Reply to S/O - A Civics Lesson

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "S/O - A Civics Lesson"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"It's called democracy and more local rule under democracy."

I don't think some things should be held up to a majority vote, such as a woman's right to [b]bodily integrity and a person's human right to marry.

You're right that the last word of the fed may not be the desired outcome, but in most cases, it turns out that the fed overreaches by RESTRICTING rights, such as with slavery, segregation, and DOMA, and eventually such laws are actually found UNconstitutional.

And this usually happens by RE-interpreting the constitution, because of how Constitutional skepticism has been jettisoned.[/quote]

What about the unborn child's right to bodily integrity?  [b]No one's proposing outlawing abortion, so why is this even an issue[/b].

[b]Technically, our constitution was written to restrict or constrain the federal government's authority.[/b]  Abortion is legal and marriage is a state issue, so what's your beef?[/quote]

Yes, plenty of people are proposing it, and so it is an issue. Many of the proposals include getting a judge or two in there that might swing towards overturning Roe v Wade. I am not getting into an abortion debate with you, because that would be pointless. But the fact remains that it is not fair to punt it to the states and allow some women to have rights and others not to.

[b]As far as marriage being a state issue. Fine. Consider it from this angle. What if a state decided to outlaw all marriage, straight included. Marriage is too much a burden on insurance companies and employees, etc. You would honestly say, "Oh well, that's a state issue. The majority feel no one should get married, so that's it for the wedding industry in Michigan. State's rights."[/b]

I have a hard time believing you would actually go for that.

As for the second bolded part of your quote--and the BIll of Rights was added to ensure everybody's freedom. Nowhere in the constitution is there an out clause restricting rights to the individual (at least those that do not impinge on other's rights).
[/quote]

Perfect demonstration of federalism of convenience.  You just chose to take power away from the states, not because of what is contained in the constitution but because you think that a farfetched hypothetical outcome is distasteful to you.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics