Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there are numerous people involved in your choice not to wear a mask.
If you’re follow the science, you know that there are at least two human beings involved in abortion and at least one’s life is ended when the other decides to abort.
With masks, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that masks can stop the spread of respiratory viruses. At best, you can choose to wear a high quality well fitted mask if you want to feel like you are doing something but there has never been solid scientific evidence to support the notion that masking protects anyone. The evidence has shown the exact opposite.
Yes. A dissenting opinion. Justice Black also informs us: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
.
JWK
.
From that same speech:
Black has refused to stand against electronic eavesdropping because he concludes that since the framers of the Constitution said nothing about privacy, they did not mean to protect it. "Even though I like my privacy as well as the next person, I am nevertheless compelled to admit that the states have a right to invade it unless prohibited by some specific constitutional provision."
Yes. A dissenting opinion. Justice Black also informs us: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
JWK
So I guess since the 14th amendment does not specifically mention 'right to privacy', that means that SCOTUS would be doing the right thing to say that the right to have an abortion is not legal because there is no enumerated right to privacy? Because if so, it is logical that if the birthrate falls too much the court might very well ban vasectomies and the use of condoms because after all, the constitution doesn't mention either.
With respect to the 14th Amendment and its protection regarding marriage, it only forbids states to make marriage laws that make distinctions based upon race, color, or previous condition of slavery.. It does not forbid a state to only issue marriage licenses to a couple consisting of one male and one female.
JWK
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, & ratified on July 9, 1868.
If your assertion re: the 14th Amendment is correct, that the 14th “only forbids states to make marriage laws that make distinctions based upon race, color, or previous condition of slavery” & the 14th was ratified in 1868 …
Why did 30 states have laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1913?
In certain, limited circumstances, yes. It's bad law though, since the majority of anti-abortion folks have no concept of nuance and can't see that there is no conflict in allowing a woman to choose to have an abortion, while allowing someone who kills a woman who chose not to have an abortion to be charged with two crimes. I still think it's bad law.
In certain limited circumstances? People go to prison for killing a child in utero. The legal precedent has already been clearly established. A child in utero is legally recognized as a separate human life.
Let us not guess about the 14th Amendment.
Let us look at the specific terms of the 14th Amendment.
As we can see from the language of the 14th Amendment it:
1. Makes ”All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof … citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
The amendment then goes on to declare:
2. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
This wording forbids State action from abridging a United States citizen’s “privileges or immunities” which a State has adopted under law. Note that the wording does not forbid a State to deny “privileges or immunities” to “persons” who may not be "citizens of the United States"! Nor does the wording declare what “privileges or immunities” a state may or may not adopt.
The amendment then continues with:
3. “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..”
Again, the reference is to State action and applies to “any person” as opposed to “citizens of the United States” and it expressly forbids every State to deprive any “person [within its jurisdiction] of life, liberty, or property without due process of” a State’s laws. Due process of law refers to procedure and the administration of justice in accordance with established rules and principles.
Section one of the Amendment then concludes with:
4. ”…nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
This wording simply commands that whatever a State’s laws are, a person within that State’s jurisdiction may not be denied the equal protection of those specific laws. Keep in mind the wording does not forbid a state to make distinctions in law, e.g., based upon sex or age, but whatever laws are adopted by a State with regard to sex or age, the State may not deny to any person, blacks and whites alike, within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those specific laws. The laws must be enforced equally upon all, e.g., if a distinction in law is made with respect to civil rights, (not political) that the wife may not testify, sue or contract, it must be enforced equally upon all regardless of race, color or previous condition of slavery. This is the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment as it was understood during the Amendment's framing and ratification debates, for example:
“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, a supporter of the amendment Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
The bottom line is, what makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and the Supreme Court explains this in the following way:
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
So I guess since the 14th amendment does not specifically mention 'right to privacy', that means that SCOTUS would be doing the right thing to say that the right to have an abortion is not legal because there is no enumerated right to privacy? Because if so, it is logical that if the birthrate falls too much the court might very well ban vasectomies and the use of condoms because after all, the constitution doesn't mention either.
Yeah. If you extend the logic, it gets kind of ridiculous, doesn't it?
The 14th Amendment was passed by Congress on June 13, 1866, & ratified on July 9, 1868.
If your assertion re: the 14th Amendment is correct, that the 14th “only forbids states to make marriage laws that make distinctions based upon race, color, or previous condition of slavery” & the 14th was ratified in 1868 …
Why did 30 states have laws prohibiting interracial marriage in 1913?
Could it be because they were violating the 14th Amendment and continued with "Black Code" and "Jim Crow" laws?
.
JWK
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
true meaning of the 14th Amendment
