34 years ago today.............

[Little-Acorn]

34 years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in the case Roe v. Wade, announcing they had found a "right to privacy" protected by the Constitution even though that document never mentioned it.

This decision set the bar for all subsequent nominees for the Federal courts by Presidents of either party: The Democrats to make sure that all nominees would be willing to twist and distort the Constitution's meaning at least as much as the Court did on Jan. 22, 1973, thus clearing the way for favorable judgements on their unconstitutional agenda; and the Republicans to make sure they wouldn't, but would obey and uphold the Consitution as written instead.

[avatar4321]

34 years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in the case Roe v. Wade, announcing they had found a "right to privacy" protected by the Constitution even though that document never mentioned it.

This decision set the bar for all subsequent nominees for the Federal courts by Presidents of either party: The Democrats to make sure that all nominees would be willing to twist and distort the Constitution's meaning at least as much as the Court did on Jan. 22, 1973, thus clearing the way for favorable judgements on their unconstitutional agenda; and the Republicans to make sure they wouldn't, but would obey and uphold the Consitution as written instead.

to be fair, the right to privacy was found in Griswold v. Connecticut, a few years before Roe v. Wade.

[Little-Acorn]

to be fair, the right to privacy was found in Griswold v. Connecticut, a few years before Roe v. Wade.

Yup. The leftists couldn't twist the Constitution as far as they did, all in one court case. They had to lay the groundwork over several cases. But they got the job done, eventually.

But, notice that none of the judicial nominees from Democrat Presidents, ever have to say they agree with the Griswold decision. They are quizzed exclusively on Roe v. Wade. And if they dare to question it, their nomination is toast, instantly.

[manu1959]

what i would like to know is this.....

if you kill a pregant woman or yuo punches her stomache to kill the child.....you are charged with murder.....

but if she or a doctor does it they are not......so in one case the child is a human with rights and in the other case not so much....

[typomaniac]

what i would like to know is this.....

if you kill a pregant woman or yuo punches her stomache to kill the child.....you are charged with murder.....

but if she or a doctor does it they are not......so in one case the child is a human with rights and in the other case not so much....

There's still such a thing as justifiable homicide.

[manu1959]

There's still such a thing as justifiable homicide.

ok i will bite.....go for it.....spin this one...

[Little-Acorn]

There's still such a thing as justifiable homicide.

Right. If the baby in the womb attacks you and you fear for your life, you are justified in killing it.

Clearly the leftists are trying to out-do even the twists and distortion they put on the Constitution, when they come up with statements like this. And I think typoman has actually achieved it. :lol:

[typomaniac]

Right. If the baby in the womb attacks you and you fear for your life, you are justified in killing it.What if carrying to term poses a major health risk, Einstein? :poke:

[Kathianne]

What if carrying to term poses a major health risk, Einstein? :poke:

Prior to 1973, most states if not all, had the exception of 'serious health of the mother' as an exception.

[typomaniac]

Prior to 1973, most states if not all, had the exception of 'serious health of the mother' as an exception.

Thanks for proving my point.

[manu1959]

What if carrying to term poses a major health risk, Einstein? :poke:

my wife did it....she survived.....twice...

[typomaniac]

my wife did it....she survived.....twice...

She must have been extremely disappointed.

[avatar4321]

Yup. The leftists couldn't twist the Constitution as far as they did, all in one court case. They had to lay the groundwork over several cases. But they got the job done, eventually.

But, notice that none of the judicial nominees from Democrat Presidents, ever have to say they agree with the Griswold decision. They are quizzed exclusively on Roe v. Wade. And if they dare to question it, their nomination is toast, instantly.

honestly, once i read Griswold, i had to agree with one of the dissent opinions. The law was stupid, but its not unconstitutional. its a job for the legislature to overturn.

And i think it will be overturned someday.

[manu1959]

She must have been extremely disappointed.

why is that.....

[typomaniac]

why is that.....

No idea. You said something free of relevance, so I thought I'd do the same. :dunno:

[manu1959]

No idea. You said something free of relevance, so I thought I'd do the same. :dunno:

skate save.....

[SpidermanTUba]

34 years ago today, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down the decision in the case Roe v. Wade, announcing they had found a "right to privacy" protected by the Constitution even though that document never mentioned it.



The Constitution doesn't explicitly mention a lot of the rights that it protects. That's the whole point of the 9th amendment.

[Abbey Marie]

One can argue persuasively that rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution exist. This is particualrly true of those fundamental rights that are impacted by technological advancements unimagined at the time of its drafting.

