grind has no morals

kaz said:
Roe v. Wade
Click to expand...
The Supreme court interpreted the Constitution, something they have the Constitutional right to interpret, as giving citizens, including women, a right to privacy. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on that interpretation of a womans right to privacy. How was that creating law? It did no such thing. The decision was based on the precedence established by Griswold vs The State of Connecticut which ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy via the 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

So, please explain, how did Roe vs. Wade create law from the bench?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The Supreme court interpreted the Constitution, something they have the Constitutional right to interpret, as giving citizens, including women, a right to privacy. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on that interpretation of a womans right to privacy. How was that creating law? It did no such thing. The decision was based on the precedence established by Griswold vs The State of Connecticut which ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy via the 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

So, please explain, how did Roe vs. Wade create law from the bench?
Click to expand...

Rush Limbaugh never got to that part...
Kaz is left in the dark...
Lol
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The Supreme court interpreted the Constitution, something they have the Constitutional right to interpret, as giving citizens, including women, a right to privacy. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on that interpretation of a womans right to privacy. How was that creating law? It did no such thing. The decision was based on the precedence established by Griswold vs The State of Connecticut which ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy via the 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

So, please explain, how did Roe vs. Wade create law from the bench?
Click to expand...

Simple. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. So by the 10th amendment the decision goes to the States.

As liberals think Republican means "not Democrat" by the way, I am pro-choice. States should not get involved in it either. But the Federal government has no say, either way. They have no more authority to ban it than authorize it.

As for your "privacy" argument, that's an ironic stretch. The amendment that by far protects your privacy is the 10th amendment. But since liberals don't think the 10th amendment exists and to use it would contradict that, you have to figure out how to get a right that you threw out.

As for your belief in privacy from the government, I'm just laughing my ass off at you. A party that thinks government should be able to collect every piece of financial information about you, know everything about your medical information (single payer) and supports the war on drugs and the ability of government to anal search your banking information believes in "privacy?" That's just ridiculous
 
kaz said:
Simple. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution. So by the 10th amendment the decision goes to the States.

As liberals think Republican means "not Democrat" by the way, I am pro-choice. States should not get involved in it either. But the Federal government has no say, either way. They have no more authority to ban it than authorize it.

As for your "privacy" argument, that's an ironic stretch. The amendment that by far protects your privacy is the 10th amendment. But since liberals don't think the 10th amendment exists and to use it would contradict that, you have to figure out how to get a right that you threw out.

As for your belief in privacy from the government, I'm just laughing my ass off at you. A party that thinks government should be able to collect every piece of financial information about you, know everything about your medical information (single payer) and supports the war on drugs and the ability of government to anal search your banking information believes in "privacy?" That's just ridiculous
Click to expand...
Nice evasion and it's the due process clause of the 14th amendment from which most privacy rights are derived. So how about answering my question?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The Supreme court interpreted the Constitution, something they have the Constitutional right to interpret, as giving citizens, including women, a right to privacy. The Roe vs. Wade decision was based on that interpretation of a womans right to privacy. How was that creating law? It did no such thing. The decision was based on the precedence established by Griswold vs The State of Connecticut which ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy via the 5th, 9th and 14th amendments to the Constitution.

So, please explain, how did Roe vs. Wade create law from the bench?
Click to expand...

Murder Privately.
 
Superfreak said:
You have proven time and again that you are both a liar and a complete partisan hack. YOU are the one that is dishonest. His comments about you posting about voter fraud on every thread you were in is precisely what you did here as well. So it doesn't take much for anyone here to see the validity in his comments.

You pretend you post 'FACTS' when all you do is spew forth partisan links that you HOPE state the case for what you are parroting.
Click to expand...

Can you provide that list of convicted liberals, who violated voting laws?
I have a plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top