Compare/Contrast The Responses Between The Two Big Decisions

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

@johnwk2

@WuWei

@johnwk2

One only need to look at some of the various states’ Declaration of Rights to acknowledge a resounding YES!

Then you accept as valid @SottoVoce’s substantive due process argument. Not that you agree, just that it’s valid.

It is too generalized to comment on, especially within the context of our federalist system.

No, it’s not. That’s a cop out. @SottoVoce has made the case.

There is no such thing as “substantive due process” in our federal constitution. What is the argument?

.

[WuWei]

@johnwk2

There is no such thing as “substantive due process” in our federal constitution. What is the argument?

4,5,14 and 10th Amendments

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

@johnwk2

There is no such thing as “substantive due process” in our federal constitution. What is the argument?

4,5,14 and 10th Amendments

[WuWei]

Substantive due processes arises out of those. I added the 10th.

[johnwk2]

Let me restate.

There is no mention of “substantive due process” in our federal constitution. What is the argument?

[WuWei]

@johnwk2

Let me restate.

There is no mention of “substantive due process” in our federal constitution. What is the argument?

There’s no mention of legislative intent either.

Who protects the power the people claim under the 10th and how?

[johnwk2]

Which “people”? What is the argument? I’m trying to understand what you mean within the meaning and context of our federal Constitution.

[WuWei]

One page no doubt…

California DOJ Data Leak Revealed Names, Addresses of All the State's...

Let’s “accidentally” post a list with the names and addresses of all the non-birthing persons who had abortions…

[WuWei]

@johnwk2

Which “people”? What is the argument? I’m trying to understand what you mean within the meaning and context of our federal Constitution.

“The people”, in the 10th.

[zantax]

strong text[quote=“SottoVoce, post:350, topic:242305, full:true”]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Many rights afforded by common law at the time of the Constitution were not included in its text. That did not mean those rights were no longer protected when the Constitution was enacted.

How are they protected then?

State law (what is modern day common law), federal law and precedent.

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Saying something isn’t protected by the Constitution because it isn’t expressly in the Constitution and then saying it can’t be protected under an amendment because it isn’t expressly in the Constitution is horrible circular logic.

Agreed. Who said that?

Alito

The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

The arguments are:

Abortion is not protected by the Equal Protection Cause because its regulation is not “sex-based.” That alone is insane. How many males seek abortion?

Abortion is not a “liberty” because their definition of “liberty” is not “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Which is their definition of a liberty in regard to the 14th Amendment.
[/quote]

So now men can’t get pregnant?

[Oryx]

@zantax

precedent

Precedent is dead.

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

@johnwk2

Which “people”? What is the argument? I’m trying to understand what you mean within the meaning and context of our federal Constitution.

“The people”, in the 10th.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The first ten amendments added to our federal Constitution, which includes the Tenth Amendment, are “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, specifically adopted and intended to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the newly created government’s powers, and they do not alter the internal affairs of the states with reference to those ” . . . objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Now, what exactly is the alleged valid substantive due process argument made by SottoVoce? Where is “substantive due process” mentioned in our federal Constitution?

[johnwk2]

Our constitutions, federal and state, are the only important “Precedent”.

[Oryx]

@johnwk2

Our constitutions, federal and state, are the only important “Precedent”.

Yes, and they’re wide open to interpretation, depending on who is in power and who appoints the judges.

[johnwk2]

@Oryx

@johnwk2

Our constitutions, federal and state, are the only important “Precedent”.

Yes, and they’re wide open to interpretation, depending on who is in power and who appoints the judges.

And that is why it is so important to constantly promote and defend the fundamental rules of constitutional construction .…

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[WuWei]

@Oryx

@johnwk2

Our constitutions, federal and state, are the only important “Precedent”.

Yes, and they’re wide open to interpretation, depending on who is in power and who appoints the judges.

I don’t think that’s so much “interpretation” as it is motivated reasoning.

[WuWei]

@johnwk2

@WuWei

@johnwk2

Which “people”? What is the argument? I’m trying to understand what you mean within the meaning and context of our federal Constitution.

“The people”, in the 10th.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

The first ten amendments added to our federal Constitution, which includes the Tenth Amendment, are “declaratory and restrictive clauses”, specifically adopted and intended to prevent misconstruction or abuse of the newly created government’s powers, and they do not alter the internal affairs of the states with reference to those ” . . . objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Now, what exactly is the alleged valid substantive due process argument made by SottoVoce? Where is “substantive due process” mentioned in our federal Constitution?

What about the last 10?

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

@Oryx

@johnwk2

Our constitutions, federal and state, are the only important “Precedent”.

Yes, and they’re wide open to interpretation, depending on who is in power and who appoints the judges.

I don’t think that’s so much “interpretation” as it is motivated reasoning.

How about . . . agenda driven reasoning?

JWK

[WuWei]

Same thing. The agenda is the motivation.

[johnwk2]

@WuWei

Same thing. The agenda is the motivation.

And in most cases the agenda is not advancing the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.

JWK