However, a group intensely contemplating such fundamental concepts such as personal liberty and protections from "state" actions, would have been quite capable of mentioning a right to privacy if it was at all on their minds. There is nothing new or unusal about it. Even cave men must have understood some form of the concept of privacy. And abortion in one form or another has been around since there was pregnancy. Yet, no mention was made of either by the drafters.

Anyone who reads Roe with any talent for case analysis, can easily see this was a result backed-into by a majority that wanted to find in favor of abortion rights.

[SpidermanTUba]

However, a group intensely contemplating such fundamental concepts such as personal liberty and protections from "state" actions, would have been quite capable of mentioning a right to privacy if it was at all on their minds.

The point of the 9th amendment is that they could not possibly explicitly write down every single right that was at all on their minds, at least not in any space less than several hundred pages. The right to bear and raise children is also not mentioned in the Constitution. Any law passed limiting the number of children a couple could have, or requiring that any children born over a certain number be turned over to the state's custody, would no doubt be struck down as unconstitutional and I doubt you would have a problem with it.


The right to privacy is an obvious fundamental right, just like the right to bear and raise children. That's why they didn't mention it explicitly, they assumed that the readers concept of liberty would naturally include the right to privacy. The Bill of Rights is intended to outline those fundamental rights that the founders thought might not be so obvious. The 1st Amendment is the only one which states some obvious rights, and even then, the 1st amendment is clearly motivated by the experiences of the colonists and their ancestors with religious oppression in England. Had the Founders and their ancestors come from Communist China, they might have written the right to bear children into the 1st amendment.


Are you stating that the Founders believed in personal liberty, but they didn't believe a right to privacy should be part of liberty? Is that your stance, as well? Because it doesn't make sense. If the 4th amendment isn't motivated by a fundamental right to privacy, what is it motivated by? Are you suggesting the Founders opposed the right to privacy? How could they right the 4th amendment if they are opposed to privacy?

[typomaniac]

However, a group intensely contemplating such fundamental concepts such as personal liberty and protections from "state" actions, would have been quite capable of mentioning a right to privacy if it was at all on their minds. There is nothing new or unusal about it. Even cave men must have understood some form of the concept of privacy. And abortion in one form or another has been around since there was pregnancy. Yet, no mention was made of either by the drafters.That's because nobody started to write about it in a legal context before Louis Brandeis. This certainly does not mean that privacy isn't a "real" right.

[Abbey Marie]

You are making lots of assumptions that conveniently fit your pro-abortion pov; just like the majority in Roe did. But these assumptions prove nothing about the framers' intent.

And we have both already agreed that the framers could not have written down every possible thought. Yet you have no evidence or explanation why the framers did not mention what you claim is such a fundamental right. To just fall back on the argument that they didn't have to mention everything, is pretty weak when you are using it to defend the taking of a human life. We aren't talking car insurance here. And as I said, pregnancy, privacy and abortion were undoubetdly all well known to the framers, yet never mentioned.

Finally, a right to privacy, even if you magically find it in the Constitution (and you won't) does not translate directly to the right to kill an unborn child. That is a stretch of the Constitution that no one with a background in Con law can honestly claim.Btw, while we are at it, can you explain exactly how carrying a child to term is a violation of someone's privacy?

[theHawk]

I don't know why liberals defend Roe v Wade so vigorously. If and when it is overturned, nothing is going to change. Abortion will just become a states issue again, and the red states will pass laws making it tougher, blue states will pass laws allowing abortion on demand. But at least the people will have a say in the matter! I think thats what libs fear the most...

[typomaniac]

Finally, a right to privacy, even if you magically find it in the Constitution (and you won't) does not translate directly to the right to kill an unborn child. That is a stretch of the Constitution that no one with a background in Con law can honestly claim.Btw, while we are at it, can you explain exactly how carrying a child to term is a violation of someone's privacy?Sounds like you think you know better than the concurring Justices in Roe: do you have comparable legal qualifications? :rolleyes:

[Classact]

What if carrying to term poses a major health risk, Einstein? :poke:In the early 1900's and before the decision was up to the husband if the baby or the wife were to live if it were a choice. Well that is according to what my dad told me, he explained that most people lived on a farm and without modern equipment the need for sons to do farm work may be more concern than having a wife if the family already had 10 or 12 kids since one of the girls could clean house and cook. He explained that to me in the 1950's after I watched a western where it was shown... a doctor talking with the husband and the choice...

