Alito confirmed!

[Winston]

You do that, Ozzy.

Though I would've preferred if Reagan had said it. I'm sure he meant to.

[OzzyKP]

"Abortion is like Communism; the only ones in favour are those who haven't been subjected to it themselves."

- Winston quoting what Reagan meant to say

[Winston]

I think he will go down in history like Abraham Lincoln, in terms of all the well-meaning quotes being attributed to him.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Ronald Reagan

I think he will go down in history like Abraham Lincoln, in terms of all the well-meaning quotes being attributed to him.

-Ronald Reagan on Barry Goldwater

[Winston]

I see great promise in this.

"Listen, do you think you could find a nice girlfriend for Winston? I heard it can get very lonely thinking of new quotes all the time. But she must have great legs, that's absolutely crucial."

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin


That is among one of the stupidiest arguments I've ever heard. I notice that the Constitution contains nothing about judicial review, or privacy, or a million other things which the political right likes to talk about such as the so called "right to marry". Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not because the Constitution isn't about what people can do (though later on the congress felt some personal rights were so important they needed extra protection in the form of the first ten amendments) and instead it is about what the government can and can't do. The Constitution was created to spell out the limited rights or powers given to the federal government. And it was clearly understood that the government had no powers that weren't authorized in the Constitution.

The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

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.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.

(Notice also that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that government may violate the Bill of Rights if the target of its wrath is a non-citizen. Government isn't authorized to jail non-citizens indefinitely or deny them due process of law. There's a good reason for that, but that's another subject.)

You are almost right here. The Federal government does not have the right to " tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution."

The State Governments have the right to do so should the people of the State empower them to. This is the power of State's Rights that the Federalist have been trying to limit for 150 years. These powers were specifically reserved to the States by their omission from the constitution.

There are only two ways that the Federal Government should get involved in the abortion issue. 1.) To Constitutionally establish a right to privacy by amendment and then to pass laws regulating abortion as a right granted by that establishment, or 2.) Legislate or have judicial ruling declare that life begins at conception and pass laws protecting it under the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" section. (The reverse of this does not work because if it is not a right to life issue than the right of regulation of it is reserved to the States).

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So the government has no right to issue marriage licenses?

The Federal government has no such right. The State Governments, however, do. They tend to delegate this authority even lower to the County or Parish Government.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Legislate or have judicial ruling declare that life begins at conception and pass laws protecting it under the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" section.

Where exactly do you find this section in the US Constitution?

Oh, and of course the federal government has power to intervene in the health care system (through ERISA and other laws) through the commerce clause.

[Ramo]

You are almost right here. The Federal government does not have the right to " tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution."

The 14th Amendment extended due process protections, and the Bill of Rights, to state governments. The "penumbras" of the first eight Amendments, combined with the assertion of unenumerated rights form a more general right to privacy. As Harlan said in his Poe dissent:

[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So let me get this straight, you favour states rights when it applies to blue states, and are against states rights when it applies to red states?

Quite the opposite. Given how disproportionately Red State values are represented at the national level, I'm a bigger fan of federalism than ever. I favor Massachusetts and Mississipi being able to do what they want on a range of issues, from gay marriage to abortion.

What I'm against is being compelled to compensate for the failures of the Red States. If Mississippi wants low taxes and no state social services, so be it; I don't have to live there. But when the federal welfare rolls then swell with Red-Staters, and when the Dept. of Education has to pump money into a school system the state won't adequately fund, and the money to keep it all afloat comes disproportionately from Blue States, then, yeah, I have a problem.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ramo


The 14th Amendment extended due process protections, and the Bill of Rights, to state governments. The "penumbras" of the first eight Amendments, combined with the assertion of unenumerated rights form a more general right to privacy. As Harlan said in his Poe dissent:

Herein lies the basis of the debate.

While current court rulings agree with your position, there is much dissent even among the judiciary as to weather or not an implied right is a valid concept.

Strict constructionism has been making a comeback for 20 years after being out of favour for decades. This is what makes Presidential appointments so important.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Quite the opposite. Given how disproportionately Red State values are represented at the national level, I'm a bigger fan of federalism than ever. I favor Massachusetts and Mississipi being able to do what they want on a range of issues, from gay marriage to abortion.

What I'm against is being compelled to compensate for the failures of the Red States. If Mississippi wants low taxes and no state social services, so be it; I don't have to live there. But when the federal welfare rolls then swell with Red-Staters, and when the Dept. of Education has to pump money into a school system the state won't adequately fund, and the money to keep it all afloat comes disproportionately from Blue States, then, yeah, I have a problem.

I so very much agree overall. However, I disagree that the federal government has the responsibility or even right to redistribute income in the manner that it does. In other words, don't prop up Mississippi schools with federal dollars. When Mississippi desires a higher standard of life then the people of the State should have the responsibility of taking action. If the people don't desire a higher standard of life, then why should a federal system impose one on them?

[Odin]

Originally posted by PLATO

Strict constructionism has been making a comeback for 20 years after being out of favour for decades. This is what makes Presidential appointments so important.

"Strict constructionism" the way Republicans use the term isn't really strict contructionism; it is right-wing code for judicial activism they like.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Odin


"Strict constructionism" the way Republicans use the term isn't really strict contructionism; it is right-wing code for judicial activism they like.

Interesting. I am a Republican and have never interpreted it that way.

Nice job of stereotyping though!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So let me get this straight, you favour states rights when it applies to blue states, and are against states rights when it applies to red states?

That's because in blue states, they use states rights to increase your freedom, while in red states they use it to decrease your freedom. I am not consistent in my support of states rights. I am consistent in my not wanting the overnment telling me how to live my life.