• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal court rules Wisconsons abortion law unconstitional.

JayDubya said:
Proof of an absence?

Kay. Read the goddamned Constitution. Note the absence of your abortion bull****.
Click to expand...

Are you making the already disproven claim that abortion isnt a right because it isnt 'named' in the Constitution? :lamo :lamo :lamo

Come come now, you have been reminded of this before, as I paraphrase, "any rights not enumerated in the Constitution are recognized. States may make other laws as long as they are not in conflict with the Constitution.' And for abortion, since the RvW decision is founded on Constitutional rights (for all born people) the states may not create laws that make it illegal.

You should write this down somewhere and save it so you dont have to be reminded of it in front of everyone again.
 
Lursa said:
Are you making the already disproven claim that abortion isnt a right because it isnt 'named' in the Constitution
Click to expand...

If it isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it may or may not be "a right," but it certainly can't be a "Constitutional right."

That truth can't be "disproven," so as usual you stand in stark contrast with reality. By all means, embarrass yourself further for my amusement.
 
JayDubya said:
If it isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it may or may not be "a right," but it certainly can't be a "Constitutional right."

That truth can't be "disproven," so as usual you stand in stark contrast with reality. By all means, embarrass yourself further for my amusement.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony!!!
gotta love it!!!!
 
JayDubya said:
If it isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it may or may not be "a right," but it certainly can't be a "Constitutional right."

That truth can't be "disproven," so as usual you stand in stark contrast with reality. By all means, embarrass yourself further for my amusement.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

So again, where is the lie? You are wrong. Women are clearly entitled to abortions, they are not contraindicated anywhere in the Const and as such, well within the law.

(No one ever said abortion was a 'Constitutional' right, btw. Nice try but you are still wrong.)
 
Lursa said:
Women are clearly entitled to abortions
Click to expand...

Show this "right" existing in the Constitution.

You won't, of course, because you can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist.

And of course, the 10th Amendment deals with every area in which the Constitution is silent.

But hey, keep going and fail some more so I can keep laughing.
 
JayDubya said:
Show this "right" existing in the Constitution.

You won't, of course, because you can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist.

And of course, the 10th Amendment deals with every area in which the Constitution is silent.

But hey, keep going and fail some more so I can keep laughing.
Click to expand...

Oh lordy! Funny.

What part(s) of this didnt you understand?

Lursa said:
Are you making the already disproven claim that abortion isnt a right because it isnt 'named' in the Constitution? :lamo :lamo :lamo

Come come now, you have been reminded of this before, as I paraphrase, "any rights not enumerated in the Constitution are recognized. States may make other laws as long as they are not in conflict with the Constitution.' And for abortion, since the RvW decision is founded on Constitutional rights (for all born people) the states may not create laws that make it illegal.

You should write this down somewhere and save it so you dont have to be reminded of it in front of everyone again.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should have it interpreted for you before you write it down. I paraphrased it but it's hard to write it more 'simply' than that. :doh
 
JayDubya said:
Show this "right" existing in the Constitution.

You won't, of course, because you can't demonstrate something that doesn't exist.

And of course, the 10th Amendment deals with every area in which the Constitution is silent.

But hey, keep going and fail some more so I can keep laughing.
Click to expand...

Well I doubt this will help you since you didnt understand the simplified version but:

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

It's the 9th.

And I see you've provided ZERO to support otherwise and I would still like to see the 'lie' that you complain about.

Edit: just curious: with this in mind (if you can assimilate it) why do you keep asking if abortion is named in the Const?
 
Lursa said:
Oh lordy! Funny.

What part(s) of this didnt you understand?
Click to expand...

I noted that you posted a lot of absolutely retarded nonsense based entirely on your misunderstanding of the 9th Amendment, if I am to be charitable and assume you're posting in good faith at all.

I understood the implications of the retardation that you think passed for "logic," but in reality if something isn't recognized as a constitutional right by the text of the Constitution, it can't be a constitutional right.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an example of a Constitutional right, explicitly stated and with all levels of government forbidden from interfering in no uncertain terms - "shall not be infringed."

The "right to abortion" is not within the text. It is not implied by the text. It is not alluded to in any way, form, shape, or fashion. It is not, as the court claimed, a shadow of a "right" which they also made up entirely from wholecloth.


But by all means, post more of this stupidity to deride. The 9th Amendment is a legal truism; it was never intended by its author to be wielded as a bludgeon by an authoritarian state gone mad. It was never intended to be used to inflict whatever "rights" the court just wants to imagine.

There is an amendment process laid out by the text of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was itself created through the amendment process. If you want to create a new "constitutional right," you amend the ****ing Constitution.
 
Last edited:
JayDubya said:
The "right to abortion" is not within the text. It is not implied by the text. It is not alluded to in any way, form, shape, or fashion. It is not, as the court claimed, a shadow of a "right" which they also made up entirely from wholecloth.
.
Click to expand...

Ah. No one ever said abortion was 'alluded to.' I (& others) have continually explained to you that it does not need to be.

As for SCOTUS I guess they just went with the 9th Amendment, as well as the 14th, to support their opinion. Properly, legally, *rationally*, with no lying.

Here it is again, SCOTUS understood it, you should try before calling them liars.

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

And in light of the complete lack of reality in anything you post, of course your insults are dismissed as the product of that same 'mind' and ability to form thoughts.
 
If I may reiterate this: I am happy that this has been overturned and from the OP article, it seems that Texas's similar law will be heading to a SC challenge that could end it in other states as well.

I certainly hope that it works out that way.

Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom