A challenge for people who refused to vote for trump OR Hillary

I think it is inaccurate to say the Supreme Court "defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina" [Ralph].

The court writes "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

They specifically allow the states to prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester because that is when they believed viability occurred. It is not when it "breeches the female vagina." If I am wrong, please show the passage from the actual case.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
Then why did the Court allow states to prohibit abortion during the 3rd trimester which is 3 months before birth?

Before Roe each state determined abortion laws and many states already allowed it.

Almost all Supreme Court decisions amount to legislating law from the bench since they involve interpretations of federal law or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Really? And this sustains your illogical argument that Court legislated abortions have nothing to do with defining life and when it begins or supports your illogical lie that Roe v. Wade can never be overturned? How? The states have every right to legislate law....no court has the right to INTERPRET the constitution as the constitution is the Standard by which law is defined in denying anyone to "alienate" certain unalienable rights...among them LIFE AND LIBERTY....void of DUE PROCESS. Just as explained via the very first legal document drafted by the United States of America...et.al, The Declaration of Independence.

If that document is not a legal and binding document......we are still subjects of Great Britain are we not? Simply because something might be considered LEGAL by the courts does not make it constitutional nor moral. Laws are but a reflection of the peoples social more's.....moral people make moral laws...immoral people make immoral laws.

This nation has a greater "transcending" moral code of ethics as pronounced in clear unambiguous language in that first legal document ratified by the United States of America....the Declaration of Independence. Read it........ And the US CONSTITUTION...show me the Article, Section and Clause that allows the courts to interpret/change one word from its verbatim meaning...written at an 8th grade level. Proceed show me in the constitution where the court...any court, Especially the Supreme Court gets to Interpret the meaning of the simple English text and context presented in the Constitution. That right is self professed by the courts.

Would it not be great if one of the parties that has signed a contract gets to self interpret that contract and change the language via OPINION void of any type of representation from the other signatory group of principle (as that is what the Constitution is...a contract among the STATES granting the central government certain powers and limiting those powers to those defined? The very contract was drawn up to place limits upon the power and scope of the central government as defined by the STATES...those entities that make up the Untied States of America.

Now you are attempting to tell me that same entity (the central government...in one of its branches...the Judicial) that was limited by that contract has the RIGHT to "interpret" that limiting document as it sees fit and change the words and meanings of that contract via OPINION void of representation of the states/people instead of the legal method of allowing THE PEOPLE to change it through a 75% majority ratification? Really? Again....show me, in the Constitution where that right rests.


"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (God implied) with certain unalienable (non-transferable, to you, to any mother, to any woman, to any man, void of the due process of being charged and found guilty of crimes against humanity....tell us what crime is an unborn child being charged with might less proven guilty of by its parent...unless you count inconvenience a crime against humanity)....among them (these rights endowed by the creator, not man)...LIFE AND LIBERTY.......

Thus no court, no man, no woman has the right to self define what life is (wink, wink) viable and worthy of living....only the PEOPLE et.al., has that right to alienate (charge through due process any life of crimes against humanity that transfers that life to the STATE/PEOPLE). Its the very first mission statement in the US RULE OF LAW...and given as a reason for declaring the US to be INDEPENDENT and self governing through the ascending principles governed by THE CREATOR.

The truth never hurt anyone except one that attempts to hide behind lies of indoctrination.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
I did not include changed court interpretation because my point was that abortion is largely a symbolic issue because Republicans have made no real effort to change Roe which they could do by proposing an amendment. There is nothing they can do to bring about a new court interpretation. The court chooses which cases it will hear and that is only about 10% of those appealed to it each year.
Click to expand...

You didn't include it because you don't have a clue.

Interesting how, as you claim, nothing can be done to bring about a new Court interpretation yet the very reason the Court heard the case on faggot marriages was because things were done at a level in which you say it can't happen.

Keep trying.
 
Flash said:
Roe has nothing to do with when life begins but when a child is viable. The Declaration of Independence has no legally enforceable rights.
Click to expand...

obviously, if it is ever legally recognized that a fetus is a human being it will be impossible for the court to support any arbitrary denial of the rights afforded to all other human beings.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
obviously, if it is ever legally recognized that a fetus is a human being it will be impossible for the court to support any arbitrary denial of the rights afforded to all other human beings.......
Click to expand...

The science already recognizes it. Wonder why the lefties that support abortion and are constantly yammering about science on all sorts of issues, deny science here.
 
