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.
The only lawful way to delegate such authority to the federal government is outlined in Article V, our Constitution's amendment process, and requires a three-fourths approval. And that makes perfect sense since we are a nation governed by the rule of law and consent of the governed.
JWK
The SCOTUS decisions on abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, etc, aren't delegating authority to the Federal government, but are telling the states that they can't violate certain rights.
None of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states prior to the Reconstruction Amendments being used to incorporate the states as having to abide by those rights. Hence, states can't violate freedom of speech, etc. Some of the Amendments took longer than others to be incorporated, the 2nd wasn't incorporated until the Heller decision.
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.
That does not apply to all pregnancies. There are exceptions in all feticide laws for women who choose to have an abortion. It's not a black and white situation.
Could it be because they were violating the 14th Amendment and continued with "Black Code" and "Jim Crow" laws?
.
JWK
.
Thank the Gods, I was starting to think you were completely clueless regarding the history of the United States, & particularly the history of the 14th Amendment & the Reconstruction Amendments.
Why does Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs attempt to make the argument that reproductive rights were viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act when the same can be said about interracial marriage?
& why leave the individual’s right to privacy up to the states when they not only flaunted their rejection of all of the Reconstruction Amendments, including the 14th, for over a century, & considering their boneheadedness in past history & current events?
The SCOTUS decisions on abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, etc, aren't delegating authority to the Federal government, but are telling the states that they can't violate certain rights.
.
And their opinions regarding abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, etc., are not grounded in the text of the Constitution, nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
In regard to the first ten amendments to our federal constitution, they were not adopted as restrictions on the states, but rather, as I have documented, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the newly created government's] powers.
The Supreme Court is not authorized to do for the people that which the people have not agreed to via Article V.
And, the Supreme Court is not authorized to exercise Legislative and Executive powers. To do so as it has done, is the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
Why does Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs attempt to make the argument that reproductive rights were viewed historically not as a right, but as a criminal act when the same can be said about interracial marriage?
& why leave the individual’s right to privacy up to the states when they not only flaunted their rejection of all of the Reconstruction Amendments, including the 14th, for over a century, & considering their boneheadedness in past history & current events?
Why this and why that is not my concern. I am only documenting for you that which is, as confirmed by our federal constitution's text, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
One of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction is summarized as follows:
The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.
It should be noted “ Wire-tapping got its start in New York in 1895 when a former telephone worker who had joined the city police suggested that it might be a good idea to listen in on wires used by criminals.”
Thus last week spoke Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, 82, long considered a leading member of the Supreme Court's activist wing. In a series of three lectures at Columbia University, he took the unusual step of publicly out lining his philosophy
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."
And their opinions regarding abortion, same sex marriage, contraception, etc., are not grounded in the text of the Constitution, nor its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
In regard to the first ten amendments to our federal constitution, they were not adopted as restrictions on the states, but rather, as I have documented, to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [the newly created government's] powers.
The Supreme Court is not authorized to do for the people that which the people have not agreed to via Article V.
And, the Supreme Court is not authorized to exercise Legislative and Executive powers. To do so as it has done, is the very definition of tyranny as expressed by Madison:
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands [our Supreme Court] . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
.
JWK
.
SCOTUS did not exercise legislative or executive powers in Roe or the related cases. It told the states they can't violate the Constitutional rights of their citizens.
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.
