Reply to “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.[/quote]
Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.[/quote]

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question.  And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.[/quote]

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded.  It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down.  Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up.  Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.[/quote]

That is insane.

WTAF?

[/quote]

It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[/quote].

Now read the 14th. [/quote]

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue. [/quote]

Ahem.  The states OR the people.  Read the entire 10th Amendment.  And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.[/quote]

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)[/quote]

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People.  Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".[/quote]

Listen I agree with you. It’s a big effing deal. But if/when SCOTUS interprets the constitution as having never given that right, what can be done short of a federal law getting passed that guarantees this right?[/quote]

Sure, but what makes you think the court wouldn’t invalidate or weaken that law? Haven’t we seen this story before with voting rights statutes and other civil rights statutes?

-DP[/quote]

I agree this court could do just that and women would screwed. I don’t think we will ever have enough votes to codify this via constitutional amendment. [/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