0
VisionAir

Way to go Bill

Recommended Posts

Quote

I think you are incorrect. If Roe v Wade supports a protected right how come so many are worried it may be overturned? If it is will you call the court an activist group in black robes?



Honestly, I think it's a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) tactic used to muster further opposition against Bush's judicial nominees, as well as against his administration in general.

Likewise, such a message can actually be used to the Bush administration's advantage to bolster more support from religous groups who look at this as an opportunity to further their political agenda, even at a time of declining approval.

I'm not an attorney or a judge, but for what it's worth, I don't see Roe v Wade being threatened from the Judiciary at all. It just reeks of political propaganda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.



They didn't make any laws. They interpreted the Constitution. It has always been unConstitutional to make abortion illegal. They just clarified that fact. They made no law. Where do you get that idea?


I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?



One key difference between a free country and a dictatorship is that in a free country the people can do anything that is not expressly made illegal. In a dictatorship they generally can only do those things that the government allows them to do.

Apparently you prefer a dictatorship over a free country.



It's very simple - the government should mind its own business.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.



They didn't make any laws. They interpreted the Constitution. It has always been unConstitutional to make abortion illegal. They just clarified that fact. They made no law. Where do you get that idea?


I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?



One key difference between a free country and a dictatorship is that in a free country the people can do anything that is not expressly made illegal. In a dictatorship they generally can only do those things that the government allows them to do.

Apparently you prefer a dictatorship over a free country.



It's very simple - the government should mind its own business.



I prefer a dectatorship huh....... :S Some one has a different perspective than you and somehow they must be evil, uneducated or stupid:S

Yes , the government should mind it's own business. They should not tax death, or take my money and give it to vote buying social programs engineers. They should drop draconian rules made by OSHA, the DNR and the Dept of Education (who take state money and then give it back to the states when they teach what they say the states should teach our children)

Open your mind. I am not as dump or evil as you must think I am.

I understand where you are coming from (I believe). You have no clue why I think the way I do and you don't care to take any time to learn (for reasons listed above.[:/]
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think you are incorrect. If Roe v Wade supports a protected right how come so many are worried it may be overturned? If it is will you call the court an activist group in black robes?



Honestly, I think it's a FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) tactic used to muster further opposition against Bush's judicial nominees, as well as against his administration in general.

Likewise, such a message can actually be used to the Bush administration's advantage to bolster more support from religous groups who look at this as an opportunity to further their political agenda, even at a time of declining approval.

I'm not an attorney or a judge, but for what it's worth, I don't see Roe v Wade being threatened from the Judiciary at all. It just reeks of political propaganda.



Hard to argue against that line of thought! I would not put that past either side......
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

Quote



One key difference between a free country and a dictatorship is that in a free country the people can do anything that is not expressly made illegal. In a dictatorship they generally can only do those things that the government allows them to do.

Apparently you prefer a dictatorship over a free country.



I prefer a dectatorship huh....... :S Some one has a different perspective than you and somehow they must be evil, uneducated or stupid:S


Open your mind. I am not as dump or evil as you must think I am.



Its called exaggeration. Hyperbole to get his point across. At least that is what I was taking it as. I don't think he called you evil or dumb there.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.



They didn't make any laws. They interpreted the Constitution. It has always been unConstitutional to make abortion illegal. They just clarified that fact. They made no law. Where do you get that idea?


I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?



One key difference between a free country and a dictatorship is that in a free country the people can do anything that is not expressly made illegal. In a dictatorship they generally can only do those things that the government allows them to do.

Apparently you prefer a dictatorship over a free country.



It's very simple - the government should mind its own business.



I prefer a dectatorship huh....... :S Some one has a different perspective than you and somehow they must be evil, uneducated or stupid:S



.[:/]



Apparently you think it appropriate for the GOVERNMENT to dictate to a woman what she may and may not do with her own body. How is that not showing a preference for dictatorship?
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.



They didn't make any laws. They interpreted the Constitution. It has always been unConstitutional to make abortion illegal. They just clarified that fact. They made no law. Where do you get that idea?


I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?



One key difference between a free country and a dictatorship is that in a free country the people can do anything that is not expressly made illegal. In a dictatorship they generally can only do those things that the government allows them to do.

Apparently you prefer a dictatorship over a free country.



It's very simple - the government should mind its own business.



I prefer a dectatorship huh....... :S Some one has a different perspective than you and somehow they must be evil, uneducated or stupid:S



.[:/]



Apparently you think it appropriate for the GOVERNMENT to dictate to a woman what she may and may not do with her own body. How is that not showing a preference for dictatorship?



You keep changing the topic of this thread. I posted early on that I did not want to debate Roe v Wade only what it came to mean and how it was put into place
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yes , the government should mind it's own business. They should not tax death, or take my money and give it to vote buying social programs engineers. They should drop draconian rules made by OSHA, the DNR and the Dept of Education (who take state money and then give it back to the states when they teach what they say the states should teach our children)



The Constitution grants Congress the authority to collect taxes. If you do not like the way that authority has been used, write your Congressmen, vote and/or run for Congress. The people have control of Congress by way of voting.

The Supreme Court is not subject to the whim of public opinion. That is the reason they have lifetime appointments, so they do not need to be concerned with reelection.

Two completely different subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Yes , the government should mind it's own business. They should not tax death, or take my money and give it to vote buying social programs engineers. They should drop draconian rules made by OSHA, the DNR and the Dept of Education (who take state money and then give it back to the states when they teach what they say the states should teach our children)

Food for thought.

