The idea that abortion should be left up to the states is a stupid arbitrary position republicans embrace purely for political reasons

[Flash]

is there something in the constitution that makes this known? No of course not. Republicans in office are simply conveniently embracing this idea to soften their stances post Roe being overturned. They are such cowards. They will say anything to help their chances in an election. How does anyone justify voting them? They don’t have any actual principles.

Hell, as much as I am pro-choice, I at least give credit to Graham and Pence for having a genuine principled stance on issue before an election. The rest of them though? Spineless, international embarrassments.

Where in the Bill of Rights is abortion even mentioned? Be specific.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The point is if you can't pay attention to something as simple as the little red dotted line, why should I pay attention to whatever you are saying because as Nietzsche said, “the devil is in the details".

Then don't. Makes no difference to me.

Have a good day.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Where in the Bill of Rights is abortion even mentioned? Be specific.

Before SCOTUS overturned 50 years of precedent, it was located in the 9th amendment, between the right to travel and presumption of innocence.

 

[BS Filter]

I am of the opinion that overturning 50 years of constitutional precedent doesn't seem consistent with how courts have historically ruled.

Abortion wasn't a "right" for 200 years, then the Supreme Court said it was. That pretty much destroys your reasoning.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Abortion wasn't a "right" for 200 years, then the Supreme Court said it was. That pretty much destroys your reasoning.

What a pointless arguement.

Because abortion hadn't come before SCOTUS before. No break in precedent took place when Roe v Wade was codified.

Based on your logic, any cases made in the last 125 years doesn't have any context in precedent.

 

[Flash]

Before SCOTUS overturned 50 years of precedent, it was located in the 9th amendment, between the right to travel and presumption of innocence.

So no mention of abortion.

Roe v Wade wasn't even decided on the 9th.

The 1973 Court was wrong in determining that the right to an abortion was protected by the 14th. That is why it was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Overview of the Ninth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Few Supreme Court cases offer significant analysis of the Ninth Amendment. Prior to 1965, litigants occasionally invoked the Amendment, often along with the Tenth Amendment or other provisions of the Bill of Rights, to challenge the constitutionality of government actions, but the Court consistently rejected those claims.2 In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a majority of the Court cited the Ninth Amendment, along with the substantive rights protected by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and held that the Constitution protects “penumbral rights of ‘privacy and repose’” that bar a state from prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples.3 By contrast, in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Court grounded a constitutional right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth.4


Overall, the Court has generally treated the Ninth Amendment as a rule of construction for the Constitution rather than a freestanding guarantee of any substantive rights. Thus, in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, a plurality of the Court referred to the Amendment as a “sort of constitutional ‘saving clause,’ which, among other things, would serve to foreclose application to the Bill of Rights of the maxim that the affirmation of particular rights implies a negation of those not expressly defined.” 5

 

[Catsnmeters]

So no mention of abortion.

Roe v Wade wasn't even decided on the 9th.

Any constitutional rights not in the bill of rights, was decided on the 9th. Otherwise they would be state rights under the tenth.

The 1973 Court was wrong in determining that the right to an abortion was protected by the 14th. That is why it was overturned by the Supreme Court.

Overview of the Ninth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Few Supreme Court cases offer significant analysis of the Ninth Amendment. Prior to 1965, litigants occasionally invoked the Amendment, often along with the Tenth Amendment or other provisions of the Bill of Rights, to challenge the constitutionality of government actions, but the Court consistently rejected those claims.2 In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, a majority of the Court cited the Ninth Amendment, along with the substantive rights protected by the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, and held that the Constitution protects “penumbral rights of ‘privacy and repose’” that bar a state from prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples.3 By contrast, in the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the Court grounded a constitutional right to abortion in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Ninth.4


Overall, the Court has generally treated the Ninth Amendment as a rule of construction for the Constitution rather than a freestanding guarantee of any substantive rights. Thus, in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, a plurality of the Court referred to the Amendment as a “sort of constitutional ‘saving clause,’ which, among other things, would serve to foreclose application to the Bill of Rights of the maxim that the affirmation of particular rights implies a negation of those not expressly defined.” 5

This is an opinion. Many rights exist to today that are protected by the 9th amendment.

 

[BS Filter]

What a pointless arguement.

Because abortion hadn't come before SCOTUS before. No break in precedent took place when Roe v Wade was codified.

Based on your logic, any cases made in the last 125 years doesn't have any context in precedent.

It's the obvious argument simply because abortion has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's why this Court turned it back to the states. The same should be done with same-sex marriage. State issues, not Federal.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's the obvious argument simply because abortion has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's why this Court turned it back to the states. The same should be done with same-sex marriage. State issues, not Federal.

