PawPaw x 3
Yes, because chopping up babies is a fundamental civil right. It's in the constitution.You may note that is alot more sarcasm than anything else. Done in coordination with the ideas regarding limits and requirements for termination of a pregnancy.
Think about it from that point gents.
Yes it is. SCOTUS said so. Roe v Wade. SCOTUS knows more than I do about that stuff. They may not know more than you do but your views and beliefs do not count in this situation. In the situation where you are on the bench they will. Until then, not so much.Yes, because chopping up babies is a fundamental civil right. It's in the constitution.
Because of some of the responses above and complete objection to any consideration of any ideas regarding support of the other side in way, manner, or writing that I have read here.Nemo, what in the world makes you think everybody reading but you failed to understand her stupid point?
Usurpation by 9 robed oligarchs does not change reality. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. That is a fact, not an opinion.Yes it is. SCOTUS said so. Roe v Wade.
Not necessarily. I have faith in your ability to increase your knowledge base. You can read. Google text of the constitution and read it for yourself. Determine on your own whether abortion is mentioned at all.SCOTUS knows more than I do about that stuff.
Why do you bother responding to a person whose views and beliefs do not count? Anyway, this is not a view or a belief. I have read the constitution to see for myself rather than trusting that 9 robed oligarchs are being honest when they claim it is in there.They may not know more than you do but your views and beliefs do not count in this situation. In the situation where you are on the bench they will. Until then, not so much.
IN THIS SITUATION <-- You forgot to quote that part but your views do not count in this situation. Perhaps I should have included interpretations, but in this situation they do not count eitherWhy do you bother responding to a person whose views and beliefs do not count? Anyway, this is not a view or a belief.
I have read it also. Remember, Me-- Juris Doctor, Cum Laude. Burned out and retired a dozen years back. Keep in mind that ARs, Internet, Pepper Spray cans, cars, telephones (cell and landline) and lots of other things were not mentioned but SCOTUS has interpreted them to be included in the Constitution.I have read the constitution to see for myself rather than trusting that 9 robed oligarchs are being honest when they claim it is in there.
.Roe v. Wade was a naked power grab. The majority of Justices in 1973 could not resist the temptation to exercise political power in a situation in which the constitution did not authorize them to do so
At least you see the problem. I am bothered by the fact that you can write this and are not only ok with it, but seem to think this is a good argument to support the principle of making rulings on constitutional issues that are not in the constitution. Disturbing.lots of other things were not mentioned but SCOTUS has interpreted them to be included in the Constitution.
This case at least was discussing an actual, real constitutional text!Was Terry v Ohio a power grab? Could it have been if it went the other way?
I am surprised you even have to ask the question.Dred Scott v Sanford?
Have not read it, so I do not know, but I am not sure (going off memory) that this was a constitutional case as opposed to a statutory case, so I cannot answer your question.Jones v. Van Zandt?
It is obvious from your comment that you have never read US v. Miller. I will just say you are wrong about what it says and what it held. Having actually read it, I would answer your question in the negative. It was not a power grab of any sort.How about US v Miller. Keep guns away from civilians. Start at short barrel shotguns and go from there. Power grab to keep the govt in power. Give civilians only pitchforks and hoes to get rid of it if and when needed.
It is obviously thicker than you have considered. I think you need to study it a little more carefully. It is hardly appropriate to point to another case and say, "Hey, look! They ignored the constitution in that case, too! Accordingly, it is proper to ignore the constitution whenever it is inconvenient for their political goals."That argument is a bit thin methinks.