E
estesbob
Guest
How about Dred Scott? Pleasy vs Ferguson. They were both settled law. Pleasy, IIRC was settled law for 60 years. It took a war to overturn Dred.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Actually, it is not true at all. Since all laws emanate from the constitution, if a right is based on the constitution, it need not be codified in federal law. That would be somewhat tautological. Can you see a law guaranteeing freedom of speech? Laws do not affirm rights.Since Congress has the Constitutional authority to determine the scope and range of what the Supreme Court has jurisdition over (other than the original jurisdiction established in teh Constitution), yes, Constitutional rights not expressed in the Constitution or Amendments do need to be affirmed by federal law.
Yes but a constitutional right is already in the Constitution. In our system of government, one can do whatever is not proscribed. Federal law restricts conduct, it does not give new rights.It is Congress that passes law and therefore give “new” rights, not the Supreme Court.
E
estesbob
Guest
But the question was whether this was settled law. As we saw with these other decisions what one Suprem Court gives a later Supreme Court can take away.Yes and no. Brown was based on equal protection in the 14th amendment. Constitutional rights do not need to be affirmed by federal law.
The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were new laws. If the protections were already in the 14th amendment, there would be no need to pass those laws.
So, no matter if Roe is good or bad law, no legislation is necessary to legitimize an interpretation of the constitution.
L
lynx
Guest
Nothing is settled, only currently justified. That’s what happens when you have multiple interpretations of the Constitution, but it’s better than never updating it at all.But the question was whether this was settled law. As we saw with these other decisions what one Suprem Court gives a later Supreme Court can take away.
E
estesbob
Guest
Agreed. But Beau was claiming since Roe V Wade is settled law that gave Catholics a carte blanche to support abortion supporting politicians. That, of course, is not what the Church teaches, you cannot support evil no matter how much it is accepted by the rest of society or the courts.Nothing is settled, only currently justified. That’s what happens when you have multiple interpretations of the Constitution, but it’s better than never updating it at all.
L
lynx
Guest
I don’t think that’s the intention. I think from Beau’s POV, one can be against abortion morally, but still allow others to make the moral choice for themselves of whether or not abortion is right. Perhaps a step too far is enforcing this morality on others. Now there is morality we push on others, such as not murdering each other, but many Americans still see abortion as applicable in certain situations, ie moral ambiguity. The question is, does the Church teach you to not support people who allow others to come to their own moral conclusions?Agreed. But Beau was claiming since Roe V Wade is settled law that gave Catholics a carte blanche to support abortion supporting politicians. That, of course, is not what the Church teaches, you cannot support evil no matter how much it is accepted by the rest of society or the courts.
E
estesbob
Guest
Abortion is a abject evil which must be opposed with every fiber of our body. It is to this contry’s great shame that we allow women to pay someone to kill their children .,We can not support this great evil either directly or indirectly. I dont need the Catholic Church to tell me this-it should be self evdident to everyone., If this constitutes me forcing my morality upon others so be it. I will continue to fight this evil and call out all who support it until it is either banned or I pass away from this earth. I will not face my maker explaining “I know he supported abortion but gee God he promised me free health care”.I don’t think that’s the intention. I think from Beau’s POV, one can be against abortion morally, but still allow others to make the moral choice for themselves of whether or not abortion is right. Perhaps a step too far is enforcing this morality on others. Now there is morality we push on others, such as not murdering each other, but many Americans still see abortion as applicable in certain situations, ie moral ambiguity. The question is, does the Church teach you to not support people who allow others to come to their own moral conclusions?
L
lynx
Guest
You can oppose abortion, but this doesn’t mean you need to enforce your religious view point as law. Dems traditionally allow a person to make their own choices as to what is right and wrong, as long as society generally approves of the action. It is not the purpose of the government to push Christian morality, nor should it be. You may try to lump politicians as pro-abortion or pro-life, but pro-choice is the true middle ground, and doesn’t necessarily support abortion. Would you say that being pro-choice to smoke is the same as being pro-smoking?Abortion is a abject evil which must be opposed with every fiber of our body. It is to this contry’s great shame that we allow women to pay someone to kill their children .,We can not support this great evil either directly or indirectly. I dont need the Catholic Church to tell me this-it should be self evdident to everyone., If this constitutes me forcing my morality upon others so be it. I will continue to fight this evil and call out all who support it until it is either banned or I pass away from this earth. I will not face my maker explaining “I know he supported abortion but gee God he promised me free health care”.
T
Teen4Christ
Guest
If I was a republican i’d be crying right now. Palin, Trump, Newt, and Bachmann…it’s like really bad political fan fiction.
S
SamH
Guest
So do you have a “If you don’t like slavery don’t own a slave” bumper sticker on your car?You can oppose abortion, but this doesn’t mean you need to enforce your religious view point as law. Dems traditionally allow a person to make their own choices as to what is right and wrong, as long as society generally approves of the action. It is not the purpose of the government to push Christian morality, nor should it be. You may try to lump politicians as pro-abortion or pro-life, but pro-choice is the true middle ground, and doesn’t necessarily support abortion. Would you say that being pro-choice to smoke is the same as being pro-smoking?
L
lynx
Guest
So you feel that society generally approves of slavery?So do you have a “If you don’t like slavery don’t own a slave” bumper sticker on your car?