It did have something to do with the constitution. That is why red states couldn't ban abortion for over 50 years...because of the constitution.

What about the right for straight people to marry? What about the right to travel? What about presumption of innocence?

Should those be left up to states too?

Should we get a convention of states together to revoke the 9th amendment despite James Madison having lauded and spearheading it's conception?

 

[BS Filter]

It did have something to do with the constitution. That is why red states couldn't ban abortion for over 50 years...because of the constitution.

What about the right for straight people to marry? What about the right to travel? What about presumption of innocence?

Should those be left up to states too?

Should we get a convention of states together to revoke the 9th amendment despite James Madison having lauded and spearheading it's conception?

No, it was because a majority of Justices believed abortion is a right, a right they somehow found in the Constitution that never had been found before.

Marriage laws have been state issues since the foundation of the country. Once again a majority of Justices somehow found something in the Constitution no one else in 200 years found. So much for your claim of "precedent".

 

[Catsnmeters]

No, it was because a majority of Justices believed abortion is a right, a right they somehow found in the Constitution that never had been found before.

Speculation. More likely they did it because they were following the law.

Marriage laws have been state issues since the foundation of the country.

Marriage is a constitutional right. States do not have a legal right to prevent two straight people from getting married.

Once again a majority of Justices somehow found something in the Constitution no one else in 200 years found. So much for your claim of "precedent".

How do you know SCOTUS judges found that? It hadn't gotten to the courts yet.

It's laughable that you think the time before a law is made is part of precedent.

 

[BS Filter]

Speculation. More likely they did it because they were following the law.



Marriage is a constitutional right. States do not have a legal right to prevent two straight people from getting married.


How do you know SCOTUS judges found that? It hadn't gotten to the courts yet.

It's laughable that you think the time before a law is made is part of precedent.

Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution. How can it be a Constitutional right?

 

[Catsnmeters]

Marriage isn't mentioned in the US Constitution. How can it be a Constitutional right?

This has been covered. Marriage, the right to travel, presumption of innocence are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they are constitutional rights based on the 9th amendment.

"At the Supreme Court level, most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty."

The 9th Amendment Ensures Rights Not Listed in the Constitution

The text, origins, and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, which protects rights not explicitly specified elsewhere in the Constitution.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[healthmyths]

Then don't. Makes no difference to me.

Have a good day.

You your stupid sarcastic "have a good day" means crap! What an antiquated cliche! I would have a better day if you'd just quit commenting!

 

[BS Filter]

This has been covered. Marriage, the right to travel, presumption of innocence are not mentioned in the constitution, yet they are constitutional rights based on the 9th amendment.

"At the Supreme Court level, most justices do believe that the Ninth Amendment has binding authority, and they use it to protect implicit rights hinted at but not explicated elsewhere in the Constitution. Implicit rights include both the right to privacy outlined in the landmark 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, but also basic unspecified rights such as the right to travel and the right to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty."

The 9th Amendment Ensures Rights Not Listed in the Constitution

The text, origins, and meaning of the Ninth Amendment, which protects rights not explicitly specified elsewhere in the Constitution.

www.thoughtco.com

Obviously the current Supreme Court disagrees with that assumption. You're one of those who believe that the Constitution says whatever you want it to say.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Obviously the current Supreme Court disagrees with that assumption.

Agreed. That point was never in contention though.

You're one of those who believe that the Constitution says whatever you want it to say.

I mentioned nothing that hasn't already been codified constitutional law.

The 9th amendment allows for implied rights that are not specifically listed in the constitution.

Abortion was one of those rights untill about 6 months ago.

Marriage, presumption of innocence and the right to travel are still constitutional rights.

Those are facts, not what I want it to say.

 

[BS Filter]

Agreed. That point was never in contention though.


I mentioned nothing that hasn't already been codified constitutional law.

The 9th amendment allows for implied rights that are not specifically listed in the constitution.

Abortion was one of those rights untill about 6 months ago.

Marriage, presumption of innocence and the right to travel are still constitutional rights.

Those are facts, not what I want it to say.

Obviously, those aren't the facts. They're opinions.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Obviously, those aren't the facts. They're opinions.

It isn't an opinion that presumption of innocence, marriage and presumption of innocence are constitutional rights because of the 9th amendment.

Not sure what you think I posted is opinion.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So you know nothing of the 9th amendment.

It's a plain English document. I know that it was never intended to be used for SCOTUS to make up rights and enforce these fictions against the states.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's a plain English document. I know that it was never intended to be used for SCOTUS to make up rights and enforce these fictions against the states.

So what was the intention of the 9th?