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.
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.
.
JWK
.
Have you read Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
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."
Well, another deflection, and one I have already addressed in the thread. But hey, that apparently is your game . . . deflect, wash and rinse and repeat.
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.
And it's ruling was not grounded in the text of the constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
In effect it perpetrated a fraud upon the people of the United States.
Funny how the socialists had no idea what a woman was, in fact their Supreme Court nominee couldn’t either. Yet, they find out roe verses wade is going to be overturned and all the sudden they can define a woman.
In other odd news, socialists push government mandates for vaccines but scream bloody hell if they don’t have a choice to abort children.
Well, another deflection, and one I have already addressed in the thread. But hey, that apparently is your game . . . deflect, wash and rinse and repeat.
.
How is this a deflection when you have not even stated whether or not you have read Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
How is this a deflection when you have not even stated whether or not you have read Justice Alito’s drafted opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?
The post in which I said you were deflecting was in reference to your posting about Justice Hugo Black. You wrote:
"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 now you continue in your game with the above comment asking if I read the draft opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with why I said you were deflecting. As I correctly pointed out, your game is . . . deflect, wash and rinse and repeat.
The post in which I said you were deflecting was in reference to your posting about Justice Hugo Black. You wrote:
"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 now you continue in your game with the above comment asking if I read the draft opinion, which has absolutely nothing to do with why I said you were deflecting. As I correctly pointed out, your game is . . . deflect, wash and rinse and repeat.
Justice Black was born in 1886, 20 or so years after the end of the American Civil War. He served as a U.S. Senator from Alabama from 1927 to 1937 and as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1937 to 1971.
The Judiciary Committee recommended Black for confirmation by a vote of 13–4 on August 16,[15] and the full Senate took up the nomination the next day. Rumors of Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination; no conclusive evidence was presented tying Black to the klan. After rejecting 15–66 a motion to recommit the nomination to the Judiciary Committee for further review, the Senate voted 63–16 to confirm on August 17, 1937;[27] ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against.[4]: 95 He was sworn into office on August 19, 1937.[1] Shortly after, Black's KKK membership became known and there was widespread outrage; nonetheless Black went on to become a prominent champion of civil liberties and civil rights.[28]
President Roosevelt denied knowledge of Black's KKK membership.
Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws ..."[106] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined. ... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[4]: 98
The first ten amendments to the Constitution reflect a significant concern for the individual right to privacy. The privacy of beliefs is reflected in the First; the privacy of the home against being forced to house soldiers in the Third; the privacy against unreasonable searches in the Fourth; the privacy of personal information in the Fifth; & the Ninth which states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”.
The “rights retained by the people” refer to individual rights. States’ rights arguments as they relate to individual rights were rendered moot by the American Civil War.
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.
Which is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill a child in utero, or no one can. No carve outs. Killing is killing.
Which is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill a child in utero, or no one can. No carve outs. Killing is killing.
How is it a violation of equal protection? It's no different than a homeowner not being charged when he shoots an intruder in his home. That's still a homicide, but the homeowner isn't charged. If someone kills another person for being annoying, they get charged. Same type of event, different outcomes.
Funny how the socialists had no idea what a woman was, in fact their Supreme Court nominee couldn’t either. Yet, they find out roe verses wade is going to be overturned and all the sudden they can define a woman.
In other odd news, socialists push government mandates for vaccines but scream bloody hell if they don’t have a choice to abort children.
Someone help me here..
You seem to be in the wrong thread. Oops.
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.