E
estesbob
Guest
I have every right to oppose the killing of children and do everthing in my power to bring this evil to end… You calling it a religious view in no way restricts my right to attempt by all legal means to stop it. . It is, BTW, very easy to lump politicians as pro-life of or pro-abortion-all you have to do is watch how they vote. I will call them out on it and proclaim to everyone i can the evil they participate in regardless of what euphenism they or their supporters use to describe their stance.You can oppose abortion, but this doesn’t mean you need to enforce your religious view point as law. Dems traditionally allow a person to make their own choices as to what is right and wrong, as long as society generally approves of the action. It is not the purpose of the government to push Christian morality, nor should it be. You may try to lump politicians as pro-abortion or pro-life, but pro-choice is the true middle ground, and doesn’t necessarily support abortion. Would you say that being pro-choice to smoke is the same as being pro-smoking?
I will not dignify with a response yur question as to whether smoking is morally equivalent to chopping children into bits and throwing them out with the garbage,
E
estesbob
Guest
They did at one time. And just as today with abortion there were many who defended it. In 1836 a proud South Carolina congressman proclaimed on the floor of the House “If you oppose slavery dont buy one”. The more things change the more things stay the same.So you feel that society generally approves of slavery?
You can find this exchange in Millers “Arguing About Slavery”
B
Beau_Ouiville
Guest
Folks are going to have to let me speak for myself. I’m against abortion but I know what the law is. That means I am not in favor of trying to make laws which conflict with the current status – that is a publicity stunt doomed to fail.
Politicians who understand that abortion is legal are not complicit in any evil. They should try to reduce the incidence of abortion, a practice which has been with us since before recorded history.
What we need to do is shun those demagogues who use the issue as a red herring. This means also eschewing such pejoratives as ‘pro-abort’, ‘the party of death’ or ‘politicians guilty of infanticide’. Such terms are inaccurate and uncharitable.
Politicians who understand that abortion is legal are not complicit in any evil. They should try to reduce the incidence of abortion, a practice which has been with us since before recorded history.
What we need to do is shun those demagogues who use the issue as a red herring. This means also eschewing such pejoratives as ‘pro-abort’, ‘the party of death’ or ‘politicians guilty of infanticide’. Such terms are inaccurate and uncharitable.
E
estesbob
Guest
Politicians who support abortion are complicit in evil as are those who vote for them. Trying to hide behind the law does not absolve anyone of supportng evil.Folks are going to have to let me speak for myself. I’m against abortion but I know what the law is. That means I am not in favor of trying to make laws which conflict with the current status – that is a publicity stunt doomed to fail.
Politicians who understand that abortion is legal are not complicit in any evil. They should try to reduce the incidence of abortion, a practice which has been with us since before recorded history.
What we need to do is shun those demagogues who use the issue as a red herring. This means also eschewing such pejoratives as ‘pro-abort’, ‘the party of death’ or ‘politicians guilty of infanticide’. Such terms are inaccurate and uncharitable.
B
bbarrick8383
Guest
Hey, we could keep going with this logic.They did at one time. And just as today with abortion there were many who defended it. In 1836 a proud South Carolina congressman proclaimed on the floor of the House “If you oppose slavery dont buy one”. The more things change the more things stay the same.
You can find this exchange in Millers “Arguing About Slavery”
If you oppose cannibalism, don’t eat someone.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
L
lynx
Guest
Sure you do.I have every right to oppose the killing of children
No you don’t. For example, you probably wouldn’t violate any law in order to stop these women from having an abortion. Which raises another point about how far one would go to save an unborn life, but that’s for another topic.and do everthing in my power to bring this evil to end…
No, it doesn’t. I’m only explaining why a politician shouldn’t push Christian dogma when that politician represents multiple faiths, or lack thereof, in his/her district. Really though, you would rather force Christian viewpoints onto everyone instead of letting people find it on their own? Is one’s moral freedom worth an unborn life?You calling it a religious view in no way restricts my right to attempt by all legal means to stop it. .
If you feel supporting the choice for abortion is the same as being for abortion then there’s not much I can say. Imagine though, someone voting for military supplies on an unpopular war. Does this person support the war or the troops? When someone votes for PP funding are they supporting funding abortions or supporting programs aimed at helping female health?It is, BTW, very easy to lump politicians as pro-life of or pro-abortion-all you have to do is watch how they vote. I will call them out on it and proclaim to everyone i can the evil they participate in regardless of what euphenism they or their supporters use to describe their stance.
Then lets make it something more extreme. Do you feel being pro-choice Nazi is the same as being pro Nazi? We have Nazi’s here in the USA, how should we handle them?I will not dignify with a response yur question as to whether smoking is morally equivalent to chopping children into bits and throwing them out with the garbage,
E
estesbob
Guest
The mental gymansitics people go thorugh to try and rationalize supporting evil is a terrible thing to behold.Hey, we could keep going with this logic.
If you oppose cannibalism, don’t eat someone.
Seriously i strongly recommend Millers "Agruing About Slavery:. The rationale put forth by the slaveocracy to support slavery the same arguments put forth to justify abortion.
E
estesbob
Guest
Beau Ouiville 1836:
Folks are going to have to let me speak for myself. I’m against **slavery **but I know what the law is. That means I am not in favor of trying to make laws which conflict with the current status – that is a publicity stunt doomed to fail.
Politicians who understand that slavery is legal are not complicit in any evil. They should try to reduce the incidence of slavery, a practice which has been with us since before recorded history.
What we need to do is shun those demagogues who use the issue as a red herring. This means also eschewing such pejoratives as ‘pro-slavery’, ‘the party of slavery’ or 'politicians guilty of enslavement’. Such terms are inaccurate and uncharitable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.