Roe v. Wade

F

FUCK THE POLICE

911 EVERY DAY
Roe v. Wade has started to annoy me in recent years. Imagine how much of a better, lasting consensus could have been built if abortion laws had been struck down democratically in each state, as had been happening years before this decision?

All Roe v. Wade did was inflame the opposition. The religious right would barely exist today without it.
 
As Harry Browne put it, without Roe v. Wade the States would be a checkerboard. Some States would allow it, others would not. Most would restrict the practice to some degree (banning partial birth abortions, for example).
 
Fortunately the supreme court recognizes we are one country with 50 states and not 50 countries who can all just do whatever they want. That's what the constitution is for. States don't have a right to subvert constitutional protections.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Fortunately the supreme court recognizes we are one country with 50 states and not 50 countries who can all just do whatever they want. That's what the constitution is for. States don't have a right to subvert constitutional protections.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. But, what's new.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about abortion. This is a 9th and 10th Amendment issue, to be reserved to the States. Simple as that. If you don't like Federalism, move to North Korea.
 
Thornicus said:
You're an idiot. But, what's new.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution about abortion. This is a 9th and 10th Amendment issue, to be reserved to the States. Simple as that. If you don't like Federalism, move to North Korea.
Click to expand...

Or to the UK?

Do you not think people have a right to privacy in their own affairs? Individual rights trump states rights.
 
Watermark said:
Or to the UK?
Click to expand...

I was going to say the UK, due to its unitary style of government, but I chose North Korea for rhetorical purposes. ;)

Do you not think people have a right to privacy in their own affairs?
Click to expand...

While the right to privacy is fundamental, it is not a Constitutional matter. As a former Libertarian you know the Constitution, and though you won't admit it, you know abortion is a State matter.

Personally, I don't think abortion is a privacy issue, but that is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 
Too late. It's already been determined that there is a right to privacy in the constitution. You would agree if only it wasn't inconvenient for you to admit it is so.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Too late. It's already been determined that there is a right to privacy in the constitution. You would agree if only it wasn't inconvenient for you to admit it is so.
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter in such cases. According to Jefferson, the supposed "father" of your party (a claim which makes him turn in his grave, no doubt), such thought would make our country an oligarchy rather than a democracy. But it does reveal your true colors. You really don't care about the democratic process. As long as you get what you want, that's all that matters.
 
Um, I'm pretty happy with the supreme court deciding on constitutional interpretation. And so is about 99.9 percent of America.

My true colors. Ha.

That all you got? Name calling and bringing out the tried and true "showing your true colors for believing in the way our country does things" insult.

You don't like it, move to Mexico.
 
Thornicus said:
The Supreme Court isn't the final arbiter in such cases. According to Jefferson, the supposed "father" of your party (a claim which makes him turn in his grave, no doubt), such thought would make our country an oligarchy rather than a democracy. But it does reveal your true colors. You really don't care about the democratic process. As long as you get what you want, that's all that matters.
Click to expand...

LOL.

"It's not teh democracy it's teh REPULIB and that's why the elecotral college is here! If you don't like it then why dnt you go elect HITLER!" - an argument Brent has probably made befoer
 
Thornicus said:
Fair enough. That's why there is a Constitutional provision for amending. It's a shame 99% of politicians have chosen to ignore that.
Click to expand...

99 percent of politicians respect the constitution enough not to fuck with it every time they get an itch in their ass.

How many times did you vote for Bush?
 
ib1yysguy said:
Um, I'm pretty happy with the supreme court deciding on constitutional interpretation. And so is about 99.9 percent of America.

My true colors. Ha.

That all you got? Name calling and bringing out the tried and true "showing your true colors for believing in the way our country does things" insult.

You don't like it, move to Mexico.
Click to expand...

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

ol·i·gar·chy
–noun, plural -chies.
1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.
2. a state or organization so ruled.
3. the persons or class so ruling.
 
By the way, if you're so afraid of oligarchy you should be on here railing against the people trying to get rid of the estate tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top