| Author |
Message |
    
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 02:09 am: | 
|
yes, lets get congress to do something productive, that will not impact any further legislation. Focus on the issues at hand.
They need to stop this epidemic
 |
Arbalest
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 12:06 pm: |
|
For all you Right Wing guys out there. Remember, Roe v. Wade is NOT about abortion. It only says that abortion is between the mother and her doctor, and is protected by the right of privacy. If you repeal Roe v. Wade, you make the precedent that the right to privacy does not exist. And you're worried about Big Brother, now. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Sunday, August 15, 2010 - 02:48 pm: |
|
No, there is no specific "right to privacy" ANYWHERE in the Constitution. The concept of "right to privacy" was read into the 9th Amendment.
The Supreme Court over reached in the creation of "right to privacy" just as it has in the constructed concept of "separation of church and state". Neither of these concepts exist within the Constitution.
A strict constructionist Federal government has no need for either of these concepts because any Federal law passed that is not specifically addressed in Article 1, Section 8 is automatically unconstitutional. These two manufactured concepts are constructs on top of constructs.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court violated both Article 1, Section 8 and the 10th Amendment. In the case of abortion, state law prior to that decision was dominant in the case of abortion regulation. R. v. W was yet another judicial over reach.
The only rights that exist are that a woman has the right to keep her legs closed and a woman (and man) has the right to deal with the consequences of her (and his) free will choices.
A woman had the right to determine what she could and couldn't do with her body 9 months before the baby is born. Abortion, as it is applied today, is merely birth control after the fact. |
Arbalest
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 09:54 am: |
|
Ft bstrd,
The courts today operate (due to RvW) as if there is a right to privacy. I just say again, if you think Big Brother is watching now, just wait til the Supreme Court specifically repeals the (as you say mistaken) right to privacy. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 10:10 am: |
|
Reread my post. Revocation of the concept of "right to privacy" is irrelevant in a strict constructionist Federal Government.
The Federal Government COULDN'T invade your privacy because invasion of privacy isn't provided for under Article 1, Section 8. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 11:11 am: |
|
Right to Privacy?....
Have you READ HR3200? It is administered by the IRS, tracked by your social security number, and a proposed national health card. Will allow for the seizure of property, forfeiture of assets, and the garnishment of wages for failure to pay.
And for businesses, the 'nationalization' of production and licensing for failure to comply.
Luckily you have two years to move your shiate off shore and overseas. Best get to it.
Oh, and HIPAA (another liberal force fed health care agenda behemouth and legislature was all about patient privacy and security.... in the past 15 years identity theft has become the number one white collar crime.... yeah that was affective) |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 - 01:56 pm: |
|
Zactly Slick!!!!!!
The framers intended for issues to be dealt with locally by state and local government until the issue became so large that the residents of 3/4 of all the states were willing to cede local power and local decisions to the Federal Government.
If a particular state got out of whack, you could leave the state. When the Federal Government gets out of whack, you have to leave the country or fight to bring the government under control.
We are at that point. |
|
