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

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So what was the intention of the 9th?

It's a legal truism. You may have rights that aren't enumerated.

That said, if they aren't enumerated, they aren't constitutional rights, which means they're none of SCOTUS's business.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's a legal truism. You may have rights that aren't enumerated.

That said, if they aren't enumerated, they aren't constitutional rights, which means they're none of SCOTUS's business.

So in your opinion, the 9th amendment serves no purpose at all? It is just...there?

 

[BS Filter]

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.

Because marriage laws are determined by state legislation. You're partially correct, except for marriage laws. Every state has different marriage laws.

 

[BS Filter]

So in your opinion, the 9th amendment serves no purpose at all? It is just...there?

What was the purpose for the 9th Amendment?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

So in your opinion, the 9th amendment serves no purpose at all? It is just...there?

It is there to placate the people who thought that making a Bill of Rights at all would be to imply that no one has any rights that aren't in the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment also addresses this problem by clarifying that anywhere the Constitution is silent, the people of each state get to deal with that matter at the state level.



There is a difference between "you may have rights that we don't mention" and "we can make up whatever right we want and inflict it upon everyone in the country."

Particularly when they're wielding these "rights" to violate human rights, like the "right to abortion."

 

[Catsnmeters]

What was the purpose for the 9th Amendment?

This is part of a decent article referencing the federalist and anti federalist debate over the bill of rights.

"In his speech, Madison explained his proposed precursor of the Ninth Amendment in terms that connect it directly with Federalist objections to the Bill of Rights:"

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against."

Interpretation: The Ninth Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Ninth Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Catsnmeters]

It is there to placate the people who thought that making a Bill of Rights at all would be to imply that no one has any rights that aren't in the Constitution.

The 10th Amendment also addresses this problem by clarifying that anywhere the Constitution is silent, the people of each state get to deal with that matter at the state level.



There is a difference between "you may have rights that we don't mention" and "we can make up whatever right we want and inflict it upon everyone in the country."

Particularly when they're wielding these "rights" to violate human rights, like the "right to abortion."

That is your opinion.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

This is part of a decent article referencing the federalist and anti federalist debate over the bill of rights.

"In his speech, Madison explained his proposed precursor of the Ninth Amendment in terms that connect it directly with Federalist objections to the Bill of Rights:"

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that may be guarded against."

Interpretation: The Ninth Amendment | Constitution Center

Interpretations of The Ninth Amendment by constitutional scholars

constitutioncenter.org

So you acknowledge the purpose of the 9th, and then you go on to pretend it's purpose is to create new rights and wield them against the states, a blatant usurpation of power by the federal government, something James Madison would abhor.

Understand that James Madison didn't expect the Supreme Court to be doing judicial review at ALL, let alone ever have a 14th Amendment and a "doctrine of incorporation" where the feds enforce these limits on the federal government against the states.

Hence, Marbury v. MADISON.

 

[BS Filter]

That is your opinion.

Here's your problem. Regarding something you favor, you determine it's a "fact". Regarding something you disagree with, it's an "opinion". This is how the Supreme Court works: We have one Constitution, yet different opinions on what it says. Period.

 

[Catsnmeters]

So you acknowledge the purpose of the 9th, and then you go on to pretend it's purpose is to create new rights and wield them against the states, a blatant usurpation of power by the federal government, something James Madison would abhor.

This was your arguement not mine.

Understand that James Madison didn't expect the Supreme Court to be doing judicial review at ALL, let alone ever have a 14th Amendment and a "doctrine of incorporation" where the feds enforce these limits on the federal government against the states.

Hence, Marbury v. MADISON.

How do you know what Madison expected?

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

How do you know what Madison expected?

How do I know that Jefferson and Madison had a quarrel with the Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court ruled against them and gave themselves the power of judicial review?

Well, I paid attention in history class.

I referenced the case in question. Herpaderp.