[Abbey Marie]

Sounds like you think you know better than the concurring Justices in Roe: do you have comparable legal qualifications? :rolleyes:

Umm, let's see... Three years of law school including an in-depth study of Roe in Con Law, and two state bar exams passed with flying colors. Oh, and the integrity to interpret the Constitution logically without applying a political agenda. What do you have? :rolleyes:

[Little-Acorn]

The Constitution doesn't explicitly mention a lot of the rights that it protects.
Sorry, not so. The Constitution indeed does not mention many of the rights Americans have. But in not mentioning them, the Constitution therefore DOES NOT protect them.

That doesn't mean we don't have those rights. It just means that, when you go to court to defend them, citing the Constitution won't get you anywhere. You must cite other things to protect the rights the Const doesn't mention... but that you definitely still have.


That's the whole point of the 9th amendment.

Sorry again, but that's not the point of it.

The 9th was included in the Constitution as a comparison to the 10th amendment, which was written at the same time. The 9th deals with the rights of the people, and the 10th deals with the powers of government.

When the Constitution was first written, it had no amendments, of course - the Bill of Rights didn't get ratified until years later. It didn't mention freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, right to keep and bear arms, etc., anywhere in the original Constitution.

And that was fine with many of the original Framers. Not because they didn't want people to have those rights, but because they had written the Constitution to create the Federal government it describes... and give the Fed govt its powers. If a power wasn't mentioned in the Constitution that created the govt, that meant the govt didn't have that power, period.

And some powers not mentioned, were the power to curtail speech, impose or deny religion, restrict arms, etc. So since those powers weren't included in the written list that the Const gave to the Fed govt, the Fed was FORBIDDEN to exercise them, though the states and local govts still could. It was called "the doctrine of enumerated powers", and is as valid today as it was in 1789.

But some people didn't trust the govt to respect that doctrine (how right they have proven to be!), and demanded that a list of things be added that explicitly forbade the govt from doing them. It became the Bill of Rights, which mostly described the most important rights, that the govt was forbidden to take away or restrict.

It also had a provision casting the "doctrine of enumerated powers" in stone, as it were. The 10th amendment says that any power not explicitly listed in the Constitution or its amendments, was forbidden to the Fed govt, though the states and lower bodies could still have it if they wanted. (The 10th is now one of the most violated parts of the Constitution).

With that, people became worried that slick lawyers might twist that doctrine to apply to the rights of the people, too - claiming that if a certain right wasn't explicitly listed in the Constitution, then the people didn't have that right. Pure hogwash, but it's been tried many times. So the Framers wrote the 9th amendment, to specifically point out that the rights listed in the Constitution and its amendments, WERE NOT the only rights the people had. The people had more rights than just those listed, and any attempt to pretend otherwise, was unconstitutional.

Basically the 10th and 9th say that the power of govt is limited to the ones listed, but the rights of the people are NOT limited to those listed.

I have the right to ride horses in appropriate places, though that right is not listed in the Constitution. But I do not necessarily have the right to paint my house a garish, horrible color and let my lawn grow into huge weeds in an otherwise pristine neighborhood - another right similarly not listed in the Constitution.

The 9th wasn't meant to specifically protect ANY right that wasn't mentioned. If it was, it would have to equally protect every right imaginable, including obviously silly and inappropriate "rights". The 9th was merely meant to prevent government from FORBIDDING all rights that weren't spelled out.

And the "right to privacy" is, at best, one of the rights not protected by the Constitution, though it is not necessarily forbidden anywhere. The Supreme Court fell flat on its collective face when it claimed that the right WAS protected by the Constitution. For obvious reasons, they carefully avoided pointing out which part of the Constitution protected it... because there is none.

[manu1959]

Umm, let's see... Three years of law school including an in-depth study of Roe in Con Law, and two state bar exams passed with flying colors. Oh, and the integrity to interpret the Constitution logically without applying a political agenda. What do you have? :rolleyes:

:laugh2: face

[typomaniac]

Umm, let's see... Three years of law school including an in-depth study of Roe in Con Law, and two state bar exams passed with flying colors. Oh, and the integrity to interpret the Constitution logically without applying a political agenda. What do you have? :rolleyes:

Except for the integrity implication, I stand corrected. :bow3:

[Hagbard Celine]

I guess if you pro-lifers are willing to raise them yourselves you can be justified in telling someone else what to do with their progeny and their lives. Until then I guess you're all just a bunch of assh*le control freaks and the law isn't on your side (shrug)

[Abbey Marie]

I guess if you pro-lifers are willing to raise them yourselves you can be justified in telling someone else what to do with their progeny and their lives. Until then I guess you're all just a bunch of assh*le control freaks and the law isn't on your side (shrug)

It's always so nice to get a visit from Mr. Sunshine.