Gosnell case

[Forever_frost]

Shut the fuck up with that authority shit. You keep saying it, yet everything says you're wrong.

Blow me Racrbitch. I'm 100% right. There is no authority for the SC to rule on abortion in the Constitution. As it's not a federal power, the SC cannot rule on it. They also had no authority to hear Roe v Wade. I keep saying it because I'm right. You can't prove I'm wrong but I can quote authority under the constitution which....


Is the Supreme Law of the Land.

[racrguy]

Blow me Racrbitch. I'm 100% right. There is no authority for the SC to rule on abortion in the Constitution. As it's not a federal power, the SC cannot rule on it. They also had no authority to hear Roe v Wade. I keep saying it because I'm right. You can't prove I'm wrong but I can quote authority under the constitution which....


Is the Supreme Law of the Land.

You're not right, you stumpfucking moron. It says in the constitution they have the power to rule over all cases. Article 3 section 2. Unless the word "all" means something differ t for you than it does the rest of the English speaking world.

[Forever_frost]

Once again, you're wrong. That "all cases" as in every time the Founders wrote federal authority, actually took the time to list what "all cases" mean and include.



The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

[YALE]

Regardless of the wording of that law, the horses are out of the barn. Unless you have a time machine, they've already ruled on abortion.

[Forever_frost]

And, as we've seen repeatedly, they can overrule themselves. They have no authority to rule in the first place and I think it's time the right uses cases like this like the left used Giffords and Newtown to push gun control. Rules for Radicals works for anyone reading it.

And Racr would probably gain something to actually not only read the constitution but the writings of the Founders. I don't actually expect him to admit he's a window licking happy sock but it's okay. My inbox tends to agree with me

[YALE]

Dude, the major turning points in their history have been associated with at least attempted expansions of their role and scope. This is no different.

[Forever_frost]

Yet they have no authority to expand their role and scope. It's simple, actually spelled out and limited. I believe a Marine said it best when he stated "An unconstitutional law is not law." An unconstitutional law is not binding. The SC ruled that internment was and still is legal. Who here would say "Oh, the SC ruled it legal that I can be put into a cattle car without due process and my property sold off and confiscated by the state. I should go ahead and hop in?"

[YALE]

Yet they have no authority to expand their role and scope. It's simple, actually spelled out and limited. I believe a Marine said it best when he stated "An unconstitutional law is not law." An unconstitutional law is not binding. The SC ruled that internment was and still is legal. Who here would say "Oh, the SC ruled it legal that I can be put into a cattle car without due process and my property sold off and confiscated by the state. I should go ahead and hop in?"

Dude, your beef is with John Marshall. Unfortunately for the Marine in question, you are presenting his remark as a red herring when it comes to the topic at hand. Further, I think you're taking the tack of questioning the ruling's constitutionality because it didn't come down the way you wanted it to. If they had ruled the other way in Roe v. Wade, would you feel that strongly? Do you even care that the ruling protects the individual states' rights to regulate late-term abortion? Technically, it's a win for those looking to protect medical privacy, and preserve states' rights under the 10th Amendment.

[slow99]

Hell, I don't even know why we have the Supreme Court when we could just consult Frost on any issue.

[Forever_frost]

Actually, no. I've said repeatedly that the FEDERAL government has no authority here just as it has no authority on marriage. Do I like DOMA's ideology? Sure. Does the constitution support it's authority? Hell no. Should it be repealed? Absolutely. Same with Roe v Wade. No authority to hear the case, no authority to rule on the case, no authority to say anything on abortion period no matter which way it went. That's the thing about federalism. I may agree with the premise but if the constitution doesn't spell it out, the fed can't do it.


Actually slow, you merely have to read the Constitution on authority. My answer is that document. If you can find the authority there, then the fed can legislate or make decisions on it. If it doesn't they have no say.

[YALE]

Actually, no. I've said repeatedly that the FEDERAL government has no authority here just as it has no authority on marriage. Do I like DOMA's ideology? Sure. Does the constitution support it's authority? Hell no. Should it be repealed? Absolutely. Same with Roe v Wade. No authority to hear the case, no authority to rule on the case, no authority to say anything on abortion period no matter which way it went. That's the thing about federalism. I may agree with the premise but if the constitution doesn't spell it out, the fed can't do it.


Actually slow, you merely have to read the Constitution on authority. My answer is that document. If you can find the authority there, then the fed can legislate or make decisions on it. If it doesn't they have no say.

That is definitely not the sole body of text we have to contend with in America.

[Forever_frost]

When it comes to the federal government, it really is. Question is, as it was in the founding, are you willing to pay the penalty for taking back the rights that have been stolen?

[YALE]

When it comes to the federal government, it really is. Question is, as it was in the founding, are you willing to pay the penalty for taking back the rights that have been stolen?

No dude, it really is not. Further, your argument is so infantile, it's baffling. Jefferson's suit of clothes argument comes to mind when you put your ridiculous theses forward. You seem to be supremely unconcerned about the practicalities of government function, and solely concerned with making all scenarios fit your own personal legal constructs that are as arbitrary as they are imaginary. We aren't under secular sharia, Nebuchadnezzar. The laws of this country were intended to change with the society they serve, and so they do. Don't like it? Nut the fuck up, and deal with your own bad self.

[Strychnine]

I have not read this entire thread. I'll catch up in the morning on the plane.

I do have a question though:


Why is a fetus considered disposable, not alive, un-viable, etc when it's an abortion case but it's considered a living person when the mother dies also?

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime." In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant.

So violence at the hand of a vacuum and scissor wielding dr ≠ violence at the hand of a mugger with a knife or gun? Somehow a life is less valuable when a mother wishes to discard it?


Forgive any insinuation in the wording of my question... it's a serious question and a serious double standard that bothers me regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

[Forever_frost]

No dude, it really is not. Further, your argument is so infantile, it's baffling. Jefferson's suit of clothes argument comes to mind when you put your ridiculous theses forward. You seem to be supremely unconcerned about the practicalities of government function, and solely concerned with making all scenarios fit your own personal legal constructs that are as arbitrary as they are imaginary. We aren't under secular sharia, Nebuchadnezzar. The laws of this country were intended to change with the society they serve, and so they do. Don't like it? Nut the fuck up, and deal with your own bad self.

Which is why the constitution permits amendments. Failure to amend the constitution means a failure to provide the federal government with further powers. Anything other than amending the constitution to expand federal power is unconstitutional and thus, unlawful. According to the 10th amendment any power not expressly granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states belong to the states and the people respectively. I have explained there are things I'd love to see done but the federal government lacks authority to it so I must look to my state or community itself. Do I agree with DOMA? Yes. Does the federal government have authority to create and enforce it? No.

We're not under Sharia. We're a constitutional republic which means that the constitution is the end all of federal power. Don't like it? Call an Article 5 convention.