Normal people don't force their kids to pose with automatic weapons for a Christmas photo. Much less give them a gun for the Holy holidays. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500Really? How do you know they were forced? I’ve given guns for Christmas several times. Savage bolt action 22, coupe Rugers and a Henry BigBoy (for the mrs) most recently. Sometimes I even GET gun parts, a nice Trijicon I was too cheap to buy but lusted after a couple years ago.
The Judicial Branch has no say in the passing of an Amendment.agreed
The House and Senate vote on it, the President signs it, then three fourths of the States ratify it.
It then becomes part of the Constitution.
The Court cannot declare part of the Constitution “unconstitutional”.
I see your point, though. The “interpretation” of the Amendment is where the Court’s opinion comes in to play.
That’s why we need to keep churning out Lawyers. Nobody can simply read a Law and possibly understand what it really means, especially if that law doesn’t correspond with your political and social beliefs.
Take the First Amendment. Seems simple, huh.? “Congress shall make no law” is how it starts. What could be more simple. It’s written in plain English. What part of “shall make no law” do you not understand?
“But I want to smoke Peyote as part of my religious practice”. Congress passed a law saying you can’t. The Court agrees. That term “ Congress shall make no law”, which is part of the Constitution, really does not mean what it says.
Or so we are told. Originally Posted by Jackie S
The Judicial Branch has no say in the passing of an Amendment.
The House and Senate vote on it, the President signs it, then three fourths of the States ratify it.
It then becomes part of the Constitution.
The Court cannot declare part of the Constitution “unconstitutional”.
I see your point, though. The “interpretation” of the Amendment is where the Court’s opinion comes in to play.
That’s why we need to keep churning out Lawyers. Nobody can simply read a Law and possibly understand what it really means, especially if that law doesn’t correspond with your political and social beliefs.
Take the First Amendment. Seems simple, huh.? “Congress shall make no law” is how it starts. What could be more simple. It’s written in plain English. What part of “shall make no law” do you not understand?
“But I want to smoke Peyote as part of my religious practice”. Congress passed a law saying you can’t. The Court agrees. That term “ Congress shall make no law”, which is part of the Constitution, really does not mean what it says.
Or so we are told. Originally Posted by Jackie S
The first ten amendments became known as the Bill of Rights, which includes many of the freedoms we associate so closely with the United States - such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. These constitutional rights protect the lives of individuals from interference by the government.
We often claim that we have or are headed to two Americas. One left and one right. Some on here proclaim a civil war is just around the corner. Some of us believe that’s a virtual impossibility. But maybe it’s not so improbable. This county has been vastly divided before. 24 hour politics news cycles and “see the news you want to believe that buttresses your biases” only makes it a bit worse. Many are just fine with confirmation bias as a way of absorbing the world around them, unfortunately. Shit many confuse opinion news as fact and believe that others opinions presented to them are statements of reality.If we keep fucking around and voting for Liberals this country will have loose States, loose bowels and loose teeth.
Could we end up back as a kind of loose organization of states with a severely weakened federal government? Initially I don’t really see a way that it could occur due to the interconnectivity of federal and state funding mechanisms. Also I firmly believe that poor states, mainly in the south, would quickly realize that this could only lead to their falling to extreme poverty.
Now, one of the things that kind of held us together was the thought that no matter what state one lives in, they are afforded essentially the same set of rights endowed by the federal constitution and laws. The supremacy clause ensured that states couldn’t circumvent the federal government or constitutional rights. Even though each state could lean left or right, they were bound to some constitutional center. But what if that weren’t the case?
The SC on Friday allowed the Texas legislature’s law (the abortion law SB 8) to remain in place. Forget abortion for a minute and understand what the statutory scheme is. State allows “non-state” actors to bring suit against citizens and businesses that either violate the passed law or abet in the violation of the law, and precludes federal judicial review as part of the statutory scheme. Now. In our hyper-partisan times this is a great way to get around federal law (I’ll get to that in a second). On its face, that means that a state can pass a law that abridges a constitutional right or law and the only remedy remains in that states court or states other guarantees.
Texas has pulled it off with abortion. Confirmed by the Supreme Court. California has began drafting the same law with regards to guns. I imagine we will see various iterations of the same law in various states throughout the nation as legislatures, previously bound by what we all accepted as enumerated and in enumerated rights, decide which rights they don’t like for their states. I suspect some state will go after gay marriage next since that’s an unenumerated right (would make for an interesting legal case).
