Texas Republicans Ignore Constitution

[Into the Night]

Calling everything a fallacy is not an argument. You never present any facts or anything to support your argument. Just cliches.

Denial of logic. Lie. I am not calling everything a fallacy. Just fallacies in arguments I note, such as yours.
Since you don't consider the Constitution of the United States or the Texas State Constitution facts, that's YOUR problem.

[Old Trapper]

It didn't change the Constitution. The 9th, 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th amendments are parts of the document.

Do you not believe one of the rights retained by the people in the 9th amendment includes a right to privacy? I'm surprised you would accept such a coercive government that it could invade our privacy.

The Court did create a "right to privacy" that does not exist in the Constitution in the Griswold ruling. But, in answering your question, the Court also implied that if science ever determined that life begins at conception, not birth, or at "quickening", then the ruling of Roe would be invalid. Science has long proven that life, growth of cells, begins at conception. So, since it has been proven that life has occurred, what is the exception to be now for killing that unborn life? Then too, where is the "right to privacy" found in any of the Amendments you cite?

[Flash]

The Court did create a "right to privacy" that does not exist in the Constitution in the Griswold ruling. But, in answering your question, the Court also implied that if science ever determined that life begins at conception, not birth, or at "quickening", then the ruling of Roe would be invalid. Science has long proven that life, growth of cells, begins at conception. So, since it has been proven that life has occurred, what is the exception to be now for killing that unborn life? Then too, where is the "right to privacy" found in any of the Amendments you cite?

I haven't read Roe in many years but I don't remember the implication about science determining when life begins. Roe had nothing to do about when life begins but when the fetus becomes viable. Even if Roe did say that it does not bind any future court decision, so, it is irrelevant. State law still excludes abortion from definition of murder laws.

I realize the right to privacy does not appear in the Constitution, but do you believe the "other rights" retained by the people in the 9th Amendment applies to any rights? Or, is it just a statement of principle?

There are many things that are not in the Constitution that we accept as legitimate government powers: immigration, executive orders, congressional delegation of authority to the president, federal funding to state-local governments..............

[Old Trapper]

I haven't read Roe in many years but I don't remember the implication about science determining when life begins. Roe had nothing to do about when life begins but when the fetus becomes viable. Even if Roe did say that it does not bind any future court decision, so, it is irrelevant. State law still excludes abortion from definition of murder laws.

I realize the right to privacy does not appear in the Constitution, but do you believe the "other rights" retained by the people in the 9th Amendment applies to any rights? Or, is it just a statement of principle?

There are many things that are not in the Constitution that we accept as legitimate government powers: immigration, executive orders, congressional delegation of authority to the president, federal funding to state-local governments..............

Each time I get into a discussion about abortion I am amazed at how people will ignore basic science to support the killing of the unborn. I am willing to admit that there are cases where such an action is justified though not many. In fact it has been estimated that 90+% of abortions are done simply based on the convenience of the woman, and IMO that is a poor excuse. Unless the woman is bat shit stupid she knows that having sex could end in a pregnancy. And only one with no sense of responsibility would abort the child simply because of the stupidity of the woman.

So, to address the end part of your comment first, Article 1, Section 8, clause 4, and Article 1, Section 9, give the Federal government authority over immigration. Article 2 addresses Executive Orders, and so forth. Most of the powers of government are mentioned in the Constitution as are the limitations. Article 9 is self limiting in that it mentions no specific rights. In the Texas matter the people were not asked what they desired. The State government took it upon themselves to deprive the people of a certain right, and then made it impossible for those who disagreed with them to challenge that "law". Numerous rulings of the Court have declared such laws to be invalid, and unenforceable ( Norton v Shelby County; Marbury v Madison; Miranda v Arizona, to name a few) Even the "right to privacy" is mentioned in the abstract in the Amendments you present. Medical privacy has long been recognized by our Courts. Abortion though is not a private affair.

As to Roe itself:

"Roe v. Wade 1973
Opinion of the Court written by Supreme Court Justice Blackmun
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."[p160] . . .

"There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth."[n56] . . .

"Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid.[n59] Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.[n60] The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway through out the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic Dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from [p161] the moment of conception.[n61] The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs."[n62] . "

Blackmun set the Court up as if they were scientists, not as judicial referees.

[Flash]

Each time I get into a discussion about abortion I am amazed at how people will ignore basic science to support the killing of the unborn. I am willing to admit that there are cases where such an action is justified though not many. In fact it has been estimated that 90+% of abortions are done simply based on the convenience of the woman, and IMO that is a poor excuse. Unless the woman is bat shit stupid she knows that having sex could end in a pregnancy. And only one with no sense of responsibility would abort the child simply because of the stupidity of the woman.

I ignored no science nor did I make any statement supporting or opposing abortion. My point was that when life begins had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade which was based on viability. You are reading value judgments into simple facts.

So, to address the end part of your comment first, Article 1, Section 8, clause 4, and Article 1, Section 9, give the Federal government authority over immigration. Article 2 addresses Executive Orders, and so forth. Most of the powers of government are mentioned in the Constitution as are the limitations.

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 deals with naturalization giving Congress the power to define and establish citizenship. Those laws were passed in the 1700s and do not deal with immigration which is a separate issue. The courts have not based congressional power to regulate immigration on the naturalization clause.

Article I Section 9 deals with Congress prohibiting the importation of slaves into the states and not immigration. I don't see anything in Article II authorizing executive orders unless it is seeing that the laws are faithfully executed but we both know executive orders go far beyond that provision.

Article 9 is self limiting in that it mentions no specific rights.

True, but we could argue that if the Constitution is broadly interpreted and allows naturalization to include immigration and executive orders it is also true that if there are any rights retained by the people not listed in amendments 1-8 the right to privacy is certainly an important one.

Otherwise, you are arguing people have no right to privacy and the amendments about quartering of troops, search and seizure, freedom of association, and self-incrimination seem designed to protect that privacy.

But, what rights other than privacy can the 9th amendment claim? It is rather vague, but so are terms like liberty.

In the Texas matter the people were not asked what they desired. The State government took it upon themselves to deprive the people of a certain right, and then made it impossible for those who disagreed with them to challenge that "law".

That is basically true of all legislation--the government passes it without asking the people first. Texas could argue the election of Republican anti-abortion officials expressed the people's views.

I don't think the law will stand. The Supreme Court did not rule on its constitutionality but because it sued state officials who have no role in enforcing the law.

Roe v. Wade is a political decision about the government's power. If God appeared and said "life begins at conception" that does not prevent government from allowing abortion at whatever date it chooses.

I don't understand your connections with cases like Marbury or Miranda.

[Old Trapper]

I ignored no science nor did I make any statement supporting or opposing abortion. My point was that when life begins had nothing to do with Roe v. Wade which was based on viability. You are reading value judgments into simple facts.

Point was it had all to do with the right to abort a child. As Blackmun stated the argument as to when life begins was not on their venue. And people with your disregard for science are just as pitiful as the right winger who is ignoring the science of vaccinations, and pandemics. Both of you are urging the killing of a child, just at different times in the spectrum of life. And in doing so you have to crawl into the weeds rather then have an honest discussion.

And BTW, when the Constitution speaks of the "...importation of such persons....." that is immigration.

[Flash]

Point was it had all to do with the right to abort a child. As Blackmun stated the argument as to when life begins was not on their venue. And people with your disregard for science are just as pitiful as the right winger who is ignoring the science of vaccinations, and pandemics. Both of you are urging the killing of a child, just at different times in the spectrum of life. And in doing so you have to crawl into the weeds rather then have an honest discussion.

And BTW, when the Constitution speaks of the "...importation of such persons....." that is immigration.

Again, you are making assumptions about things I never said. What science did I ignore? I expressed no support (or opposition) to abortion nor did I urge the killing of any children. I simply described the Roe decision.

I don't think forcefully bringing in slaves against their will could classify them as "immigrants." Anyway, that provision allowed Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves after twenty years. The federal courts never used that provision or the naturalization provision as the basis for the regulation of immigration.

[Nordberg]

Shut up you stupid tranny. Roe was completely made up by the court. The 10th amendment says abortion is a state matter.

The 10th does not say that. It never mentions abortion.

[Old Trapper]

Again, you are making assumptions about things I never said. What science did I ignore? I expressed no support (or opposition) to abortion nor did I urge the killing of any children. I simply described the Roe decision.

I don't think forcefully bringing in slaves against their will could classify them as "immigrants." Anyway, that provision allowed Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves after twenty years. The federal courts never used that provision or the naturalization provision as the basis for the regulation of immigration.

That "provision" makes no mention of slaves, or slavery. Only Migrants as does Art. 1, Section 8. Slavery was made illegal in 1865.

As to Roe, you have expressed your view in support of Roe, and its fallacious interpretation of the Constitution. You have actually stated you based your rationale on "viability" ignoring the science about when life begins which Blackmun does address although in a separate account. Then too, using the position you seem to prefer then you should also support euthanasia. There is really nothing more cruel than to see a person unable to clean, feed, or even to care for any of their amenities, sitting in a chair all day just so the "home" can collect thousands a month for their care.

[Flash]

That "provision" makes no mention of slaves, or slavery. Only Migrants as does Art. 1, Section 8. Slavery was made illegal in 1865.

As to Roe, you have expressed your view in support of Roe, and its fallacious interpretation of the Constitution. You have actually stated you based your rationale on "viability" ignoring the science about when life begins which Blackmun does address although in a separate account. Then too, using the position you seem to prefer then you should also support euthanasia. There is really nothing more cruel than to see a person unable to clean, feed, or even to care for any of their amenities, sitting in a chair all day just so the "home" can collect thousands a month for their care.

You are not reading my posts carefully. I never said I based my rationale on viability--I said the Roe was based on viability. I never said I supported Roe, I just attempted to explain it to correct some misstatements. The truth is not necessarily support or opposition although many people infer that it is.

That provision does not mention slaves but everyone knew the meaning was to prevent Congress from passing a law banning the slave trade for 20 years. When the 20 years expired in 1808 Congress passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of slaves.

I don't think the term slavery was mentioned in the original document.

[Old Trapper]

You are not reading my posts carefully. I never said I based my rationale on viability--I said the Roe was based on viability. I never said I supported Roe, I just attempted to explain it to correct some misstatements. The truth is not necessarily support or opposition although many people infer that it is.

That provision does not mention slaves but everyone knew the meaning was to prevent Congress from passing a law banning the slave trade for 20 years. When the 20 years expired in 1808 Congress passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of slaves.

I don't think the term slavery was mentioned in the original document.

This is what I mean when I say "crawling in to the weeds": Everyone "knew", and yet it is not mentioned.

[Flash]

This is what I mean when I say "crawling in to the weeds": Everyone "knew", and yet it is not mentioned.

The men who wrote and approved the Constitution understood its meaning. The provision that 3/5 of the slaves would be counted for representation and taxation only referred to "three fifths of all other Persons<sup>."

The debate at the constitutional convention makes some of these issues clear. It is also discussed in the Federalist Papers.

"Is the importation of slaves permitted by the new Constitution for twenty years? By the old it is permitted forever."

A little research allows you to crawl out of the weeds.</sup>

[Hawkeye10]

Notice how today the almost dead Biden fronted Revolution ignored the Constitution.

"What are you going to do about it!".