 

[Flash]

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


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

It was the opinion of the people that have the job of giving their opinion. It is called "The Supreme Court". Emphasis on the word Supreme.

They are assigned the responsibility in the Constitution. I shit you not.

Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Your opinion don't count. Their opinion does count. In fact it is the law of the land.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It was the opinion of the people that have the job of giving their opinion. It is called "The Supreme Court". Emphasis on the word Supreme.

They are assigned the responsibility in the Constitution. I shit you not.

Article III, Section I states that "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Your opinion don't count. Their opinion does count. In fact it is the law of the land.

Not sure what your point is. I never said they couldn't do what they wanted.

I simply said I disagreed with the decision to upend 50 years of precedent.

That said, I certainly acknowledge the legitimacy of the supreme court's decision.

 

[Roadrunner76]

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.

1. Only Idiots vote on 1 issue ; this is why the MSM focuses on a SINGLE ISSUE before elections ( George Floyd, Abortion, etc)

2. Only idiots get involved in DISTRACTIONS LIKE : RACE, GENDER, ABORTION , GLOBAL WARMING. These are DISTRACTIONS while the DAVOS CABAL IS RE_ENGINEERING THE PLANET AND INSTALLING A BRUTAL TECHNOCRATIC PLUTOCRACY ( Thats Fascism for the low IQ blue haired sissy rich kids).

The Billionaire Wall Street backed Democrats push Abortion because they needed their sheep to vote. Republicans push Gun Scares to get the voters out.

Same for ANTIFA / BLM ,,,,where are they ? They Helped the well oiled and seasoned politician get in office and now they are NO LONGER NEEDED (Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the leader of Black Lives Matter and a self-described Marxist, recently purchased a $1.4 million home in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood where the vast majority of residents are white) where did she get that much money and why did she move to a WHITE AREA ?

Strange how the F B I could care less about prosecuting Antifa / BLM, yet they go after 75 yr olds attending a rally on Jan 6. ; why is the ESTABLISHMENT so afraid of TRUMP ? Because he committed the ORIGINAL SIN ( PUSH NATIONALISM AND DENOUNCE GLOBALISM) Ever since he spoke about it, the attacks started 24/7.

I am fiercely PRO ABORTION and Agree with Margret Sanger but I voted against it here in Michigan because Im sick of the FBI controlled Left in general destroying the country ( eg; OPEN BORDERS). What we need is STERILIZATION NOT ABORTION. Women want to keep Abortion so they can SPORTFXCK without worry and when the 7 Figure Alpha Male Mr Universe comes along, they want to GET PREGNANT in order to TRAP HIM.

Here is why the Republicants are doing nothing : We are in a CULTURAL WAR not an ECONOMIC ONE ( Cultural Marxism is in play to tear down the Capitalistic system and set up a technocratic feudal slave state). The LEFT CONTROLS CULTURAL ISSUES WHILE THE RIGHT is concerned about ECONOMIC / SECURITY ISSUES.

The TRILLIONAIRES are running this game as they created and setup Communism. Read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and Dr. Atony Suttons work.

 

[Dagosa]

So you are telling me and the world that there is some other mechanism that if Walker GETS more votes, Warnock will still win?

What ? You still can’t tell the difference between a single election and a total of all the elections. They’ll be unopposed, no candidates of third party. Btw, you started off claiming that the gop had more popular votes because they “won” the senate ?

 

[Dagosa]

1. Only Idiots vote on 1 issue ; this is why the MSM focuses on a SINGLE ISSUE before elections ( George Floyd, Abortion, etc)

2. Only idiots get involved in DISTRACTIONS LIKE : RACE, GENDER, ABORTION , GLOBAL WARMING. These are DISTRACTIONS while the DAVOS CABAL IS RE_ENGINEERING THE PLANET AND INSTALLING A BRUTAL TECHNOCRATIC PLUTOCRACY ( Thats Fascism for the low IQ blue haired sissy rich kids).

