Trump says he wouldn’t sign federal abortion ban if Congress passed one

[Belk]

Err yeah they have... you gotta pay attention to what's going in man.

Didn't you hear about Roe v Wade bring over turned?

No, they did not. The Dobbs ruling simply overturns the idea of abortion being part of a constitutional right to privacy. It does nothing else and in no way rules out national legislation. Your claims on the ruling are not how SCOTUS decisions work.

 

[RocK Guy]

Since the Constitution makes no mention of gay marriage, then SCOTUS must strike that garbage down as well.

 

[Belk]

It’s a great economy if you want a part time job

Or several of them

 

[RocK Guy]

No, they did not. The Dobbs ruling simply overturns the idea of abortion being part of a constitutional right to privacy. It does nothing else and in no way rules out national legislation. Your claims on the ruling are not how SCOTUS decisions work.

10th Amendment to the US Constitution
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.

So, the ball is in your court... show us where the US Constitution specifically says the federal government has the right to regulate abortion.

 

[Arcangl86]

That's not want the 10th amendment says.

Rights no specifically given to the fed go to the states.

The constitution does not mention abortion at all, therefore under the 10th amendment the fed has no right to regulate abortion on any level, only the states have the right within each state.

You might want to consult a qualified attorney that is not a baby killin liberal.

And the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which abortion will fall under since people regularly cross state lines to obtain abortions.

 

[RocK Guy]

And the federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, which abortion will fall under since people regularly cross state lines to obtain abortions.

That does not give them the right to force states to make abortion legal within their state or to ban abortion within their state.

Each state has the right to decide whether to allow or disallow abortion within their state.

 

[Arcangl86]

That does not give them the right to force states to make abortion legal within their state or to ban abortion within their state.

Each state has the right to decide whether to allow or disallow abortion within their state.

Agreed. But they do have the right to make it illegal as a federal matter. Similiar to how you can still be arrested by the DEA for possessing marijuana in a state that has legalized it recreationally.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, the ball is in your court... show us where the US Constitution specifically says the federal government has the right to regulate abortion.

The same place as machine guns, seat belts in cars, and alcohol.

 

[RocK Guy]

they do have the right to make it illegal

Not according to the 10th Amendment which would actually apply to marijuana as well since we clearly see that marijuana is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

The same place as machine guns, seat belts in cars, and alcohol.

Seat belts in cars, and alcohol are not mentioned in the Constitution so maybe they'll be struck down someday.

The 2nd Amendment provides citizens the right to keep and bare arms so machine guns should be allowed so when the liberal brown shirts are burning down neighborhoods citizens and go out there and whack these nut jobs.

It sure would help reign in violent rioting against citizens

 

[Arcangl86]

Not according to the 10th Amendment which would actually apply to marijuana as well since we clearly see that marijuana is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

No, but interstate commerce is.

Seat belts in cars, and alcohol are not mentioned in the Constitution so maybe they'll be struck down someday.

The 2nd Amendment provides citizens the right to keep and bare arms so machine guns should be allowed so when the liberal brown shirts are burning down neighborhoods citizens and go out there and whack these nut jobs.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention citizens at all actually. It also doesn't protect people from murder laws.

it sure would help reign in violent rioting against citizens

Are you implying that only non-citizens riot?

 

[RocK Guy]

The 2nd Amendment doesn't mention citizens at all actually.

People are citizens!

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Are you implying that only non-citizens riot?

I never mentioned whether the rioters were US citizens or criminal illegal aliens that had sneaked across the border and need to be deported.

When a riot breaks out, citizens should be allowed to start shooting to break up the riot regardless if the rioters are US citizens or criminal illegal aliens

 

[Arcangl86]

People are citizens!

Nope. Citizens are a subset of people, but not all people are citizens. So by your "only exact words" interpretation of the Constitution, non-citizens will also have the right to bear arms.

I never mentioned whether the rioters were US citizens or criminal illegal aliens that had sneaked across the border and need to be deported.

No, but you implied it by saying "rioting against citizens." Also since the Constitution doesn't mention a border that means that means that any immigration laws would have to be passed on a state-by-state basis.

When a riot breaks out, citizens should be allowed to start shooting to break up the riot regardless if the rioters are US citizens or criminal illegal aliens

That's up to the individual state isn't it?

 

[RocK Guy]

Nope. Citizens are a subset of people, but not all people are citizens. So by your "only exact words" interpretation of the Constitution, non-citizens will also have the right to bear arms.

Whatever, the American people are citizens that the government works for and the American people have the right to keep and bare arms unless they are convicted felons.

No, but you implied it by saying "rioting against citizens."

Yes because the rioters are criminals engaging in illegal activity against law abiding citizens

Also since the Constitution doesn't mention a border

It mentions states, so each state has it's own borders and has the right to deport illegal aligns

That's up to the individual state isn't it?

Yes and in some red states it is legal to do this.

So all we need now if for some citizens to witness some liberal brown shirts rioting so they can open fire!

That would discourage rioting ya know.

 

[RocK Guy]

non-citizens will also have the right to bear arms.

Non-citizens have NO rights under the Constitution

 

[rambot]

No, they did not. The Dobbs ruling simply overturns the idea of abortion being part of a constitutional right to privacy.

Seems absolutely ludicrous frankly. I mean, which other medical procedure don't have that right?

 

[RocK Guy]

Seems absolutely ludicrous frankly. I mean, which other medical procedure don't have that right?

“The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…,” the June 24 ruling said. “We thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives.” (referring to the states)

That's a quote from the ruling itself

See article at 5 claims about the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, fact-checked - Poynter

 

[Desk trauma]

Seems absolutely ludicrous frankly. I mean, which other medical procedure don't have that right?

The thing that always comes to mind for me is JWs gaining political influence and restricting blood transfusions. Thankfully that’s not an issue.

 

[Desk trauma]

“The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…,” the June 24 ruling said. “We thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives.” (referring to the states)

That's a quote from the ruling itself

…and in no way excludes federal elected representatives. If they had meant state level only they would have been explicit.

 

[rambot]

“The Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion…,” the June 24 ruling said. “We thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives.” (referring to the states)

That's a quote from the ruling itself

See article at 5 claims about the Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, fact-checked - Poynter

Seriously? Is that what it came out? The Constitution doesn't make express reference to ANY health procedure and should not be required to.

 

[RocK Guy]

Seriously? Is that what it came out? The Constitution doesn't make express reference to ANY health procedure and should not be required to.

Well, we could always have a convention of states and re-write the constitution

That of course would result in the Constitution being changed to a communist document leading to civil war.