FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Roe v Wade was based on a retarded **** crazy idea that the constitution defended abortion.
You can read the Constitution yourself. It doesn't say **** about abortion.
It's kinda funny that in a country founded by protestants, there was some culture of accepting the interpretation of 'experts' (priests) interpreting a text in stupidly imaginative ways.
I am not a lawyer and do not need to be. I can read the constitution. And roe v Wade is retarded.. whether it is the right thing or not...I don't care where you land on that....it's a stupid legal argument..
My father actually was a lawyer. A very successful one. And he agreed. Legally Roe v Wade was stupid. But he would only whisper that to me cause he was always on board with the leftist agenda.
FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Roe v Wade was based on a retarded **** crazy idea that the constitution defended abortion.
You can read the Constitution yourself. It doesn't say **** about abortion.
It's kinda funny that in a country founded by protestants, there was some culture of accepting the interpretation of 'experts' (priests) interpreting a text in stupidly imaginative ways.
I am not a lawyer and do not need to be. I can read the constitution. And roe v Wade is retarded.. whether it is the right thing or not...I don't care where you land on that....it's a stupid legal argument..
My father actually was a lawyer. A very successful one. And he agreed. Legally Roe v Wade was stupid. But he would only whisper that to me cause he was always on board with the leftist agenda.
FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 3:26 pm » wrote: ↑ Roe v Wade was based on a retarded **** crazy idea that the constitution defended abortion.
You can read the Constitution yourself. It doesn't say **** about abortion.
It's kinda funny that in a country founded by protestants, there was some culture of accepting the interpretation of 'experts' (priests) interpreting a text in stupidly imaginative ways.
I am not a lawyer and do not need to be. I can read the constitution. And roe v Wade is retarded.. whether it is the right thing or not...I don't care where you land on that....it's a stupid legal argument..
My father actually was a lawyer. A very successful one. And he agreed. Legally Roe v Wade was stupid. But he would only whisper that to me cause he was always on board with the leftist agenda.
The fourth ammendment?Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑ I would argue that the Fourth Amendment is a pretty good hat-rack for an argument that a woman can punch herself in the stomach, take a tonic, cast a spell, jump off a stool, hire a jew - FIND A WAY to not be pregnant anymore.
FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:10 pm » wrote: ↑ The fourth ammendment?
Dude. Only if It's illegal to get pregnant lol
the fourth is about criminal due process dude. Like you can't search people without a search warrant. **** like that..Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑ The way I read the fourth, it also protects the right to get pregnant.
No, the fourth COMES UP in legal cases - but it is much bigger than that.FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:31 pm » wrote: ↑ the fourth is about criminal due process dude. Like you can't search people without a search warrant. **** like that..
As long as pregnancy is not a legal issue...abortion can't have anything to do with that..
No dude. 4th and 5th only apply to rights for people who are under suspicion of breaking the law.Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:34 pm » wrote: ↑ No, the fourth COMES UP in legal cases - but it is much bigger than that.
Let's take an illegal search, for example. They toss out the evidence, right? 4th mentdment violation. But it doesn't end there. The cops can lose their qualified immunity over that ****, and have their houses taken away. Becuse they violated RIGHTS.
There are no criminal rights in our Consttution. Just rights - period.
Based on your argument, the police are perfectly within their rights to search my house - PROVIDED I am not under suspicion.FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:37 pm » wrote: ↑ No dude. 4th and 5th only apply to rights for people who are under suspicion of breaking the law.
As long as pregnancy isn't illegal then none of this stuff applies.
You need to show me the word criminal in the 4th Amendment. It should be there, if your reading is correct.FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:31 pm » wrote: ↑ the fourth is about criminal due process dude. Like you can't search people without a search warrant. **** like that..
As long as pregnancy is not a legal issue...abortion can't have anything to do with that..
If and only of being pregnant were illegal the sure I could see how the fourth is relevant..
Only if..
Negative. The 4th explicitly states that they need to obtain a warrant from some judge. And that is up to the judge.Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:40 pm » wrote: ↑ Based on your argument, the police are perfectly within their rights to search my house - PROVIDED I am not under suspicion.
You have an EXTREMELY ill-founded and incorrect view. I can be utterly unsuspected of anything - does not destroy my fourth and fifth amendment rights. They remain intact, even if I am not under suspicion.
Oh.FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:44 pm » wrote: ↑ Negative. The 4th explicitly states that they need to obtain a warrant from some judge. And that is up to the judge.
Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:43 pm » wrote: ↑ You need to show me the word criminal in the 4th Amendment. It should be there, if your reading is correct.
I say the state can mind its business and not mine - ALWAYS. You say it can mind my business if it doesn't suspect me of a crime: I ONLY have 4th and 5th Amendment rights for criminal purposes. Since when do MY rights hang on what some cop or prosecutor believes?
It has like 4 different sections. I forget what they all say verbatim.... None of them have any relevance to abortion.Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:45 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh.
Is that all it says?
I thought it said some other stuff. You sure?
Oh, those guys.
I'm not either. I'm saying you need to read the 4th mendment again, because you are incorrect that I have no privacy rights except as a criminal defendant.
The 4th refers to law enforcement. Not to the defendant.Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑ Oh, those guys.
Wait. Which ones?
I'm not either. I'm saying you need to read the 4th mendment again, because you are incorrect that I have no privacy rights except as a criminal defendant.
There is NO protected :"right" to murder a baby in the mother's womb to be found in the Constitution.Cannonpointer » 25 Jun 2022, 4:27 pm » wrote: ↑ The way I read the fourth, it also protects the right to get pregnant.
The right of the people to be secure in their PERSONS, papers, houses and effects shall not be infringed. I'd say abortion cn be inferred in tht, without too much of a pretzling.FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:47 pm » wrote: ↑ It has like 4 different sections. I forget what they all say verbatim.... None of them have any relevance to abortion.
No, they are specific to limiting the state.FOS » 25 Jun 2022, 4:47 pm » wrote: ↑ They are not about giving rights to everyone...they are about restricting law enforcement.. they are specific to crime.