Should ANY Rights Be Left Up to the States?

[Colonoscopy]

The likely outcome of the current Supreme Court abortion cases is that the right to abortion will be eliminated at the federal level and it will be left to the states to decide whether or to what extent that right exists in their jurisdictions.

I think having different rights in different states is absolutely and unequivocally nuts.

How about freedom of speech? How about freedom of religion? How about equality under the law across races? How about gun ownership? How about privacy? How about jury trials? . . . .

We can always use the amendment process to add, subtract or modify constitutional rights. But if it's a right, it should be equally a right everywhere in the US.

Depends your definition of a right.

Also; what to do with edge cases.

Abortion is much more complicated than any rights scenario I can think of. You have to take into account the relationship between the fetus (whose value ascends over time) with the outside actor.

 

[Jim Grizzly]

I think that means yes. Thus I will say, yes, states should have the ability.

Only if you're thinking about it at the barely surface level. In your example, CO and IL expanded individual freedom. The federal government (both parties) has made it de facto legal by not intervening for nearly two decades. Conversely, the federal government has kept abortion de facto legal, DESPITE certain backwards states attempting to make it illegal (because it limits personal freedom).

This entire decision, should it occurs, is a massive blow to individual liberty and freedom.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

No shit.

Clearly rhetorical analysis isn't your forte, sport. You're not doing so well, here.

 

[notlongago]

Only if you're thinking about it at the barely surface level. In your example, CO and IL expanded individual freedom. The federal government (both parties) has made it de facto legal by not intervening for nearly two decades. Conversely, the federal government has kept abortion de facto legal, DESPITE certain backwards states attempting to make it illegal (because it limits personal freedom).

This entire decision, should it occurs, is a massive blow to individual liberty and freedom.

Why do you think its one of the most controversial decisions in modern politics?

 

[seminole97]

It's a truism but has never been held (to my knowledge) as a basis for turning over a law as unconstitutional.

Disinformation detected.
Please report to the nearest Department of Homeland Security office for your hearing before the Disinformation Governance Board.
A corrective action plan will be drafted to amend your anti-social behavior.

Please observe in Printz v. United States (1997), the Court ruled that part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment. The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on people attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the act violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional.

 

[83Hawk]

The likely outcome of the current Supreme Court abortion cases is that the right to abortion will be eliminated at the federal level and it will be left to the states to decide whether or to what extent that right exists in their jurisdictions.

I think having different rights in different states is absolutely and unequivocally nuts.

How about freedom of speech? How about freedom of religion? How about equality under the law across races? How about gun ownership? How about privacy? How about jury trials? . . . .

We can always use the amendment process to add, subtract or modify constitutional rights. But if it's a right, it should be equally a right everywhere in the US.

What would Jesus think about abortion?

 

[Hawki97]

Pella?

Ha! Apparently I never type “widow” on my phone and Siri is trying to help!

 

[Finance85]

I thought men and women had to wear a mask?

the constitution has always been up to interpretation based on the political winds of the time.

you can own a gun but not any gun.

ect

What gun can't a person own?

 

[Finance85]

Like the federal government taking away a woman's right to make decisions about her own body?

Every right is limited when it affects the rights of others.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

Every right is limited when it affects the rights of others.

In a free society, all rights affect others.

 

[Warrior Poet31]

In a free society, all rights affect others.

And the right to life trumps them all.

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

And the right to life trumps them all.

"Right to life" is a made-up talking point, Einstein. It's not identified as one of the 10 "rights" listed in the Bill of Rights.

Told you. Rhetorical discourse is not your strong suit, sport.

Might consider taking a break on this one.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Yet you want to tell women how to live?

Women can vote.

 

[notlongago]

"Right to life" is a made-up talking point, Einstein. It's not identified as one of the 10 "rights" listed in the Bill of Rights.

Told you. Rhetorical discourse is not your strong suit, sport.

Might consider taking a break on this one.

If thats the position you want to take, abortion is not identified in the bill of rights, and "life" is found in both the 5th and 14th amendment...so yes, "life" is identified and explicitly stated.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What would Jesus think about abortion?

In retrospect, He would have wished it for Judas.

 

[Warrior Poet31]

In retrospect, He would have wished it for Judas.

Once again you show your clear lack of understanding of who Jesus was and what He came to do.

 

[Titanhawk2]

The likely outcome of the current Supreme Court abortion cases is that the right to abortion will be eliminated at the federal level and it will be left to the states to decide whether or to what extent that right exists in their jurisdictions.

I think having different rights in different states is absolutely and unequivocally nuts.

How about freedom of speech? How about freedom of religion? How about equality under the law across races? How about gun ownership? How about privacy? How about jury trials? . . . .

We can always use the amendment process to add, subtract or modify constitutional rights. But if it's a right, it should be equally a right everywhere in the US.

easy come, easy go. Not a "right" then I guess

 

[noStemsnoSTICKS]

If thats the position you want to take, abortion is not identified in the bill of rights, and "life" is found in both the 5ht and 14th amendment...so yes, "life" is identified and explicitly stated. "Abortion" is the right not identified in the bill of rights.

That's because it's never been about a right to an abortion, rather, a right to make individual choices. It goes without saying that those of us who are alive have a right to continue living. The term "Internet" doesnt appear in the constitution either, but I've heard many on the right argue that the Internet has first amendment implications. The terms Uzi, AR 15 and assault riffles don't appear in the constitution either, but some argue that limiting access to those weapons is an infringement on one's second amendment rights.

