What if Roe Vs. Wade was Overturned?

[Nuc]

Well before Katrina Louisiana definitely had culture exlusive to the state. Hopefully things we'll see the light at the end of the tunnel here soon.

You're right about the culture, but the state really let down the people there during this crisis. Pathetic government.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

LuvRPgrl, I tried to rep you again on your successful elephant roast! Good job. We need more ideological warriors like you!

 

[elephant]

So, is rudeness, condensating and insulting an integral part of you? :chillpill

No, but you seemed to need some insulting. Well... actually rude is important to me, as well. What is "condensating" as it might apply to human social interaction? Did you mean condescending? Oh yeah, I am pointing out your vocabulary sucks. This is condescending. And yes, I like it.

Physical coercion is an integral part of any society. Check out who really keeps the courtroom in order, its called the baliff, the guy with the gun on his side.

You and I disagree here. The courtroom is not all of society and not all courtrooms have armed bailiffs.

You could say that about any war.

And, so I did. By the way, was the South going to take over the Union and force them to join the Confederacy? No.

I guess that depends upon which side of the rope you are on)

Would you rather be hanged or spend life in a max security prison? I believe I would choose death. So killing people is not the clearly worse punishment. And so you and I disagree again.

the defined area isnt so narrow. The original Constitution gave so much power to the states that the feds didnt have enough power for the entire country to work very well, so they re wrote it giving the feds more power.

The country actually worked great, but the federal government WANTED more power so they TOOK it. The federal government is not supposed to run the country. State power was suppose to be the mechanism through which the vertical system of checks and balances on the federal government worked- remove it and the federal government goes unchecked. This country was formed as an aristocratic republic. It has become a mass democracy run by a central authority. I think it would be great if the federal government had less power.

The repricussions of the death penalty obviously goes much deeper and further than you are aware of. I wont bother debating it with you as it is long, tedious and involved, but I KNOW FOR A FACT it is there, so I wont waste my time on it with you.

No they do not. It is a nice topic for you and your friends to discuss over coffee - that's it.

The southern states came into the union voluntarily, when you do so, its with the stipulation that you cant just bow out any time you feel like it. If what you say is true, then either A. we arent much of a country, or B. the citizens arent forced to be such. WHich is your choice?

No, they did not. They were forced to be members after the Civil War. The states were allowed to secede according to the constitution. This right protected the CITIZENS of the state. They could leave the republic if they thought they were being unfairly persecuted. Examples would include lack of religious freedom, or taxation without representation or any of the reasons this country even exists. After the Civil War the choice of being a member state was ended.

I admire your use of high school debate tactics. Ask a question with infinitely many answers, but only propose two. One that would insult everyone and one that is idiotic. How about this? The country functions in spite of the federal government running unchecked and growing more powerful and bigger everyday. I simply believe this cannot continue.

Well, since you are here with me on this idea, I guess we both need to try to keep up. But listen sonny boy, insults dont work with me, I guess maybe you just came from some teenage girls forum where those kind of things are taken personal.

Clearly the insults are working great because you have addressed every single one of them. I imagine the insults would work on other message boards, but I get all the fulfillment I need right here at USMB. Please continue to amuse me. As for the topic - I thought you might want to move on, but I feel entitled to reply. It was my post you were "discussing".

Oh, have a nice day

I will.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

elephant, All countries were forged through force. This is reality. You denying it makes you sound childish.

 

[elephant]

elephant, All countries were forged through force. This is reality. You denying it makes you sound childish.

I have made no such denial.

Even this country used force to form itself. But it then used force to keep it as one country as opposed to two. That seems to me to go against the spirit of the Constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers.

The thread is about Roe vs. Wade. The point I have made now more than once is this:

The federal government, since the end of the Civil War, has been gaining power over the states and the checks and balances between the states and the federal government have become weaker. This leads me to believe that even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned the federal government will not give up its power over deciding the abortion issue.

 

[theim]

There is a difference between "states rights" and the outright balkanization of the country.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have made no such denial.

