If the government forces you to give birth to a child,

]2epo]v[an said:
Apples and oranges. Stare decisis is the basis by which a court gains limited legislative authority. "limited legislative authority" "legistlation by judiciary" was my point, and absolutely nothing else.
Click to expand...

If you read the actual Roe decision you would learn that stare decisis had nothing to do with the decision. Stare decisis just means using past judicial decisions and has nothing to do with judicial legislation.
 
]2epo]v[an said:
I'm not sure if rexas did a voter referendum but even the supreme court recognizes the will of the people as a higher court. I hear tell it did. That's all I know.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a national voter referendum in the U. S. and it would not override the Constitution. Even a state referendum cannot override the U. S. Constitution. There is no provision for a referendum in the Constitution.
 
Diesel said:
Griswold wasn't the basis for the Roe decision. Griswold merely made the Roe decision possible. The TX law incentivizes private citizens to sue women who get abortions (and their abortion providers). It explicitly promotes the invasion of privacy.
Click to expand...

The right to privacy came from the Griswold decision and Roe used that same right to privacy to say abortion should be a decision between woman and doctor.

Any law prohibiting abortion would involve looking into whether a woman had an abortion and violate her privacy, but criminal laws are allowed to do that in the U. S.

The real problem with the new Texas abortion law is that a state can deny any constitutional rights by allowing citizens to sue somebody for exercising those rights. A gun dealer could be sued for selling a gun, a person could be sued for exercising his free speech about some subject, a person could be sued for exercising his right to an attorney, remaining silent, etc.

If a civil lawsuit can be used to enforce the abortion law it could be used to enforce restrictions on any rights.
 
Flash said:
There has never been a national voter referendum in the U. S.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm charging that's unconstitutional, im citing the 14th amendment.


it would not override the Constitution.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what it would do.

Even a state referendum cannot override the U. S. Constitution.
Click to expand...
Just did.

There is no provision for a referendum in the Constitution.
Click to expand...
No provision for abortion either, you had a point?
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
If you read the actual Roe decision you would learn that stare decisis had nothing to do with the decision. Stare decisis just means using past judicial decisions and has nothing to do with judicial legislation.
Click to expand...



I read the fk out of stare decesis and it's exactly the mechanism that makes the supreme court ruling on abortion a civil right.

Why do you keep saying verifiably false statments?

That's why abortion is the civil right that exists no where in the Constitution, stare decesis.
 
Last edited:
You're a stone cold fucking idiot. Go find me a woman who believes abortion is the one issue women want men to decide for them.
Click to expand...

My aunt, she's dead. Last wish.

Lol. So why are you trying to decide for them?

And srsly? Right after you get done splitting hairs you go headlong into stereotyping every woman as pedocidal monsters?
 
Last edited:
]2epo]v[an said:
Yes, I'm charging that's unconstitutional citing the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

What provision in the 14th Amendment provides for a national referendum?

]2epo]v[an said:
No provision for abortion either, you had a point?
Click to expand...

There is a provision for right to privacy in the 9th amendment which laws against abortion violate.

There is no provision for laws controlling immigration, executive orders, and many other governmental powers, either.
 
Flash said:
The right to privacy came from the Griswold decision and Roe used that same right to privacy to say abortion should be a decision between woman and doctor.

Any law prohibiting abortion would involve looking into whether a woman had an abortion and violate her privacy, but criminal laws are allowed to do that in the U. S.

The real problem with the new Texas abortion law is that a state can deny any constitutional rights by allowing citizens to sue somebody for exercising those rights. A gun dealer could be sued for selling a gun, a person could be sued for exercising his free speech about some subject, a person could be sued for exercising his right to an attorney, remaining silent, etc.

If a civil lawsuit can be used to enforce the abortion law it could be used to enforce restrictions on any rights.
Click to expand...

A gun dealer cannot be sued successfully for selling a gun. See the PLCAA law, which Congress had authority to pass.
There is no constitutional right to abortion. There is no right to murder.
 
Flash said:
What provision in the 14th Amendment provides for a national referendum?



There is a provision for right to privacy in the 9th amendment which laws against abortion violate.

There is no provision for laws controlling immigration, executive orders, and many other governmental powers, either.
Click to expand...

The 9th amendment does not discuss privacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top