We can play semantics all day long, friend.

 

[notlongago]

That's because it's never been about a right to an abortion, rather, a right to make individual choices. It goes without saying that those of us who are alive have a right to continue living. The term "Internet" doesnt appear in the constitution either, but I've heard many on the right argue that the Internet has first amendment implications. The terms Uzi, AR 15 and assault riffles don't appear in the constitution either, but some argue that limiting access to those weapons is an infringement on one's second amendment rights.

We can play semantics all day long, friend.

Its not about semantics - its about rights not granted by the constitution falling to the individual states.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Women can vote.

Interesting that the same party that passes laws to curtail women's rights also passes laws to restrict voting.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

Interesting that the same party that passes laws to curtail women's rights also passes laws to restrict voting.

Womens voting rights are being restricted? How so?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Which rights will the Red Court come after next?

Gay rights?

The right to a public education?

The right to an attorney?

Miranda warnings?

What else?

Yes, yes, the Court itself technically doesn't "come after" cases. But it signals what it's willing to hear. And this will be a huge signal.

 

[DooBii]

Depends if said right is specifically in the US constitution or not.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Womens voting rights are being restricted? How so?

Please.

Reread what I said.

SMH

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Depends if said right is specifically in the US constitution or not.

So if it isn't "specifically" in there, it's fair game?

 

[hawkifann]

The likely outcome of the current Supreme Court abortion cases is that the right to abortion will be eliminated at the federal level and it will be left to the states to decide whether or to what extent that right exists in their jurisdictions.

I think having different rights in different states is absolutely and unequivocally nuts.

How about freedom of speech? How about freedom of religion? How about equality under the law across races? How about gun ownership? How about privacy? How about jury trials? . . . .

We can always use the amendment process to add, subtract or modify constitutional rights. But if it's a right, it should be equally a right everywhere in the US.

I need a choice 3. There are some things that make sense to leave to the states and there are things that are far, far better to address nationally.

 

[83Hawk]

In retrospect, He would have wished it for Judas.

Wrong.

 

[notlongago]

So if it isn't "specifically" in there, it's fair game?

Then the powers fall to the state. Did you not have a civics class?

 

[Jerome Silberman]

Depends if said right is specifically in the US constitution or not.

What about all the stuff congress has been doing for a couple hundred years?

 

[DooBii]

So many people worried about the first and second ammendment. Maybe they should read the 9th and 10th.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I need a choice 3. There are some things that make sense to leave to the states and there are things that are far, far better to address nationally.

I agree but we are talking about serious rights, not mere things. Rights like the right to speech or the right to make decisions over one's own body.

You might even say that the more important something is, the more important that it receive protection as a right at the federal level, and not be left to the states to set disparate and even contradictory standards of protection.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

If you are pro choice, you should be outraged at the prospect that women who choose to have an abortion in certain states can be convicted and imprisoned as criminals - for something that is a right in other states.

If you are pro life, you should be outraged at the prospect that women who choose to have an abortion in a state where it is a criminal act, can merely go to another state to get away with that crime.

When states don't have to honor what counts as a right - or as a crime - in other states, where does it end?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

When you say abortion should be left up to the states, you are basically saying abortion isn't important enough to deserve a national standard.

 

[hawkifann]

I agree but we are talking about serious rights, not mere things. Rights like the right to speech or the right to make decisions over one's own body.

You might even say that the more important something is, the more important that it receive protection as a right at the federal level, and not be left to the states to set disparate and even contradictory standards of protection.

I do agree with that. I’m also pro-choice….but what we really need is actual legislators who want to debate real issues and come to real-world solutions, which we don’t have. As much as I’m pro-choice, it’s not just about that. It’s really about defining defining when a fetus becomes a person or defining that there aren’t “person” rights until birth. There are a lot of very real, complex issues to discuss.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Then the powers fall to the state. Did you not have a civics class?

You are confusing rights and powers. Did your civics class fail to make the distinction?

To repeat....

9A recognizes that people have more rights than the few listed in the Bill of Rights.

10A reserves to the states powers - not rights - not delegated to the federal government.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

It’s really about defining defining when a fetus becomes a person or defining that there aren’t “person” rights until birth. There are a lot of very real, complex issues to discuss.

Yep. If only we could.

 

[Gimmered]

If it were spelled out in the Bill of Rights that the people's right to receive an abortion may not be infringed, we'd still have idiots arguing that that's really not what that means.

Pretty sure we're not going to find common ground here.

 

[theiacowtipper]

I realize that basic biology isn't your forte, but the body being dissected & discarded is not the mothers body.

Are there any circumstances in which a woman could legally choose to have an abortion, in your opinion?

 

[Warrior Poet31]

Are there any circumstances in which a woman could legally choose to have an abortion, in your opinion?

Only if a panel of Drs., who had examined the expectant mother personally, concluded that the mothers life was in mortal danger.

 

[notlongago]

You are confusing rights and powers. Did your civics class fail to make the distinction?

To repeat....

9A recognizes that people have more rights than the few listed in the Bill of Rights.

10A reserves to the states powers - not rights - not delegated to the federal government.

And there is not a "right to abort" distinction anywhere in the constitution, so where would we derive that unenumerated right? Because there is a right to life...