Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Dobbs was a fiat ruling, not based in the constitution
Dobbs was a fiat ruling, not based in the constitution
By Prospero
5 Jun 2023 5:37 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
5 Jun 2023 5:37 pm
Lawrence Tribe, a constitutional scholar, gives the precise reason why current crop of Federalist Society approved conservative justices are incompetent.
Well, he doesn't call them that, but I do.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/09/ ... -religion/
Well, he doesn't call them that, but I do.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/09/ ... -religion/
The only thing the Court says about it in Dobbs is that “the abortion right” is not itself “founded…in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” But that is a wholly irrelevant observation and confuses the category of “rights” with the category of rules about how to read a text dealing with rights. Nobody has ever seriously claimed that the “abortion right,” or indeed any substantive right, could possibly be “founded” in a rule about how to read the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is not the “foundation” of any group of rights but a directive about how constitutional decisions about rights are to be made. Searching for rights in it is akin to searching for actual pieces of lumber in a manual on how to build a house.. . . Conspicuously absent from Dobbs is any coherent legal analysis—or anything that deserves to be called “analysis” at all—of why someone’s right to avoid compelled pregnancy, involuntary childbirth, and forced parenthood is not an essential part of the “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment (and perhaps even of the freedom from “involuntary servitude” protected by the Thirteenth). As a result, it’s the Alito opinion in Dobbs, and not Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe, that is “not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
Put simply, Dobbs is a fiat issued by five justices simply “because they could.” ---Lawrence Tribe
5 Jun 2023 5:43 pm
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 peopleProspero » 05 Jun 2023, 5:37 pm » wrote: ↑ Lawrence Tribe, a constitutional scholar, gives the precise reason why conservative justices are incompetent.
Well, he doesn't call them that, but I do.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/09/ ... -religion/
The only thing the Court says about it in Dobbs is that “the abortion right” is not itself “founded…in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people.” But that is a wholly irrelevant observation and confuses the category of “rights” with the category of rules about how to read a text dealing with rights. Nobody has ever seriously claimed that the “abortion right,” or indeed any substantive right, could possibly be “founded” in a rule about how to read the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is not the “foundation” of any group of rights but a directive about how constitutional decisions about rights are to be made. Searching for rights in it is akin to searching for actual pieces of lumber in a manual on how to build a house.
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
5 Jun 2023 6:10 pm
So, you are saying that only states can legislate on rights not mentioned in the Constitution? No, I don't think that is quite right.RedheadedStranger » 05 Jun 2023, 5:43 pm » wrote: ↑ 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
Rights are not legislated powers, they are inherent. Therefore, Congress has every right legistate, restrict, enhance, clarify rights, enumerated or unenumerated in the Constitution.Rights aren't something that laws create; they're inherent to individuals. That means people have certain fundamental rights simply by being human, and these rights exist independently of any government or legal system. Per the 9th amendment, just because a right is not in the bill of rights, it doesn't mean there are other rights, rights that are implicit in being human.
However, to ensure that rights are respected and upheld in society, we often need legal frameworks and legislation. In many democratic countries, like the United States, the constitution plays a vital role in defining and protecting individual rights. It establishes the basic rights and freedoms of citizens and provides a framework for creating and interpreting laws.
In the United States, Congress has the authority to pass laws that affect rights at the federal level, be they mentioned in the bill or rights or are unenumerated per the 9th amendment; to wit: (source, AI)
Congress's power is limited by the Constitution itself. The Constitution sets boundaries and restrictions on the federal government's powers, including how it can impact individual rights. For instance, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution specifically safeguards certain rights from government infringement.
- Civil Rights Act of 1964: This landmark legislation prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in various areas, including employment, public accommodations, and education. It aimed to protect and enforce the equal rights of all individuals.
- Voting Rights Act of 1965: This law aimed to address racial discrimination in voting practices. It prohibited practices such as literacy tests and other barriers that disproportionately affected minority voters and sought to ensure equal access to voting rights.
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990: This legislation protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination and ensures equal access to employment, public services, transportation, and other areas. It promotes accessibility and reasonable accommodations to enable participation and equal treatment.
- Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act): This act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability. It aims to promote fair and equal access to housing opportunities for all individuals.
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010: The ACA expanded access to healthcare and introduced several provisions, such as prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions and allowing young adults to stay on their parents' insurance until the age of 26.
So, while it's true that Congress has the right to make, restrict, improve, or clarify rights at the federal level, we must also acknowledge that this authority is subject to the constraints and protections laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a framework to balance government power with the preservation of individual rights..
5 Jun 2023 6:33 pm
RedheadedStranger » 05 Jun 2023, 5:43 pm » wrote: ↑ 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
never try to argue with an educated idiot.....most of them are little smarter than a butt plug
5 Jun 2023 6:38 pm
Not gonna waste my time arguing with a leftist AI bot.Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 6:10 pm » wrote: ↑ So, you are saying that only states can legislate on rights not mentioned in the Constitution? No, I don't think that is quite right.