Flash said:
The government cannot really guarantee somebody the right to life because any person could choose to take your life at any time. .
Click to expand...

the law does in fact guarantee a right to life.......obviously, as you state, they cannot guarantee life, which is what you inexpertly try to substitute in......the difference here is that while you would be prosecuted if you took my life, you would not be prosecuted if you were an abortionist who killed dozens of unborn children every day.......that should change by the way.....
 
Flash said:
Almost all Supreme Court decisions amount to legislating law from the bench since they involve interpretations of federal law or the Constitution.
Click to expand...

only when a majority of the bench is made up of "living breathing document" justices as opposed to "strict construction" justices.......that's what got Trump elected, you know.......
 
Flash said:
I think it is inaccurate to say the Supreme Court "defines when in THEIR OPINION human life begins. They have (against all scientific evidence) determined that human life begins when it breaches the female vagina" [Ralph].

The court writes "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother."

They specifically allow the states to prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester because that is when they believed viability occurred. It is not when it "breeches the female vagina." If I am wrong, please show the passage from the actual case.
Click to expand...
things are already changing....

Planned Parenthood v Casey has restructured Roe v Wade
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/02/supreme-court-decision-mess-abortion-rights/
 
The one thing I find amusing with this "snowflake" argument? They have been indoctrinated to think and reason that BIG BROTHER grants and limits rights.....did anyone take note that one of the arguments was.....THE COURT ALLOWED? The court system does not allow nor disallow anything. The very duty of certain courts is to compare law with the standard that calibrates all law at all levels....the US CONSTITUTION. There is a vast difference in "comparing" and "measuring" acts of law that come from both the states and federal government against the actual words drafted into the Constitution and having the self professed right to CHANGE or ADD unto those words void of the peoples representation at any level as some radical courts suggest.

Why have a CONSTITUTION/contract among the states in limiting the power and scope of government....if some unelected civil servant with a lifetime appointment can DICTATE LAW from the bench? Note the argument is that this does not happen...the argument is the COURTS have that right to opine new law into existence. That right does not exist in this free republic...it never has existed. Just like all things liberal or progressive...that right was SELF OPINED into existence....and Congress does not have the nads to exercise its constitutional authority and reign in these rouge elements from the left.

This is exactly what's wrong with this nation......its being changed on daily basis from a constitutional republic governed by the people and for the people into a government controlled by a few hand picked (unelected) Oligarchical type fascist system in the attempt to mirror socialist Europe.....which has had on average per nation "6" violent and radical revolutions during the same historical time period this nation has been lead by its Constitutional Rule of Law while still maintaining the right of self government.

The nations in Europe over that 250 year period have changed governments at least 6 times per nation attempting to search for SOCIAL JUSTICE....with the net results being 100s of millions shallow unmarked graves. Socialism (buzz word for communism...with a twist in the attempt to hide from that distinction) is the most evil type of government system ever dreamed of by mankind, it always ends the same, just as defined by Mr. Madison in Federalist no. 10, short lived with a violent death because it attempts to steal from the people private property and wealth and declare it belongs to and should be regulated by GOVERNMENT....of course as dictated by a few self professed elite SMART ASS PEOPLE at the top the social ladder.

That's exactly why Article Four, Section Four, Clause One was drafted into the Constitution guaranteeing this nation at all levels to be a representative REPUBLIC. There is no ambiguity whatsoever in defining Republicanism as determined by this nations founders....JUST READ the damn federalist papers that explained why certain things were placed into the contract among the states. The Federalist Papers was the "companion" document to the original US CONSTITUTION during the process of RATIFICATION. Some have never read those documents....some simply ignore them and call everything in the Constitution "ambiguous" so they can OPINE what they want instead of simply reading the history actual of why that language was placed into the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
Really? And this sustains your illogical argument that Court legislated abortions have nothing to do with defining life and when it begins or supports your illogical lie that Roe v. Wade can never be overturned? How? The states have every right to legislate law....no court has the right to INTERPRET the constitution as the constitution is the Standard by which law is defined in denying anyone to "alienate" certain unalienable rights...among them LIFE AND LIBERTY....void of DUE PROCESS. Just as explained via the very first legal document drafted by the United States of America...et.al, The Declaration of Independence.

If that document is not a legal and binding document......we are still subjects of Great Britain are we not? Simply because something might be considered LEGAL by the courts does not make it constitutional nor moral. Laws are but a reflection of the peoples social more's.....moral people make moral laws...immoral people make immoral laws.

This nation has a greater "transcending" moral code of ethics as pronounced in clear unambiguous language in that first legal document ratified by the United States of America....the Declaration of Independence. Read it........ And the US CONSTITUTION...show me the Article, Section and Clause that allows the courts to interpret/change one word from its verbatim meaning...written at an 8th grade level. Proceed show me in the constitution where the court...any court, Especially the Supreme Court gets to Interpret the meaning of the simple English text and context presented in the Constitution. That right is self professed by the courts.

Would it not be great if one of the parties that has signed a contract gets to self interpret that contract and change the language via OPINION void of any type of representation from the other signatory group of principle (as that is what the Constitution is...a contract among the STATES granting the central government certain powers and limiting those powers to those defined? The very contract was drawn up to place limits upon the power and scope of the central government as defined by the STATES...those entities that make up the Untied States of America.

Now you are attempting to tell me that same entity (the central government...in one of its branches...the Judicial) that was limited by that contract has the RIGHT to "interpret" that limiting document as it sees fit and change the words and meanings of that contract via OPINION void of representation of the states/people instead of the legal method of allowing THE PEOPLE to change it through a 75% majority ratification? Really? Again....show me, in the Constitution where that right rests.


"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator (God implied) with certain unalienable (non-transferable, to you, to any mother, to any woman, to any man, void of the due process of being charged and found guilty of crimes against humanity....tell us what crime is an unborn child being charged with might less proven guilty of by its parent...unless you count inconvenience a crime against humanity)....among them (these rights endowed by the creator, not man)...LIFE AND LIBERTY.......

Thus no court, no man, no woman has the right to self define what life is (wink, wink) viable and worthy of living....only the PEOPLE et.al., has that right to alienate (charge through due process any life of crimes against humanity that transfers that life to the STATE/PEOPLE). Its the very first mission statement in the US RULE OF LAW...and given as a reason for declaring the US to be INDEPENDENT and self governing through the ascending principles governed by THE CREATOR.

The truth never hurt anyone except one that attempts to hide behind lies of indoctrination.
Click to expand...

I did not make the argument that Roe did not define when life begins. That statement comes directly from the court's decision that it did not try to define when life begins; instead, it seeks to protect life after viability occurs. You need to actually read the decision (I quoted earlier) and not somebody's interpretation. I have not offered my opinion of Roe, I just stated the facts of the case. Again,the court did not define life beginning at birth because it allows states to prohibit abortion in the final three months.

You are right in that nothing in the Constitution gives the courts the power to interpret the Constitution, the court took that power for itself in Marbury v. Madison. But without that power the legislative and executive branches would be free to pass any law or action they choose without any constitutional authority. Do you want Congress and the president to have such unlimited power?

The Constitution language is not that precise. For example, it says Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of speech. If we take that passage literally there can be no restrictions on speech including threats, slander, obscenity, etc. Is that how you want it interpreted? There is not a word in the Constitution giving the government the power to control immigration. Do you oppose all immigration laws.

We are not still citizens of Great Britain because we won the revolution, remember? It was written before there was a United States government and before the Articles of Confederation which governed us before the current Constitution. If the Declaration is a binding legal document name one right or freedom a person has won based on using the Declaration as the source. It is just a philosophical statement.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
only when a majority of the bench is made up of "living breathing document" justices as opposed to "strict construction" justices.......that's what got Trump elected, you know.......
Click to expand...

The court is legislating even when the conservative majority makes the decision. The Hobby Lobby case was applauded by most conservatives but it clearly laid down detailed law determining how Hobby Lobby employees could still get free birth control without requiring Hobby Lobby to pay.
 
Flash said:
Roe said states could regulate but not prohibit during the 2nd trimester and several states attempted various regulations which were challenged. Planed Parenthood v. Casey simply clarified which regulations were permissible.
Click to expand...

It will be one of those STATE regulations from which a challenge that could overturn Roe comes from. You're catching on now.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
sixty million dead children are not symbols......
Click to expand...

If you followed the discussion you know I was talking about the issue of abortion. It is symbolic because although Republicans oppose it they have made no effort to take the only action that could stop it--by proposing a constitutional amendment. A court could possible change the decision, but that is not an action Republicans can initiate.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
the law does in fact guarantee a right to life.......obviously, as you state, they cannot guarantee life, which is what you inexpertly try to substitute in......the difference here is that while you would be prosecuted if you took my life, you would not be prosecuted if you were an abortionist who killed dozens of unborn children every day.......that should change by the way.....
Click to expand...

Which law?
 
CFM said:
Since that was not was I was referencing, try again, fool.
Click to expand...

Fool? You know a poster has run out of substantive arguments when he resorts to name calling, insults, obscenity.... The typical lack of civility some think substitutes for knowledge.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top