Justices threatened with murder?

@techsouth

Of course, both those statements logically can be true.

The first statement refers to rights (which are reserved for persons under the philosophy of the founders/framers); the second refers to powers that may or may not be retained by the states.

The 9th Amendment makes clear that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be protected.

The 10th Amendment states that: “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.”

The 14th Amendment states, in part, that: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

So the grounds for Constitutional debate seem to hinge on natural rights that inhere to “persons.” A state law that assigns personhood to any human fertilized ovum (as Oklahoma seems poised to do*), such that the rights of that “person” can be asserted against the rights of the mother, seems daft to me. As I understand the Alito draft, it affirms the power of individual states to do just that.

In sum, if the first statement you proffered is true (which I think it is) – and is a natural right (which I also think) – the question becomes whether or not (and at what point) states properly have the power (under Constitutional rubric) to deny, deprive or disparage such right.

_________________________________

* “The bill makes exceptions for abortion if it is “necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency” or if the pregnancy is the result of rape, sexual assault or incest that has been reported to law enforcement.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/oklahoma-abortion-ban-fertilization/

@vistesd2 said
@techsouth

Of course, both those statements logically can be true.

The first statement refers to rights (which are reserved for persons under the philosophy of the founders/framers); the second refers to powers that may or may not be retained by the states.

The 9th Amendment makes clear that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be protected. ...[text shortened]... forcement.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/oklahoma-abortion-ban-fertilization/

Well said

@averagejoe1 said
Foolish post. In lib fashion, you change the premise of the post. Why do y'all do that? My son caused the daughter to be pregnant? Is that not a different issue than that which I pose!?? Your post is between families. Neighbor should have my son thrown in jail. But, My post was saying what I said with no connection between the families.
Really bad, typical li ...[text shortened]... or. Or, I could say that I dont have a son, or a wife, or a dog. Why do you libs get so verklempt?

You're rambling again. Stay off the juice.

@shallow-blue said
You're rambling again. Stay off the juice.

Can you not once be serious? I ask a question which has all the proper elements. He ignores my premise, and since he cannot answer it because it is wrong for the neighbor to ask me to pay his bills, Kev sends back a new set of facts.
Break away from the mold, Shallow, help keep the Forum important !! How much of Suzy's racism can you read, or the stuff of the jester....

@averagejoe1 said
Can you not once be serious?

Not when you go off like a drunk hill-billy telling them varmint to get off his lawn and firing his shotgun at an empty quart of Jack, no.

@vistesd2 said
@techsouth

Of course, both those statements logically can be true.

The first statement refers to rights (which are reserved for persons under the philosophy of the founders/framers); the second refers to powers that may or may not be retained by the states.

The 9th Amendment makes clear that rights need not be enumerated in the Constitution in order to be protected. ...[text shortened]... forcement.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/19/oklahoma-abortion-ban-fertilization/

Abortion has been so contentious and clarity of thinking has been muddied so much by partisanship that it takes lots of discipline to clear our mind of the mud.

You took my point 1 a little further than I intended. You put forth legal abortion as a "natural right". Where as I put it forth as something that may be considered a good idea, but not necessarily a "natural right". But, you put forth arguments and whether one agrees or disagrees, you seem to be engaging in "debate" at a much higher level than is typical here.

To help challenge all of our thinking (including mine), I was wondering if anyone can think of other examples of things that are kind of like "natural rights" that are contentious in law in the US (e.g. a "natural right" that is illegal in some places or for which there is pressure to make it illegal). Also, can anyone think of examples of things people tend to see as "natural rights" that most would argue are not really natural rights?

@shallow-blue said
Not when you go off like a drunk hill-billy telling them varmint to get off his lawn and firing his shotgun at an empty quart of Jack, no.

Well I can stoop to the level of Jimmm and you and the usual suspects. It gets no lower than when one corrects the spelling of one of our posters.................

Hillbilly is one word.

@techsouth said
Abortion has been so contentious and clarity of thinking has been muddied so much by partisanship that it takes lots of discipline to clear our mind of the mud.

You took my point 1 a little further than I intended. You put forth legal abortion as a "natural right". Where as I put it forth as something that may be considered a good idea, but not necessarily a "natural r ...[text shortened]... f things people tend to see as "natural rights" that most would argue are not really natural rights?

Anything that someone does that does not negatively affect the life or existence of a fellow citizen would come natural, with no guilt attached, done with clear conscience. We can say that in nature, the person has a right to act independently, with prejudice. Thus, a natural right.
I can only think of the natural right of living, and find it difficult to associate same with what the law says. One must abide by the law, as the law fixes it where an aberrant person cannot do something which they have no 'right' to do, as such activity would encroach upon the rights of others. Breaking a law,

@techsouth said
I was wondering if anyone can think of other examples of things that are kind of like "natural rights" that are contentious in law in the US

Gay marriage was for decades, until 2015.

@mott-the-hoople said
nah, just tired of shyt like this

Dem Rep. Beatty blames White supremacy for Dallas Korean hair salon shooting, but suspect is Black

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rep-beatty-blames-white-supremacy-dallas-korean-salon-shooting-suspect-black

Explore the Fox News apps that are right for you at http://www.foxnews.com/apps-products/index.html.

Were THE VICTIMS a minority?
...........hello?.....anyone home?
.....You need to quit procrastinating
and get your G.E.D. 😛