Rights are not legislated powers, they are inherent. Therefore, Congress has every right legistate, restrict, enhance, clarify rights, enumerated or unenumerated in the Constitution.Rights aren't something that laws create; they're inherent to individuals. That means people have certain fundamental rights simply by being human, and these rights exist independently of any government or legal system. Per the 9th amendment, just because a right is not in the bill of rights, it doesn't mean there are other rights, rights that are implicit in being human.
However, to ensure that rights are respected and upheld in society, we often need legal frameworks and legislation. In many democratic countries, like the United States, the constitution plays a vital role in defining and protecting individual rights. It establishes the basic rights and freedoms of citizens and provides a framework for creating and interpreting laws.
In the United States, Congress has the authority to pass laws that affect rights at the federal level, be they mentioned in the bill or rights or are unenumerated per the 9th amendment; to wit: (source, AI)
Congress's power is limited by the Constitution itself. The Constitution sets boundaries and restrictions on the federal government's powers, including how it can impact individual rights. For instance, the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution specifically safeguards certain rights from government infringement.
So, while it's true that Congress has the right to make, restrict, improve, or clarify rights at the federal level, we must also acknowledge that this authority is subject to the constraints and protections laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution acts as a framework to balance government power with the preservation of individual rights..
The 10th Amendment is very clear, and very intentional.
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
5 Jun 2023 6:43 pm
'll take your cop out as your conceding and surrender to the argument.RedheadedStranger » 05 Jun 2023, 6:38 pm » wrote: ↑ Not gonna waste my time arguing with a leftist AI bot.
Clearly, you are not up to the task of debating me.
That's not an argument.The 10th Amendment is very clear, and very intentional.
5 Jun 2023 6:47 pm
You are interesting.......nefarious101 » 05 Jun 2023, 6:33 pm » wrote: ↑ never try to argue with an educated idiot.....most of them are little smarter than a butt plug
to a proctologist.
Hah!
5 Jun 2023 6:47 pm
The cop out is using AI to make your argument.Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑ 'll take your cop out as your conceding and surrender to the argument.
Clearly, you are not up to the task of debating me.
That's not an argument.
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
5 Jun 2023 6:51 pm
HI MARGARET
5 Jun 2023 6:54 pm
No a cop out is a cheap rationalization to avoid engaging in a serious debate. Clearly, you are not up to the task
AI is one research tool I use among many, which are, but not limited to AI, medical databases, science data bases, the internet in general, the four journals of record, and other scholarly sources.
A tool is a tool, bub. Moreover, we post here anonymously, therefore your point is moot, and so who we are doesn't matter, all that matters is the argument.
Or, are you stupid? Let me know, so I will know where to file your asinine comments.
5 Jun 2023 6:54 pm
HARVARD LIBERAL JEWCOCKSUCKER
LAURENCE TRIBE
He has been called a sellout and a traitor whose arguments are “baseless” and “far-fetched” by professors at New York University, Harvard, and Georgetown.
LAURENCE TRIBE
He has been called a sellout and a traitor whose arguments are “baseless” and “far-fetched” by professors at New York University, Harvard, and Georgetown.
5 Jun 2023 7:09 pm
Give it a break Marge... you ain't foolin' anybody.Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 6:54 pm » wrote: ↑ No a cop out is a cheap rationalization to avoid engaging in a serious debate. Clearly, you are not up to the task
AI is one research tool I use among many, which are, but not limited to AI, medical databases, science data bases, the internet in general, the four journals of record, and other scholarly sources.
A tool is a tool, bub. Moreover, we post here anonymously, therefore your point is moot, and so who we are doesn't matter, all that matters is the argument.
Or, are you stupid? Let me know, so I will know where to file your asinine comments.
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
5 Jun 2023 7:17 pm
Well, that ascription destroys your credibility. You are a bigot.
Well, even though you are a bigot, not worth spit, I'll comment on your rebuttal.LAURENCE TRIBE
He has been called a sellout and a traitor whose arguments are “baseless” and “far-fetched” by professors at New York University, Harvard, and Georgetown.
First link is an article by Jeremy P Jacobs, a rather young correspondent for C-Span.
He's a young journalist. So, I'm going to take his word for it? I think not.
The second links to Law Professor Jody Freeman, but the accusation of 'baseless' is merely on one point.
You write like she is indicting the entire body of Tribe's work, and that is clearly not true. So, that one
is disingenuous, on your part.
So, how about 'far-fetched'? It's a link to an Op-ed by Law Professor Richard L. Revesz. But, again, you make it appear like he is indicting Tribe's entire body of work, and that's another disingenuous implication on your part, he merely has a bone to pick on one of Tribe's conclusions. Hell, if I had to list all of the disagreements of legal scholars on points, I'd exceed the 4000 character limit 50 fold. And your links to academia are redundancies, so you are padding your argument, and old pseudo debate trick.
But your most egregious pseudo debate trick is an old one, 'attack-the-messenger' (rather than the merits of the argument). That tactic might be valid for a nitwit like Alex Jones, but not Lawrence Tribe. Tribe has earned the respect of many legal scholars, including Obama, whose policy Tribe once chided.
But your quote actually comes from an article in the New Yorker, which you did not link to:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-des ... e-sell-out
That article, the one you actually drew your quote from, describes Tribe in much more respectful tones.
Tribe has long been among the nation’s most highly regarded law professors. He is a gifted writer and thinker; his treatise "American Constitutional Law" gained deservedly canonical status in the nineteen-eighties. Over that decade, Tribe also built a strong reputation as a practitioner of constitutional law by arguing a series of high-profile Supreme Court cases, the best known of which was probably the gay-rights case Bowers v. Hardwick. This left him in a unique position. “Never before in American history has an individual simultaneously achieved Tribe’s preeminence both as a practitioner and as a scholar of constitutional law,” William Powell wrote in 1986.
So, objectivity is not your strong suit. That plus bigotry equals:
FAIL
But, I suppose I can't expect much more from a bigot.
In short, your rebuttal is not persuasive.
5 Jun 2023 7:23 pm
RedheadedStranger » 05 Jun 2023, 7:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Give it a break Marge... you ain't foolin' anybody.
I have no idea who she is. But, she's welcome to contact me.
5 Jun 2023 7:24 pm
5 Jun 2023 7:34 pm
**** YOU AND YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY. YOU'RE ANOTHER LIBERAL JEWCOCKSUCKER.Prospero » 05 Jun 2023, 7:17 pm » wrote: ↑ Well, that ascription destroys your credibility. You are a bigot.
Well, even though you are a bigot, not worth spit, I'll comment on your rebuttal.
First link is an article by Jeremy P Jacobs, a rather young correspondent for C-Span.
He's a young journalist. So, I'm going to take his word for it? I think not.
The second links to Law Professor Jody Freeman, but the accusation of 'baseless' is merely on one point.
You write like she is indicting the entire body of Tribe's work, and that is clearly not true. So, that one
is disingenuous, on your part.
So, how about 'far-fetched'? It's a link to an Op-ed by Law Professor Richard L. Revesz. But, again, you make it appear like he is indicting Tribe's entire body of work, and that's another disingenuous implication on your part, he merely has a bone to pick on one of Tribe's conclusions. Hell, if I had to list all of the disagreements of legal scholars on points, I'd exceed the 4000 character limit 50 fold. And your links to academia are redundancies, so you are padding your argument, and old pseudo debate trick.
But your most egregious pseudo debate trick is an old one, 'attack-the-messenger' (rather than the merits of the argument). That tactic might be valid for a nitwit like Alex Jones, but not Lawrence Tribe. Tribe has earned the respect of many legal scholars, including Obama, whose policy Tribe once chided.
so, fail.
But, I suppose I can't expect much more from a bigot.
In short, your rebuttal is not persuasive.
YOU SUPPORT PEDO JOE, A PROMINENT BIGOT WITH UNSUBSTANIATED REASON FOR BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
IN SHORT, YOU'RE AN UNLETTERED FRUITCAKE WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY
YOU HAVE A LINE OF **** GOOD FOR SOME *** SNIFFING LEFTISTS.
5 Jun 2023 8:48 pm
5 Jun 2023 8:54 pm
why are you sitting around thinking about some stranger's butthole in an internet political forum? I take it that's your way of starting a conversation with someone you don't know?
can you believe this guy?^^
5 Jun 2023 9:00 pm
Your problem is obvious.righteous » 05 Jun 2023, 7:34 pm » wrote: ↑ **** YOU AND YOUR ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY. YOU'RE ANOTHER LIBERAL JEWCOCKSUCKER.
YOU SUPPORT PEDO JOE, A PROMINENT BIGOT WITH UNSUBSTANIATED REASON FOR BEING IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
IN SHORT, YOU'RE AN UNLETTERED FRUITCAKE WITH ZERO CREDIBILITY
YOU HAVE A LINE OF **** GOOD FOR SOME *** SNIFFING LEFTISTS.
5 Jun 2023 9:03 pm
YES, YOU AND PEOPLE OF YOUR TYPE EXIST
Who is online
In total there are 6647 users online :: 13 registered, 16 bots, and 6618 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, Blackvegetable, Plum Hollow, ROG62, RebelGator, Beekeeper, PhiloBeddo, Cannonpointer, Deezer Shoove, nefarious101, sole, Huey, Fuelman
Bots: MicroMessenger, Bolt, GPTBot, proximic, DuckDuckBot, YandexBot, okhttp, CriteoBot, ADmantX, Googlebot, Applebot, curl/7, Mediapartners-Google, facebookexternalhit, bingbot, Baiduspider