So Anything that is not explicitly called out in the Constitution will now be subject to overturn.
- Thread starter Trigeek
- Start date
The people who get offended if you don't act like this is the greatest country in the world, are the same people who are trying to fundamentally change the country.
Until you tell these same yahoos that the Constitution explicitedly grants them the right to have a revolutionary war-style musket.
THAT, of course, is different.
All of those were granted by the legislature (either in subsequent legislation or in the states) and not bestowed by the court. The precedence here is that the court took back its own overreach and handed it back to Democracy. You know, that thing you all cared so much about yesterday. Now it’s time for our elected representatives to do their jobs.
The federal government could pass legislation at any time making abortion a nationally-recognized civil right. Democrats hold the entire federal government. They should get to it instead of trying to paint Republicans as evil. Unless, of course, this isn’t really about abortion for your chosen leaders and is more about the midterm elections. But that couldn’t be the case, could it?
They don’t have the votes. I guess the bike faller could EO it.
I am pro life, but believe the Supreme court overstepped in overturning Roe. The case in front of them was not about Roe, and no decision should have been made to overturn it. I personally do agree Roe was bad law to begin with.
That being said abortion is not going to be illegal any time soon, though restrictions will likely get tougher in some states, and much tougher in some.
That being said abortion is not going to be illegal any time soon, though restrictions will likely get tougher in some states, and much tougher in some.
This is where it’s going. Apple has an app that tracks your menstrual cycle. Women will absolutely be tracked or informed that it is know they are pregnant and Stewart those who try and leave the state or so so and return. This is bad and you may think this is unrealistic but it’s happening and will be
The idiocy of this is the 'freedom fighters' who have been beside themselves at the "governmental tyranny" of...business shutdowns....mask wearing....and pushing COVID-19 vaccines during a deadly pandemic that has killed a million-plus Americans, are the same yahoos that don't think twice about forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term irregardless of the circumstances.
Apparently this 'freedom' business depends upon who you are.
Apparently this 'freedom' business depends upon who you are.
Democrats didn't push this ruling, so it has nothing to do with midterms. This is the party of "small government " trying to dictate our morals, trying to blame it on democrats makes no sense when it's your party trying to dictate your life.
Didn't push anything on anybody??!? Jesus Christ, talk about people blind to the consequences their actions have brought.
Tell that to the 13 year-old pregnant girl raped by her hillbilly daddy and forced by the State of Arkansas to carry it to term.
Last edited:
Where in the constitution does it describe the types of arms you’re allowed to keep and bear?
Ninth Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Do states have the authority to regulate every single un-enumerated right that could possibly exist? OR - does SCOTUS have the authority to protect the un-enumerated rights of individuals from state over-reach?
We can all disagree on what un-enumerated exist or deserve protection. But one thing is for sure - if you give carte blanche to the states they will sterilize you under the guise of eugenics, force you to vomit without even a warrant, and compel you to undergo surgery to find evidence of a crime. All things SCOTUS has ruled are in violation of individual rights granted by the Constitution even though none of them are discussed in the text.
Even in a world where you grant a 2 day old zygote full constitutional rights as though they were born - you'd still have to balance those right against those of the pregnant woman. You'd never require someone to donate a kidney or bone marrow by force of law to save the life of someone else. Yet pregnancy has substantial medical risks, is brutal to your body, causes nausea and vomiting, and often ends in serious surgery.
Yet SCOTUS is saying a female has no natural right - enumerated or un-enumerated - to any sort of reproductive or bodily autonomy at all. The state can compel you to go through a forced caesarian surgery because it's decided the interests of a 3 week old zygote - who is legally not a US citizen - completely usurp the right of an individual to make personal medical deicsions. Not in the case of rape. Not in the case of immanent death. None. Zero. That is all 100% within the purview of the state to regulate as it sees fit.
So if the original framers could see what firearms look like today, are you saying the 2nd Amendment would've been written the same way?
Since you want to get picky about wording, the amendment begins with the right of the people to have a well-regulated militia for the security of a free State. I'm no Constitutional law expert but the specific language the framers used strikes me as a far cry from a 'constitutional right' we hear from our gun fetishists for everybody to bear arms.
Um, this just shows how ignorant you are regarding federalism and how it works.
The right to vote is based on state law . States ,not the federal government, run elections and the Constitution only mentions terms and it specifies that State Legislatures and only state state legislatures control voting it's not a federal protected right. It never was and hopefully never will be . Elections and voters registration are a function of exclusively the state government.
The 10th Amendment says all rights not specified here in are reserved to the states and the people. So, travel falls into that . The right to privacy is not a function of the federal government to protect . The feds are supposed to follow the 14th and 4th amendments dealing unlawful searches and such. However, privacy waa not specified right in the Constitution and the federal courts and technically Congress have no jurisdiction in the matter .
Lastly marriage. As a libertarian I challenge why the hell is it that anyone gay or straight ask for permission and pay a tax to fall in love and get married ? The founders never intended the role or responsibility of the Federal government to regulate marriage or define it.