What’s the overall effect of this statutory scheme? Since we live in hyper-partisan times, this will not be redressed by the federal government through congressional action. They couldn’t pass a law today even if they agreed on the content in order to defend the federal government from a state scheme to neuter the Supreme Court. And the laws that would be affected would never pass through congress. No gun rights bill or abortion rights or gay marriage bill could ever pass.
Well, since an individual or business can be sued for abetting the rights of people that they support, their options are pretty limited. They could try to vote in more people in the state legislature that agree with their view to change the law. But we know that is a slow slow slow process. Or maybe they could sue. But that’s a worse proposition because judges in most states are elected so they won’t be substantially different than the legislators.
People are left with moving to states where their belief system is supported. Migration from states where they infringe on the rights you hold dear to states that support those rights or infringe on rights you don’t care about could be a thing. Is that how we end up with two Americas? People going from state to state because the rights that matter them are supported there. Further creating separate belief systems amongst Americans. Furthering the enemy mentality.
The other factor that will emerge will be economic and business factors. Since businesses can be sued, they have every reason to pick and choose what states they will be operating in. Gun manufacturing will definitely have to leave states like New York and California, and possibly places that sell guns as well, just as an example. Companies that may have expanded to places like Texas in the tech field might see reason to leave to avoid lawsuits based in first amendment rights being effected.
Now I’m not saying this will happen overnight. Maybe never. This case might somehow find itself overturned when the Supreme Court gets a real taste of their position being relegated to nothingness by the states invoking a scheme that precludes the federal courts from declaring “what the law is”.
Here is the SC decision on the Texas law, well part of it at least. The scheme itself was allowed by the Supreme Court and as such, each state will begin to decide what rights they deem appropriate for their citizens and legislate accordingly.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...3_new_8o6b.pdf Originally Posted by NoirMan
Apparently the legislature in Texas can't read or understand. But the crux is that the power was given to other citizens to hunt down violators for a bounty. Relieving itself in an incomprehensible way the framers never thought. Brilliant, but evil. Two America's. I'm on the side of good; the side of the reproduces. Chicken or the egg.Most people do not want to do away with abortion. What they do want is for the Country to drop the ridiculous pretense that a baby growing in a womb is “part of a woman’s body”
U.S. Constitutional Amendments
https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendments.html
It could be interpreted as a null and void document by a majority Conservative court. Making itself a mere joke of an institution.
That's why I think the court will not overturn Roe versus Wade in a national confirmation of the court's power to check and balance the legislative branch's overreach of the to regulate a woman's liberty.
410 U.S. 113 (1973) Originally Posted by eccieuser9500
Most people do not want to do away with abortion. What they do want is for the Country to drop the ridiculous pretense that a baby growing in a womb is “part of a woman’s body”Wrong. Science is on the side of the reason the fetus exists in the first place. Calling a fetus a baby is a misnomer. Babies are already born. Just because you want to considered it a baby doesn't make it so. Scientifically.
That is the real question that needs to be answered.
Congress could appoint a blue ribbon commission to have experts in mammalian reproduction testify as to just what a “fetus” is. Is it actually a functioning part of a woman’s body, like her organs, or is it a completely separate entity.
Of course, The abortion industry, a multi billion dollar enterprise, would fight this tooth and nail. Keeping women ignorant allows them to say ridiculous crap like…..”it’s just a clump of cells”.
I have always contended that before any abortion is decided on, the Abortionist should be required to show the woman a detailed ultrasound so she could see exactly what is in her womb.
The science is on the side of the unborn baby. Originally Posted by Jackie S
... According to the recent pollings - YES!
### Salty Originally Posted by Salty Again
Absolutely. The country is a joke with an incoherent moron purportedly in charge. Give me boorish tweets, $2 gas, fully staffed businesses and no thoughts of war with Russia back. Pretty please with sugar on top. Originally Posted by JacuzzmeMarket is up over 8k points!...and unemployment is down from when Trump handed over the baton. Well he didn't hand it over, he got kicked it the balls and had it jerked out of his little hands!
Showing a woman the ultra sound won't change her mind about the decision to continue living herself. If she wants to continue a high-risk pregnancy and sacrifice herself for the fetus, that is still her choice. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500That argument is bullshit. 99.999% of abortion is simply birth control, not to save the mother. Nobody but absolute crazies are pro carrying to term if it’s going to kill the mother, maybe a dozen people in the country take that stance.
Originally Posted by winn dixie