More independents agree with supreme court decision than disagree!

[Jarod]

I disagree. the USSC gave themselves that power, but it was not something assigned to the USSC. This is something i'm not able to reconcile. It seems that Conservatives and Liberals demand 'limits', or that no right is absolute, but leave it up to that very government that they intended to limit, to define the limits of their own rights. it's a self destructive paradox.

Nothing in Government, nor in the world is absolute, I learned that a long time ago.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The 16th Amendment.

We seemed to have lost everything with this amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.I don't see anything in the 16th Amendment with regards to taxes derived from non purchases.

 

[Jarod]

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

—Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nothing in Government, nor in the world is absolute, I learned that a long time ago.

so then there is no absolute right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? even though it's expressly written in to one of our founding documents? no absolute right to an abortion? no absolute right to property? no absolute right to have children?

is there no fine line of what government can and cannot do?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts [...] and writs of mandamus [...] to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.

—Judiciary Act of 1789, § 13

this tells me that the founders wanted uniformity of rights and laws, correct?

 

[Jarod]

so then there is no absolute right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness? even though it's expressly written in to one of our founding documents? no absolute right to an abortion? no absolute right to property? no absolute right to have children?

is there no fine line of what government can and cannot do?

No, its not absolute, your right to the persuit of happyness ends when it makes you happy to kill someone. Your right to life ends when you are put to death by the State. Your right to liberty ends, when you are put in jail.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, its not absolute, your right to the persuit of happyness ends when it makes you happy to kill someone. Your right to life ends when you are put to death by the State. Your right to liberty ends, when you are put in jail.

I agree that my rights end when it harms someone else, but those aren't statutory or judicial limits. those are natural limits that the founders accepted and understood and as long as you were not harming another, your rights above were unlimited. or do you disagree?

 

[apple0154]

was the constitution written to RESTRICT federal power or EXPAND it? that's a very simple question.

I'll go along with restrict, however, we have to remember the original purpose and that was to offer the citizens a better way of life. The statement, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" came along before the Constitution. Is not that statement a hint to why the country was formed?

please enlighten us as to the intentions of the founding fathers.

The Preamble. "courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of the Founding Fathers' intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning." Establish a more perfect union, promote the general welfare, secure the blessings of liberty.

When that's added to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can anyone say medical attention does not fit in that category? Whether or not hospitals are obliged to help people in life and death situations the postponing of treatment up to that point does, in many cases, shorten ones life. By the time a disease has progressed to the point where immediate medical attention is required significant damage has already occurred.

As I've previously mentioned there are medications that, today, cost 50 cents per daily dose to control high blood pressure adding decades to ones life. Is it rational to believe had the Founding Fathers been aware of such things they would have condoned just letting those die who couldn't afford it? Such a view makes a mockery of those grand words.

 

[Jarod]

I agree that my rights end when it harms someone else, but those aren't statutory or judicial limits. those are natural limits that the founders accepted and understood and as long as you were not harming another, your rights above were unlimited. or do you disagree?

For the most part I agree, but there is a grey area where your right to own nuclear arms for example outweighs my right to feel safe in my home.