The only reason we have marriage laws as it is is because post civil war white southerners didn't want free black marrying their white ladies. Then you saw states just promulgate marriage laws outlawing interracial marriages gay marriages and sodomy and on and on. Again these issues are not federal issues and reside with the states . That's how federalism works. Some things are the purview of the states and others the feds.
I don't see any roll back on these issues you brought up . It's 2022 and most people just don't care about the marriage crap . Right to privacy just go to tik tok or any social media site and so many people freely do dumb stuff that should be private but it ain't .
To me if this awakens the debate and knowledge about how federalism is supposed to work versus how it does and people start to see the massive federal over reach in states rights then it's a good thing . Departments like education, labor , commerce even aspects of the department of agriculture where the feds keep trying to duplicate rolls with state departments of agriculture technically are not a function of the federal government. Many of the executive departments are unconstitutional if you ask me especially the department of education. It's not a role or power given to Congress at all . Look up the 18 enumerated powers in Article 1 Section 8 of The US Constitution and education isn't in there . The DOE needs to go away and the states need to run it .
The federal government has spent us into over $30 trillion in debt and I ask you why? To buy votes ? To centralize power ? If we actually returned some of these functions back to the states where they belong then states don't need to send money to DC only to beg for it back with less coming back too . I am all about fiscally responsible governance. I am all about keeping government close and the state government is more accountable to each of us than the feds . I am all about liberty and having the ability to elect people who represent you and have a bigger impact on your life . Are we more influenced by state government or the federal? You want more accountable government it must start with local and state . It makes sense these levels have more authority and it makes sense to give them that because they are closer to the people.
That's my 59 cents worth ....
The ethos of our founding is that rights are natural, and the purpose of government is to secure those rights. The Constitution enumerates certain rights, but then goes out of its way to remind us that just because a right isn't listed, does not mean it does not exist.
I believe you're confusing "rights" with "powers" when you say "The 10th Amendment says all rights not specified here in are reserved to the states and the people."
Un-enumerated rights are reserved to the people. Un-delegated powers are reserved to the states or the people.
IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Federalism doesn't mean that state governments have the power to strip away un-enumerated rights from the people. Now - we can debate endlessly if a right fundamentally exists or not. Your reference to voting is the perfect example. There's no "right to vote" in the Constitution, but it's pretty clear that if a state passed a law and said "only white landowning males get to vote", SCOTUS would shoot that down. Yet certainly in previous eras in America, those states would have made the same argument you are. That voting isn't a "right" therefore we regulate it however we want.So that's the debate. It's not whether states have the power to regulate un-delegated powers. They obviously do. The question is whether or not that regulation violates rights - enumerated or un-enumerated - reserved for the people.
An inherent problem with un-enumerated rights is that their existence can ebb and flow with the politics of those with the power to decide them.
Last edited:
I don’t think you know what the word “explicitly” means. The constitution can’t “explicitly” grant access to muskets if muskets aren’t mentioned.
To answer your question, it would have been absolutely written the same way, if not more overtly pro-citizen.
You once again seem to be too dumb to understand complex sentences and things like commas. The wording of the amend is:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Let’s break that down so you can understand it. It’s saying that militias are essential to protect a state from tyranny, and since that’s the case, “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
If the PEOPLE’S right to keep and bear arms is infringed, they no longer have the ability to have a well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free state.
And you’re clearly not a constitutional law expert. But there have been thousands of them over the past centuries and none of them have overturned the 2A.
It would seem obvious that when it comes to the rights of our people, we can't have a country where your civil liberties depend upon where you live.
The same "States rights" garbage used to 'justify' taking rights away from women in this country was the same garbage used once-upon-a-time to 'justify' slavery and racial segregation.
Both sides are doing this ... both sides.
The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were both right.
Yes, including California and other states letting non-citizens vote, however ...
Yes, and that how states can pass laws that protect individual and other rights, superceding federal limitations that do not, however ...
It's supposed to be the US Federal Government -- like State/Local Governments over the Federal at times too -- steps in to protect individual rights, not take them away! But the left and right now want the SCOTUS to take away individual rights! That's my problem!
It should always be the 'greater permissions' of the 2 (or 3 in the case of Local). Whatever grants the most individual rights should prevail. But there in the US, the common attitude is that it's the least, whatever we want, instead of civics.
Which brings me to ...
This we 100% agree on.
And we're reaching a point where the US and many states are 'forcing inclusion' to the point they are even conflicting.
Free country governments are supposed to protect individual rights, not force them, much less group rights, on everyone. That last concept is Soviet Socialism.
I have no idea where Americans ****ed up in this regard, but even my stunch European Socialist colleagues and friends are really scared where the left is taking the US.
As much as we still have bones to pick with the right too. But the right aren't destroying livelihoods with cancel culture, or throwing reporters in jail either.
