Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 50 of 50

Thread: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Jerry-
    I understand you feel the 'ignore'
    Then you misunderstand. I'm asking for clarity on how section 9a did not come into play here.

    If you ever think of anything informative to contribute on the matter, please feel free to share it.

  2. #42
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    What I find is that a when a person is "born", they are under the jurisdiction of US law. I don't see a "right to be born", rather a protection of rights once one is born.
    Thank you for sharing what you found. What is written, however, is that a person has to be born in order to be a citizen. There is no requirement to be born in order to be a 'person', and no one is arguing that the unborn are citizens.

  3. #43
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Thank you for sharing what you found. What is written, however, is that a person has to be born in order to be a citizen. There is no requirement to be born in order to be a 'person', and no one is arguing that the unborn are citizens.
    Jer, the problem is one of language. In the discussion of 9a, Texas wanted to extend person status to a fetus via 14th, BUT, Texas could not cite any supporting cases for this position.


    The rest of 9a:
    The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [Footnote 51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [Footnote 52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.


    The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [Footnote 53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application.
    Roe was a compromise, and if anything cons should be happy with it since it extended protection to the unborn from 26 weeks on. This was a new, broadening definition of protective rights provided by the state, ie viability.
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 05-03-12 at 02:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Jer, the problem is one of language. In the discussion of 9a, Texas wanted to extend person status to a fetus via 14th, BUT, Texas could not cite any supporting cases for this position.


    The rest of 9a:


    Roe was a compromise, and if anything cons should be happy with it since it extended protection to the unborn from 26 weeks on. This was a new, broadening definition of protective rights provided by the state, ie viability.
    Is it that you're not aware that laws have been written in the lest 40 years since Roe?

    Enter: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law , for example. yes, pre-birth rights are granted to the the unborn. This and other laws like it are why Roe needs to be revisited.

  5. #45
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Then you misunderstand. I'm asking for clarity on how section 9a did not come into play here.

    If you ever think of anything informative to contribute on the matter, please feel free to share it.
    Again, 9a did come into play, the court has recognized that a fetus is not a person as defined in the Constitution and the state has no protective interests prior to 26 weeks (pushed back to 23 weeks under Casey). The attempt by OK to define a zygote as a person is not supported by the Constitution as shown in Roe and in Casey.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  6. #46
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Is it that you're not aware that laws have been written in the lest 40 years since Roe?

    Enter: Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 -- Laci and Conner's Law , for example. yes, pre-birth rights are granted to the the unborn. This and other laws like it are why Roe needs to be revisited.
    First off, Roe was revisited in Casey, it was revisited in this OKSC ruling and the law you cited I don't believe has been Constitutionally tested nor is it unlike previous laws giving parents the right to sue for damages.

    Besides, I thought you were trying to get clarification on 9a, I don't know if that was accomplished and now you want to open another can of worms. Slow down man, one step at a time, ok?
    Last edited by Gimmesometruth; 05-03-12 at 03:25 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  7. #47
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,585

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Again, 9a did come into play, the court has recognized that a fetus is not a person as defined in the Constitution and the state has no protective interests prior to 26 weeks (pushed back to 23 weeks under Casey).
    No, it wasn't. It was "pushed back" to the point of medical viability, which the pluarlity noted at the time might be 22 or 23 weeks.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  8. #48
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, it wasn't. It was "pushed back" to the point of medical viability, which the pluarlity noted at the time might be 22 or 23 weeks.
    Uh....I did not say it wasn't due to viability, the state interest date is viability, I am not confused on that point at all.

    What's next.....I'm incorrect because I did not mention the Justices who ruled?

    Get a life.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  9. #49
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:47 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,585

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    Uh....I did not say it wasn't due to viability, the state interest date is viability, I am not confused on that point at all.

    What's next.....I'm incorrect because I did not mention the Justices who ruled?
    Uh, no, you're incorrect because you said they ruled the state interest begins at 23 weeks. That isn't what they ruled.

    Now, I know I was clear on that, so why didn't you follow me?
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #50
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Oklahoma Supreme Court Rules Personhood Amendment Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Uh, no, you're incorrect because you said they ruled the state interest begins at 23 weeks. That isn't what they ruled.

    Now, I know I was clear on that, so why didn't you follow me?
    It is so sad that you decide to get into nit-picking, but I'll play.

    Which is comes first, state interest, or viability? State interest, of course. When does state interest begin? At viability. The point of viability may change, but the first principal applied, is state interest. State interest and viability are interlinked, but viability on its own is meaningless without state interest.

    And to clarify, I did not say it was pushed back BECAUSE of state interest, I said that the date was pushed back IN Casey.


    Again, find something better to do than to quibble with me about your imagined fault finding.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •