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

Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

As defined by our founders. All Rights can be and are subject to "regulation"....there is no interpretation required. The only method of that regulation is not ambiguous in the least, Regulation is only valid when it complies with the RIGHTS of others to the same. Your right of speech ceases to exist at the threshold when it infringes upon any of the rights of others....as clearly defined in the constitution. The only method of regulation is through republican representation of the PEOPLE et.al., n other words clearly written and defined RULES OF LAW as legislated via the people that do not come into conflict with the standard that calibrates all law.

THE US FREAK'N CONSTITUTION of the United States.....and that is the duty of the courts...to read the Constitution in a verbatim fashion as written and compare those regulations to the words found in the Constitution. When no words exist that place limits upon such a law within the Constitution. THE STATES/PEOPLE reserve the right to draft law as it sees fit at both the state and federal level. Article 10 of the states Bill of Rights..i.e., the 10th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. And that process is valid only through republican representation Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.

Its not rocket science. All the text within the Constitution is written and comprehended at an 8th grade education level. Anything not literally found in that text or contradictory to that text belongs to the PEOPLE/STATES that drafted and ratified the Constitution....not the courts to OPINE federal law from the bench void of representation.

The people have drafted many laws that regulate....speech, guns, death and liberty. Its all constitutional because it was regulated through the will of the people.

The courts don't have the authority to change one word or add one word to the Constitution and amend it by OPINION.

That right simply has never existed in this Representative Republic....as that is not freedom that is Oligarchical Tyranny by people that have never been elected to represent THE PEOPLE but are nothing but CIVIL SERVANTS that have sworn an oath to DEFEND that same Constitution they now profess to have a right to change void of representation. Truth is a simple thing.

There needs to be one more amendment to the US Constitution that establishes 2 things. 1. Have all SCOTUS SEATS filled by ELECTION from the PEOPLE. 2 Have TERM LIMITS upon those duly elected seats.
 
Last edited:
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...

so you decided not to read the article......okay, I can live with that......I can also live without giving you further response if you're just going to ignore them anyway.....
 
Flash said:
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.
Click to expand...

lol......so you just ran out of substantive arguments?.....
 
Conclusion: There is no valid legal or moral reason that justifies the killing of unborn human children due to personal societal or convenience concerns. Strange is the documented fact that unborn animals are liberally protected by LAW that was legislated by THE PEOPLE....but humans are opined to have no such pre-birth rights as dictated from the bench.
 
[Ralph]: "Your right of speech ceases to exist at the threshold when it infringes upon any of the rights of others....as clearly defined in the constitution."

Nowhere is that definition in the Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It says nothing about infringing on the rights of others which becomes a matter of debate in itself. So, there is nothing verbatim in the Constitution to determine its meaning.

[Ralph] "THE STATES/PEOPLE reserve the right to draft law as it sees fit at both the state and federal level. Article 10 of the states Bill of Rights..i.e., the 10th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. And that process is valid only through republican representation Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1."

If the people through their republican representative government choose to restrict free speech to white males, do they have that right? If so, it makes the Constitution meaningless. If not, who has the power to prohibit such a law?

An elected Supreme Court means it follow public opinion in order to get reelected, not the Constitution or law.
 
Flash said:
[Ralph]: "Your right of speech ceases to exist at the threshold when it infringes upon any of the rights of others....as clearly defined in the constitution."

Nowhere is that definition in the Constitution. It says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. It says nothing about infringing on the rights of others which becomes a matter of debate in itself. So, there is nothing verbatim in the Constitution to determine its meaning.

[Ralph] "THE STATES/PEOPLE reserve the right to draft law as it sees fit at both the state and federal level. Article 10 of the states Bill of Rights..i.e., the 10th amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. And that process is valid only through republican representation Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1."

If the people through their republican representative government choose to restrict free speech to white males, do they have that right? If so, it makes the Constitution meaningless. If not, who has the power to prohibit such a law?

An elected Supreme Court means it follow public opinion in order to get reelected, not the Constitution or law.
Click to expand...

Quote the Code of LAW that was LEGISLATED that allows abortion on demand before that right was OPINED/DICTATED from the bench in the early 70s. One US CODE, ONE STATE CODE that allowed the killing of children in the womb. Please present the law that was representative of the PEOPLES will. (the only Constitutional method to make new law....is through representation Articles One, Two and Three).

Correct... (the restriction of speech) does not exist in the Constitution....IT EXISTS IN THE US RULE OF LAW (unlike the right of abortion...that did not exist until it was OPINED into existence) and the right to regulate is confirmed as Constitutional because there is no language in the constitution that prohibits it from existing in the form of COMMON LAW as reflected by the will of the people. All rights are subject to regulation as per the will of the people. Why? Because the people and the states are synonymous as per the example established in 10th Amendment...."anything not prohibited by the people in the contract known as the Constitution belongs to the STATES/PEOPLE...not the courts." And FYI: It was the PEOPLE/STATES that considered, drafted and ratified the US CONSTITUTION. That is why they are the only ones that can legislate law.....LEGALLY.

Life is regulated.....the death penalty. Voting is regulated. Freedom is regulated.....as a modern form of slavery (indentured servitude/prison terms). And yes Speech is subject to regulation....if it can be proven (through due process) to incite violence or slander. And of course speech is regulated when one lies under oath...its called perjury.

Thanks for proving the point. There is a total and complete distinction between the regulation of a right via Common Law and common sense and the complete rescinding of a right guaranteed by Constitutional Fiat.

And no.....The people do not have the "right" to restrict speech in totality.....only speech that incites violence and speech that is determined by the Rule of Law to be Illegal...example PREJURY. Why? Because the FREEDOM of SPEECH is a guaranteed right of freedom....and it cannot be stopped void of DUE PROCESS. Any such "left wing illogical HYPOTHETICAL BULLSHIT"....does indeed come into direct conflict with the US CONSTITUTION. FYI: Simply because you might disagree with someone's speech does not make it hate speech....especially speech that is demonstrably true. Truth is the only universal form of EQUALITY. Its the same for both you and I.

Again...thanks for proving my point. You are most illogical and ignorant in your lack of comprehending clear and unambiguous language. :clink: SNOWFLAKE.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top