Even this country used force to form itself. But it then used force to keep it as one country as opposed to two. That seems to me to go against the spirit of the Constitution and the ideas of the founding fathers.

The thread is about Roe vs. Wade. The point I have made now more than once is this:

The federal government, since the end of the Civil War, has been gaining power over the states and the checks and balances between the states and the federal government have become weaker. This leads me to believe that even if Roe vs. Wade is overturned the federal government will not give up its power over deciding the abortion issue.

But your belief is based on nothing. States laws are still legally binding. Quit tantrumizing.

 

[elephant]

But your belief is based on nothing. States laws are still legally binding. Quit tantrumizing.

My belief is based on the fact that the federal government already took away the states' right to decide this issue. I think that is pretty a good reason to believe the federal will continue to decide the issue. The federal government likes the power.

If that is unreasonable to you then I really do not know what else to say to you.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

My belief is based on the fact that the federal government already took away the states' right to decide this issue. I think that is pretty a good reason to believe the federal will continue to decide the issue. The federal government likes the power.

If that is unreasonable to you then I really do not know what else to say to you.

ummmmmm..

But but still, societies are kept orderly through physical coercion, even though yes, the entire world is not a courtroom.
:whip3:

You're probably right about that one thing. But we were arguing so many points it just got nuts. Thanks for playing!

 

[William Joyce]

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm totally ignorant. But what is the validity of "states rights" in the modern era?

"States rights" is a pretty badly misunderstood concept, and not really one I got until I went to law school. Semi-conservative professor on or about the first day says, off-the-cuff, "and you know, states are sovereign, you guys get that, right?"

Me, proud Republican, graduate of fine state university, widely read in politics and history:

"Duh, no."

I didn't.

I had NO CLUE what the actual division of power between states and the federal government was. Not surprising: nobody really teaches it, because it would just make you mad to understand it. Under our Constitutional system, the "base" governments ARE the state governments. The federal government is supposed to limited to powers "enumerated," i.e., listed, in the Constitution. In other words, states are "sovereign" like a KING is sovereign, meaning, it's got the power to do WHATEVER it wants WHENEVER it wants, period. It's the all-powerful. The founding fathers literally saw Massachussetts and South Carolina as versions of England and France --- like countries. And the federal government was like a European Union.

A formula for understanding:

1. States can do whatever they want, except what the Constitution says they can't.

2. The Federal Government can't do anything, except what the Constitution says it can.

Can you believe that?

So how does the federal government end up running our whole lives?

Legal trickery is the answer, starting in FDR's time and continuing until today.

 

[KarlMarx]

"States rights" is a pretty badly misunderstood concept, and not really one I got until I went to law school. Semi-conservative professor on or about the first day says, off-the-cuff, "and you know, states are sovereign, you guys get that, right?"

Me, proud Republican, graduate of fine state university, widely read in politics and history:

"Duh, no."

I didn't.

I had NO CLUE what the actual division of power between states and the federal government was. Not surprising: nobody really teaches it, because it would just make you mad to understand it. Under our Constitutional system, the "base" governments ARE the state governments. The federal government is supposed to limited to powers "enumerated," i.e., listed, in the Constitution. In other words, states are "sovereign" like a KING is sovereign, meaning, it's got the power to do WHATEVER it wants WHENEVER it wants, period. It's the all-powerful. The founding fathers literally saw Massachussetts and South Carolina as versions of England and France --- like countries. And the federal government was like a European Union.

A formula for understanding:

1. States can do whatever they want, except what the Constitution says they can't.

2. The Federal Government can't do anything, except what the Constitution says it can.

Can you believe that?

So how does the federal government end up running our whole lives?

Legal trickery is the answer, starting in FDR's time and continuing until today.

True.... the more I find out about FDR, the less I admire him. Certainly, his efforts in World War II were laudable, but his domestic policies were, shall we say, questionable? He was about as close as you got to Machiavelli's "Prince" as you could legally get in our country.

For instance, he tried to pack the Supreme Court to get his New Deal legislation through.

