait, you ignored that part.

The power Congress has is the purse String. And only that. They can threaten to take money away or give it as incentive to tell them things, as the President can threaten to Veto or sign legislation to get Congress to cooperate with him.

That is it. There are few exceptions to that, off hand one would be the State of the Union speech and the power of the Vice President to adjourn Congress.

 

[Dogger]

All of that is a matter of interpretation. Much of what conservatives call judicial activism involves courts defining the meaning of broad terms such as "due process" and "equal protection."

All legislative powers are granted to the Congress. Evidentiary privileges can be legislated, but Congress has not done that. The Supreme Court inferred the privilege from separation of powers, but they could have rejected it just as easily as a matter of checks and balances. That would have been more consistent with views expressed in the Federalist Papers by the Founders, who feared creating a President in the image of a King.

Next question: What are the powers of the Supreme Court under the Ninth Amendment, which provides:

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

Why isn't privacy an unenumerated right?

 

[Shogun]

I <3 the Ninth Amendment.

 

[Annie]

We do not need to repel the 14th, we just need to get the court to stop claiming it means things it does not.

and those are?

 

[Annie]

Only because of the Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison. No where in the Constitution is judicial review specifically provided for.

So you were saying?

Thank you. And Marbury v Madison should be considered settled? (btw, I vote yes).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and those are?

The claim that the 14th somehow allows for a right that is not even mentioned in the Constitution for starters. Abortion is not now nor ever should have been a Federal argument. It remains between the people and the States. If the States legislate it they do so , by definition of our government, by the will of the people.

All the 14th does is provide that the amendments to the Constitution, since only they actually give rights, apply to the States in general. This means the 10th amendment also applies. A power NOT delegated to the federal Government rests with the States or the people. Since States DID in fact regulate abortion, that power rests with the States. There is not even an implied right to abortion in the Constitution.

The right only exists because the Supreme Court created it out of whole cloth. Making it the law of the land.

 

[Dogger]

So you can't answer the Ninth Amendment question?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So you can't answer the Ninth Amendment question?

States have the right and power to legislate , in fact as defined by our form of Government when they chose to do so they are doing so with the "will of the people". Any law not covered by fed power or that states refuse to legislate would still remain with the people. That would require a Court to establish that a finding is covered in one of three ways. Either as a power of the Federal Government, a power of the States or a power reserved to the people.

 

[Dogger]

The Ninth was intended to eliminate the fear that enacting a list of Rights would lead future jurists to conclude that the list was comprehensive, and that no other rights existed. You have construed it not only to reject that intention, but to give the Amendment no effect whatsoever.

England is said to have an "unwritten constitution" because it lacks a single codified document like we have. Under a common law system, rights were not written down. Rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement evolved out of case law decided over time. Nothing in the Constitution discarded the common law system, which still exists in America primarily in tort and contract law.

The Bill of Rights were intended to protect fundamental liberty by enumerating basic rights without freezing the evolution of freedom as it existed at that time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Ninth was intended to eliminate the fear that enacting a list of Rights would lead future jurists to conclude that the list was comprehensive, and that no other rights existed. You have construed it not only to reject that intention, but to give the Amendment no effect whatsoever.

England is said to have an "unwritten constitution" because it lacks a single codified document like we have. Under a common law system, rights were not written down. Rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of movement evolved out of case law decided over time. Nothing in the Constitution discarded the common law system, which still exists in America primarily in tort and contract law.

The Bill of Rights were intended to protect fundamental liberty by enumerating basic rights without freezing the evolution of freedom as it existed at that time.

And you are not apying attention. What I said is correct and means the same thing. A court must determine that a judgement is proper based on whether it has the power to act.

States are Governed by their own Constitutions as to what power they do or do not have. The people only get whats left. That is how it works.

But you should be mightly upset with the federal Government , since the 30's they have seized so much unconstitutional power it is frightening.

Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, HUD, welfare, and the list goes on and on.