The Billionaire Wall Street backed Democrats push Abortion because they needed their sheep to vote. Republicans push Gun Scares to get the voters out.

Same for ANTIFA / BLM ,,,,where are they ? They Helped the well oiled and seasoned politician get in office and now they are NO LONGER NEEDED (Patrisse Khan-Cullors, the leader of Black Lives Matter and a self-described Marxist, recently purchased a $1.4 million home in an exclusive Los Angeles neighborhood where the vast majority of residents are white) where did she get that much money and why did she move to a WHITE AREA ?

Strange how the F B I could care less about prosecuting Antifa / BLM, yet they go after 75 yr olds attending a rally on Jan 6. ; why is the ESTABLISHMENT so afraid of TRUMP ? Because he committed the ORIGINAL SIN ( PUSH NATIONALISM AND DENOUNCE GLOBALISM) Ever since he spoke about it, the attacks started 24/7.

I am fiercely PRO ABORTION and Agree with Margret Sanger but I voted against it here in Michigan because Im sick of the FBI controlled Left in general destroying the country ( eg; OPEN BORDERS). What we need is STERILIZATION NOT ABORTION. Women want to keep Abortion so they can SPORTFXCK without worry and when the 7 Figure Alpha Male Mr Universe comes along, they want to GET PREGNANT in order to TRAP HIM.

Here is why the Republicants are doing nothing : We are in a CULTURAL WAR not an ECONOMIC ONE ( Cultural Marxism is in play to tear down the Capitalistic system and set up a technocratic feudal slave state). The LEFT CONTROLS CULTURAL ISSUES WHILE THE RIGHT is concerned about ECONOMIC / SECURITY ISSUES.

The TRILLIONAIRES are running this game as they created and setup Communism. Read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and Dr. Atony Suttons work.

Ha ha.
Funny. Gee, liberals look at abortion rights, voting rights, climate change as policies. If you were ever concerned about economic issues, why does the economy fail so much, run up so many deficits, and have a recession or two EVERYTIME YOU'RE IN OFFICE. The right is a joke.

 

[Dagosa]

I'm a Constitutional Conservative. The Constitution does not mention abortion so the 10th Amendment applies.

That means you have no clue. It doesn’t mention jet fighters, cell phones and Medicare either Bo Bo.

 

[Flash]

Not sure what your point is. I never said they couldn't do what they wanted.

I simply said I disagreed with the decision to upend 50 years of precedent.

That said, I certainly acknowledge the legitimacy of the supreme court's decision.

The decision was a bad one made 50 years ago. It was not based upon Constitutional law. There is no Constitutional protection to kill a child as a method of birth control. The Supreme Court made a decision based upon pandering to the filthy Feminazis, not based upon any Constitutional protection. Everybody knew it was bad law when the decision was made. However, nobody had the courage to do the right thing and correct it until this Supreme Court righted a wrong and that was a good thing.

You may not like it that there is no Constitutional protection to kill a child for birth control. Now it is up to the states. Just vote the filthy ass morally corrupted sicko Libtards in your state and maybe it will made legal and you will be happy.

 

[Dagosa]

The decision was a bad one made 50 years ago. It was not based upon Constitutional law. There is no Constitutional protection to kill a child as a method of birth control. The Supreme Court made a decision based upon pandering to the filthy Feminazis, not based upon any Constitutional protection. Everybody knew it was bad law when the decision was made. However, nobody had the courage to do the right thing and correct it until this Supreme Court righted a wrong and that was a good thing.

You may not like it that there is no Constitutional protection to kill a child for birth control. Now it is up to the states. Just vote the filthy ass morally corrupted sicko Libtards in your state and maybe it will made legal and you will be happy.

You’re a retired judge, lawyer ? Why don’t you just do some research.

 

[Flash]

You’re a retired judge, lawyer ? Why don’t you just do some research.

Are you?