I am not part of this but it is interesting........

http://www.givemeliberty.org/

Twenty-five years ago Bill Benson, a former Illinois Department of Revenue investigator, began a cross-country trip across the forty-eight states that comprised the Union in 1913 seeking documentary evidence regarding the ratification of the 16th Amendment. This was a most important undertaking, because the government uses the 16th Amendment as its sole authority to tax an individual’s wages and salaries.

During his two-year trip, Benson collected thousands of certified legal documents from both state and federal archives documenting exactly how the 16th Amendment was acted on by each state legislature and handled by the office of the Secretary of State for the United States.

In the end, Benson had assembled an irrefutable mountain of evidence showing that during the final days of the William Howard Taft administration in 1913, the 16th Amendment was fraudulently declared by the U.S. Secretary of State, Philander Knox, to have been properly ratified by the requisite number of state legislatures. Bill Benson, and his co-researcher Red Beckman, documented the results of their work in a two volume research report entitled, “The Law That Never Was.”.............

The Constitution grants Congress the authority to collect taxes. If you do not like the way that authority has been used, write your Congressmen, vote and/or run for Congress. The people have control of Congress by way of voting.

The Supreme Court is not subject to the whim of public opinion. That is the reason they have lifetime appointments, so they do not need to be concerned with reelection.

Two completely different subjects.


"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the government uses the 16th Amendment as its sole authority to tax an individual’s wages and salaries



Have you read the Constitution lately?

From Article One, Section 8
Quote

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You keep changing the topic of this thread. I posted early on that I did not want to debate Roe v Wade only what it came to mean and how it was put into place



same topic, it came to be because the SC determined that state laws against abortion were unconstitutional.

but if you read up you'll see you reference it more often than any other poster... :S
____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

You keep changing the topic of this thread. I posted early on that I did not want to debate Roe v Wade only what it came to mean and how it was put into place



same topic, it came to be because the SC determined that state laws against abortion were unconstitutional.

but if you read up you'll see you reference it more often than any other poster... :S



.....and if you read the first post when it is brought up you will see I am not talking about the law itself rather the process that brought it into being........

Context, context, context..........:S
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


.....and if you read the first post when it is brought up you will see I am not talking about the law itself rather the process that brought it into being........



Here is the point you seem to be missing:

There is no law that allows abortion. There is a SC decision determining that any law outlawing abortion (during first trimester) is unConstitutional. That is not the same thing as a law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


.....and if you read the first post when it is brought up you will see I am not talking about the law itself rather the process that brought it into being........



Here is the point you seem to be missing:

There is no law that allows abortion. There is a SC decision determining that any law outlawing abortion (during first trimester) is unConstitutional. That is not the same thing as a law.



Exactly
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Exactly



Then why do you insist on arguing the opposite?



I am not arguing the opposite.

My point all along has been the intepitation process used by the court at this time. I do not think they intepited the constitution, I think they created a "right" (for lack of a better term) using an improper interpitaion process.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not Roe v Wade should or should not be the law of the land. I think the SC should have never taken the case and left it up to the states. I know that this starts a new debate about Roe V Wade but that is what this is all about.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Exactly



Then why do you insist on arguing the opposite?



I am not arguing the opposite.

My point all along has been the intepitation process used by the court at this time. I do not think they intepited the constitution, I think they created a "right" (for lack of a better term) using an improper interpitaion process.

Again, I am not arguing whether or not Roe v Wade should or should not be the law of the land. I think the SC should have never taken the case and left it up to the states. I know that this starts a new debate about Roe V Wade but that is what this is all about.



If states are trampling on the rights of the people, who else can correct it except the SC? Remember, it's the people that have the rights in our free society.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think they created a "right" (for lack of a better term) using an improper interpitaion process.



Again..that's the point you are missing. Rights are not created. They can be denied or they can be enumerated as in the Bill of Rights to make sure they are not infringed. The right to choose is the right that everyone has and always has had. If you want to deny someone that right by outlawing abortion, give it a shot. But as it stands now, it would violate their constitutionally guaranteed rights of privacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My point all along has been the intepitation process used by the court at this time. I do not think they intepited the constitution, I think they created a "right" (for lack of a better term) using an improper interpitaion process



They did not create the right. The right always existed. The state laws were unConstitutional, and the SC clarified that point, as they were supposed to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Again, I am not arguing whether or not Roe v Wade should or should not be the law of the land. I think the SC should have never taken the case and left it up to the states.



Do you feel the same way about Brown v Board of Education? Laissez faire, leave it up to the states? Do you feel that the Supreme Court "created new rights" in that case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I think they created a "right" (for lack of a better term) using an improper interpitaion process.



Again..that's the point you are missing. Rights are not created. They can be denied or they can be enumerated as in the Bill of Rights to make sure they are not infringed. The right to choose is the right that everyone has and always has had. If you want to deny someone that right by outlawing abortion, give it a shot. But as it stands now, it would violate their constitutionally guaranteed rights of privacy.


I don't agree with your interpitation or right to privacy to begin with. I believe a right was created by the SC in this case!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My point all along has been the intepitation process used by the court at this time. I do not think they intepited the constitution, I think they created a "right" (for lack of a better term) using an improper interpitaion process



They did not create the right. The right always existed. The state laws were unConstitutional, and the SC clarified that point, as they were supposed to do.

The right to have an abortion always existed? OK, if you say so.......[:/]
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No,

What do you think about the Mass case where a city can take land from a private owner and give it to a corp because it is in the best interst of the people because the corp owning the land will increase the tax base?

(sorry, I don't remember the title of the case[:/])
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The right to have an abortion always existed?

All rights exist for all people. That's the basis of our constitution. All government can do is REMOVE rights. For example, they might remove your right to dump mercury into the groundwater, because people do that and other people die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0