• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

So now you're going to claim that Art III doesn't exist?

I'm not surprised. I've always known that those who rant the most about how the govt is ignoring the consittution are the ones most likely to ignore the constitution

changing the subject, please provide you evidence you stated from article 3 please, we are all waiting.
 
No one does

So, individuals cannot be held responsible for their decisions because they have no control? In that case, the prisons would be empty...
 
So, individuals cannot be held responsible for their decisions because they have no control? In that case, the prisons would be empty...

Choice <> control

People make choices, and then face the consequences of those decisions
 
You stepped into the deep muddy when you jumped the shark by defining the opposition's (those opposed to your own bias) argument.

Maybe. It's blatantly obvious what the Right is doing, though..............
 
Art III goves SCOTUS the power of judicial review. Do you deny this?

you stated that the court, has the power to----------> limit our rights.

i asked where is this limiting of rights power..show me in the writings of the constitution.

government's duty is to secure rights.
 
you stated that the court, has the power to----------> limit our rights.

i asked where is this limiting of rights power..show me in the writings of the constutution.

government's duty is to secure rights.

I already answered this. It's called judicial review
 
:lol:give me a big mac, a large order of fries and a cherry pie.

see i made a choice, but i was also in charge of the choice that was made, i control what i do.....
 
:lol:give me a big mac, a large order of fires and a cherry pie.

see i made a choice, but i was also in charge of the choice that was made, i control what i do.....

No, you did not control the choice. The seller limited what you can choose

Try to order a horsemeat burger at McD's and then get back to me about how you controlled the choice
 
well our rights are in the constitution, and they cannot be challenge by a person group or a court.......

Really? Then why is the right attacking the voting rights act? It's been shown to have been approved by the Supreme Court in the past.
 
no, you just threw something out, and trying to make it stick and it will not.....the constitution, does not say anything of government limiting rights.

It doesn't say anything about the govt controlling immigration or crime either


Or........wait for it........ABORTION!!
 
:lol:give me a big mac, a large order of fires and a cherry pie.

see i made a choice, but i was also in charge of the choice that was made, i control what i do.....

Correct. So does a women make a choice to have an abortion. Besides, haven't Liberals compromised enough already by allowing Conservatives to make infanticide illegal ?......................
 

So, no one is in control of any choices an individual makes, including the individual? If so, how can you rationalize any decision with which SCOTUS might render?
 
Really? Then why is the right attacking the voting rights act? It's been shown to have been approved by the Supreme Court in the past.

the voting rights is federal law, you can challenge federal law.

the constitution, provides NO right to vote.......its states you cannot be denied the vote, for certain reasons.

and it also states voting can be taken away
 
So, no one is in control of any choices an individual makes, including the individual? If so, how can you rationalize any decision with which SCOTUS might render?

Correct

People are confronted by choices. They don't control them. They only control the decisions they make.

And then, they face the consequences of those decisions.
 
Correct. So does a women make a choice to have an abortion. Besides, haven't Liberals compromised enough already by allowing Conservatives to make infanticide illegal ?......................

well i was stating that if you have a right to be secure in your person, your body, your property, ...them it applies to all property.

the founders state you have a right to be secure in you property 5th amendment...and that is any property.
 
the voting rights is federal law, you can challenge federal law.

the constitution, provides NO right to vote.......its states you cannot be denied the vote, for certain reasons.

and it also states voting can be taken away

Wrong

It specifically refers to "the right to vote"

It's always nice to discover another part of the constitution you're willing to ignore
 
Correct

People are confronted by choices. They don't control them. They only control the decisions they make.

And then, they face the consequences of those decisions.

on a whim, i have decided to go to Disneyland, ........was i confronted with Disneyland?
 
Correct

People are confronted by choices. They don't control them. They only control the decisions they make.

And then, they face the consequences of those decisions.

Lord, I truly hope a number of people are watching you swirl down the drain...
 
Back
Top Bottom