Truth, but I could make a solid argument with ease on it for this 
.
1 Like
You didnt see that whole part about privacy?
Ehh…can you present that argument?
Yes, when I get home from the gym.
Are you an attorney too?
1 Like
I am not.
1 Like
I did not. But, as I mentioned earlier, the right of privacy apparently doesn’t apply to chicken fighters: participants in an activity with a much longer history(even lawful) than legalized abortion on demand.
1 Like
So i dont have the right to privacy while i cook meth in my basement? That seems unfair.
I believe that legally you do have the right to privacy to cook meth in your basement, as long as there is no reasonable suspicion for a search by the authorities.
Correct me if I am wrong.
I think that’s right.
Not exactly. You have your right against unreasonable search and seizure, but not privacy. Otherwise, youd have a right to privacy to murder or rape people in your basement. The difference is what happens once the goverment has probable cause to search your place. Right to privacy implies your doing legal stuff that’s nobody’s business.
If that’s true, Roe v. Wade was an even worse decision than I thought.
I think he meant that no one can come in at random just to ensure you’re not cooking meth. I don’t think he meant it becomes legal.
Side note: “Right to privacy” is one of those absurd “rights” that can’t be.
1 Like
I figured as much but thought id elaborate anyway.
Yep. Probably why the founders never included it.
I do find it amusing that by in large the same people freaking out about roe being overturned are the same people who always champion Democracy. “Let the people decide” they say. Well, this gives the people more Democracy. Go vote.
4 Likes
These people only want more democracy if everyone votes like they want. It’s why they’ve infiltrated the schools at every level and throw a fit when you tell them you want your child to go to private school.
They only respect your rights if you agree with them.
3 Likes
Sorry for the delay - children.
One argument is that Congress does have the power to regulate free medical procedures, at least those performed in clinics. This is true for at least three, interrelated reasons.
First, the Court has never expressed any doubt about the constitutionality of statutes regulating conduct that has some direct relation to enterprises that are in or affect interstate commerce, even where the specific activity that is directly regulated is not commercial in character and there is no proof that such activity is in or affects commerce.
Second, as Justice Stevens himself has explained for the Court, Congress’s Commerce authority extends at the very least to the regulation of even nonprofit entities if they “purchase goods and services in competitive markets, offer their facilities to a variety of patrons, and derive revenues from a variety of sources, some of which are local and some out of State.” That almost certainly describes all, or virtually all, clinics and other facilities at which the abortions in question would take place.
Finally, even if the abortion in question were not performed in a clinic meeting that description, the Court has held, most recently in Raich, that Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself “commercial". Such as the wholly intrastate possession of marijuana by individuals, if it reasonably concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in a commodity. Presumably the same rationale would apply equally to federal regulation of an interstate market in a particular medical service.
On a side note, you also have Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The Court has indicated, in cases such as Lopez and Morrison , that a jurisdictional element such as this lessens potential constitutional concerns. The “in or affecting” commerce language of the abortion statute is derived from numerous federal statutes, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act and the felon-in-possession act.
With all of that being said - the Court could still overturn all of this and move aware from stare decisis. Justice Thomas has been the most outspoken on the expansive powers of the commerce clause. Commerce Clause opinions indicate that he would like to reconsider expansive modern interpretations of the Clause, but also that he recognizes some erroneous precedents might be too entrenched to overrule. As he put it in a concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez, “Consideration of stare decisis and reliance interests may convince us that we cannot wipe the slate clean” in this field. Most tellingly, when he joined the Court’s majority upholding the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2007, that the Court’s ruling rejected a challenge based on the right to abortion but left open the possibility that the law might not be “a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.”
Now, even with an easily made argument that seems to pass constitutional muster and line up with stare decisis that does not guarantee the Court would side with it depending on how it was framed by Congress.
1 Like
100% this. They only agree with rights that fit their emotional state or agenda. It is what infuriates me about the left mostly and right at times too.
I have always been of the mind that homosexuals should be able to marry and everyone own automatic weapons to protect their marijuana plants.
2 Likes
The state should have no place in marriages or divorces; it should be a social contract and not legally binding.
The citizens ought to be allowed to own a M1-A1 Abrams tank or F-35 so long as the government also has these weapons.
Making all drugs legal would snuff-out the cartel with the stroke of a pen whilst eviscerating much of the human trafficking business which crosses our border.
I am on board with all of these things.
1 Like
So no tax breaks for married couples?
Married? No. With children as a family unit? yes.
Don’t somebody come up and ask me for a working model of how this should look - I’m not a policy maker. Simply saying that the state shouldn’t dictate terms of divorces and whatnot.
2 Likes
I completely agree.
The state needs to remove itself from a lot of areas.
Sadly, the legalization of drugs would ruin the CIA’s black money funneling, so that will never happen.
The left (those with power not most common people, but if you support them are you really that bright?) wants us disarmed, so they can force things on us with no repercussions.
I always laugh heartily whenever anyone makes the statement that government is doing it for our best interest. Government does not give a flying fuck about your best interest and never has, so lets just stop that bullshit right where it started.
1 Like