Supreme Court backs ban of partial birth abortions

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>This goes completly with the constitution. It is the first step of
>overturning a "created" contitutional right. One created by a court.

We have all the rights that could possibly exist. Government takes rights away; the Constitution lists the rights they may NOT take away. It does not list the rights we do have. (If it did, we'd be in trouble - because it says absolutely nothing about skydiving/ground launching/BASE jumping in there.)

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make but, the gov has also created rights out of thin air through court action. Whether the law or right is agreed with is of no consenquese. There are "legal" rights protected by the constitution. Abortion is not one of them. Whether you or I agee with having an abortion or not is not the issue.

Now, can laws be make making abortion legal? Yes, that is up to the states IMO not the SC. I do not believe it is a constitutional issue unles the federal gov tries to control it. In this case all the SC has said, abortion is not constitutionaly protected.

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

[billvon 3,120]

>the gov has also created rights out of thin air through court action.

Again, you are incorrect. Read the Tenth Amendment. We already HAVE all those rights.

>Abortion is not one of them. Whether you or I agee with having an
>abortion or not is not the issue.

Now that is exactly right! The issue is whether a woman and her doctor agree with the abortion.

>Now, can laws be make making abortion legal? Yes, that is up to the
>states IMO not the SC.

If there is no law against something, it is not illegal. (If you do not believe this, please show me the law that shows that ground launching is legal.) Laws only make things _illegal._ Had you said "can states make abortion illegal?" then you'd have a better point, although the supreme court has already ruled on that in Roe v Wade.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>the gov has also created rights out of thin air through court action.

Again, you are incorrect. Read the Tenth Amendment. We already HAVE all those rights.

>Abortion is not one of them. Whether you or I agee with having an
>abortion or not is not the issue.

Now that is exactly right! The issue is whether a woman and her doctor agree with the abortion.

>Now, can laws be make making abortion legal? Yes, that is up to the
>states IMO not the SC.

If there is no law against something, it is not illegal. (If you do not believe this, please show me the law that shows that ground launching is legal.) Laws only make things _illegal._ Had you said "can states make abortion illegal?" then you'd have a better point, although the supreme court has already ruled on that in Roe v Wade.

I will give you the "the states can make abortion illegal" As for the rest of it, the courts disagrees with you. I do disagree with the court agreeing with a "federal" law. This question is best left up to the states. And they should be able to decide either way.

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

[billvon 3,120]

>I will give you the "the states can make abortion illegal"

Well, the SC said they could not, but at one point they could.

>As for the rest of it, the courts disagrees with you.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. If you can produce one single law, or one single court decision, that states ground launching is legal, then you'd have a point. But there isn't - because everything is legal unless there's a law against it.

Want to wear a chicken suit to a local park and sing like Madonna? Legal unless there's a law against it.

Want to sit in your room, cursing the world, surfing the internet and drinking cheap beer with a crazy straw? Legal, as long as there's no law against it.

That's not because there are laws that say it's OK to wear chicken suits and/or drink beer with crazy straws. It's because there are no laws _against_ it.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I will give you the "the states can make abortion illegal"

Well, the SC said they could not, but at one point they could.

>As for the rest of it, the courts disagrees with you.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong. If you can produce one single law, or one single court decision, that states ground launching is legal, then you'd have a point. But there isn't - because everything is legal unless there's a law against it.

Quote

This is where I was agreeing with you.

Want to wear a chicken suit to a local park and sing like Madonna? Legal unless there's a law against it.

Sounds like fun

Want to sit in your room, cursing the world, surfing the internet and drinking cheap beer with a crazy straw? Legal, as long as there's no law against it.

Quote

Again, that is the point I was conceding

That's not because there are laws that say it's OK to wear chicken suits and/or drink beer with crazy straws. It's because there are no laws _against_ it.

You have yet to reply to my point about states rights

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

• Quote

[billvon 3,120]

>You have yet to reply to my point about states rights

I thought I did. The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on it.

The federal government can restrict your rights, as long as they do so without violating the constitution.

The states can do the same thing, again, as long as they do so without violating the constitution - although the federal government gets "first crack" at it so to speak.

Any rights they don't restrict (either via the federal government or the states) are yours to do with as you see fit.

Several states tried to make abortion illegal back in the 60's and 70's. In two cases (Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton) the Supreme Court declared that a Georgia law restricting abortion was illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, Georgia tried to enforce a law that violated the constitution, so it was struck down.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You have yet to reply to my point about states rights

I thought I did. The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear on it.

The federal government can restrict your rights, as long as they do so without violating the constitution.

Quote

And in the case related to this thread they did not. (Unless you look at upholding a law against states rights)

The states can do the same thing, again, as long as they do so without violating the constitution - although the federal government gets "first crack" at it so to speak.

I do not agree with the first crack part but, abortion is not constitutionaly protected unles you stretch some of the points

Any rights they don't restrict (either via the federal government or the states) are yours to do with as you see fit.

Quote

With this thought process murder can be ok unless made otherwise by law. A bit of stretch

Several states tried to make abortion illegal back in the 60's and 70's. In two cases (Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton) the Supreme Court declared that a Georgia law restricting abortion was illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, Georgia tried to enforce a law that violated the constitution, so it was struck down.

Again, making law, no, more of a "right", with a wild interpitation of the 14th. This is a prime example of activist court action

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

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The federal government can restrict your rights, as long as they do so without violating the constitution.

The states can do the same thing, again, as long as they do so without violating the constitution - although the federal government gets "first crack" at it so to speak.

Any rights they don't restrict (either via the federal government or the states) are yours to do with as you see fit.

Bill is right. Any state can grant you more rights that the Federal Constitution - it's why California, for example, has an explicit right to privacy in its. But no state can give you less rights. The Federal Constitution is the floor.

I personally believe that there is no right to privacy in the Federal Constitution. I don't find it there. I think that the Courts who found that right in a "penumbra" - as they described it - made a stretch. I think there SHOULD be a right to privacy in the Constitution but it just ain't there. The SCOTUS, however, found it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

I think there SHOULD be a right to privacy in the Constitution but it just ain't there. The SCOTUS, however, found it.

The SCOTUS of 1973.... which was quite different from the current SCOTUS.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I personally believe that there is no right to privacy in the Federal Constitution. I don't find it there. I think that the Courts who found that right in a "penumbra" - as they described it - made a stretch. I think there SHOULD be a right to privacy in the Constitution but it just ain't there. The SCOTUS, however, found it.

I'd argue that the ninth amendment clarifies it well, then backed up by the fourth, and implied in the third and fifth. So even if "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." isn't sufficient, then it's easy to see the common ground in the other amendments listed.

[lawrocket 3]

I believ that you are miscontruing the Ninth. The Ninth was intended to operate hand-in-hand with the Tenth Amendment. Notice that the Tenth Amendment says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

The Ninth reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

What it says is that there are powers enumerated to the Federal Government, which the US Consttitution operates as a floor. So you've got the Ninth saying that there are other rights that can be granted. The Tenth says that the States can grant those rights. The Federal Constitution is not all-inclusive.

This is why States can guarantee privacy. States can proscribe equal rights for gays.

The federal Constitution does not guarantee it. It doesn't mean that I believe there should not be a federal right to privacy. I'm just saying it is not there.

The Ninth Amendment is misread and misconstrued. It - along with the Tenth - has fallen to the historical dustheap. Since there isn't anything anybody can do that does not in some way affect interstate commerce pursuant to the SCOTUS expansion of the commerce clause's powers, there is little that remans of States' rights. The Ninth and Tenth are nothin more than historical curiosities of a time when the federal government was limited in its scope and powers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

The Ninth and Tenth are nothin more than historical curiosities of a time when the federal government was limited in its scope and powers.

I'm going to think about the rest of what you posted for a while. But I wanted to comment on your last statement to add that I won't disagree that our bill of rights is being reduced to a(n) historical curiosity, and I wouldn't limit it to the ninth and tenth.