And his economic policies prolonged the Depression, and probably made it worse (raising interest rates during a Depression? I don't think so!). In fact, World War II is what finally ended the Depression, not FDR's policies.
(Also notice, that FDR, like Ted Kennedy and many other ultra liberals, was a blue blooded aristocrat, born with a silver spoon in his mouth..... and these are the people that fancy themselves as "for the working man")

 

[William Joyce]

Don't know if you caught it, KM, but New Deal legislation came up during the Roberts confirmation hearings (Wickard v. Filburn was one case in particular). Schumer tried to bully Roberts into acknowledging the "validity" of anything-goes Commerce Clause legislation. Roberts dodged, as he did with all else. But you have to wonder: could a conservative as smart as Roberts really think it was so great? Nah.

 

[KarlMarx]

Don't know if you caught it, KM, but New Deal legislation came up during the Roberts confirmation hearings (Wickard v. Filburn was one case in particular). Schumer tried to bully Roberts into acknowledging the "validity" of anything-goes Commerce Clause legislation. Roberts dodged, as he did with all else. But you have to wonder: could a conservative as smart as Roberts really think it was so great? Nah.

I should certainly hope not.... what did Jefferson once say? "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. "

P.S. Maybe that's why we're a nation of fat people?

 

[Nuc]

There is a difference between "states rights" and the outright balkanization of the country.

All liberals say this. Why can't you libs think for yourselves?

 

[KarlMarx]

By equating the potential (the <b><i>fetus</i></b>, not the <b><i>'unborn baby</i></b>) with the actual (the woman), you deny the woman has a right to exist as a free and independent being. The decision to carry a fetus to term is a choice best left to the woman had her physician.

You are also the victim of inapproriate analogies. Slaves in the antbellum South were actual, existing human beings, not potential human beings. YOur analogy is utterly inappropriate to this argument. But since you've run out of intellectual ammo, all you can do is throw the gun.

Hey Bully.... have you ever heard of the principle of "ahimsa"? That is, the idea of doing no harm to any living thing? Look it up in your sutras.... what you're defending is contrary to your stated beliefs......

http://www.dlshq.org/religions/buddhism.htm

 

[Nuc]

I should certainly hope not.... what did Jefferson once say? "If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. "

P.S. Maybe that's why we're a nation of fat people?

Like the quote. Considering what kind of food the gov. give unfortunate children in public schools, yes.

Government or not, our insurance and medical system encourages us not to take care of our bodies in a preventive fashion, but rather to wait for it to fail before seeking medical help.

Jefferson was prescient.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in a higher rate of illegally performed abortions done by both doctors and laymen, which would lead to a higher rate of female medical problems and death. Forcing women to have babies they don't want would also result in a higher rate of single mother homes (the great threat to the republican nuclear family) and kids sent out for adoption and put in foster homes.

 

[archangel]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade would result in a higher rate of illegally performed abortions done by both doctors and laymen, which would lead to a higher rate of female medical problems and death. Forcing women to have babies they don't want would also result in a higher rate of single mother homes (the great threat to the republican nuclear family) and kids sent out for adoption and put in foster homes.

who just want to have fun...get your tubes tied...then abortion will become a non-issue...no baby dies...and no woman risks her health or narcistic looks! :scratch:

ps:this applies to the guys too!

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Sex is supposed to be fun. When you're 16 and you're experimenting with it for the first time and you screw up, society shouldn't be able to dictate how the rest of your life goes after one little mistake. Go in, get it taken out as a zygote, and it's between you and your deity of choice. End of story.

 

[archangel]

Sex is supposed to be fun. When you're 16 and you're experimenting with it for the first time and you screw up, society shouldn't be able to dictate how the rest of your life goes after one little mistake. Go in, get it taken out as a zygote, and it's between you and your deity of choice. End of story.

I offered a solution to the problem...all you can say is...Abort...Abort...Abort...Sex is fun...babies are bad....I need not be responsible for my mistake...it was the babies fault.....