5 ms·

We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.

avs733 4y ago
lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated. Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.
- oceanghost 4y ago
  My point was, the powers that be will make any excuse so long as it increases state power.
  - vkou 4y ago
    And in this country, 'state power' often includes 'the power of the states (good state power) to tyrannize their residents as they see fit, without any federal (bad state power) oversight.'
  - avs733 4y ago
    Powers will use any excuse, the excuse is a distraction. It’s much clearer and more effective to properly name what they are doing rather than indulge their demand of what ever silly term they invent to justify it. There is no such thing as textualism, there is just (1) a belief that your are doing a thing you labeled textualism but is philosophically incompatible with the concept of the law or (2) lying. Anything from the right in the us as it relates to the constitution is (2).
kolanos 4y ago
Abortion isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution, aside from perhaps a right to life? Are you referring to Roe v. Wade? If so, that's a court decision.
- Akronymus 4y ago
  roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right. But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up. Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.
    - sophacles 4y ago
      You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.
      - robonerd 4y ago
        I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.

lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated. Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.

oceanghost 4y ago
My point was, the powers that be will make any excuse so long as it increases state power.
- vkou 4y ago
  And in this country, 'state power' often includes 'the power of the states (good state power) to tyrannize their residents as they see fit, without any federal (bad state power) oversight.'
- avs733 4y ago
  Powers will use any excuse, the excuse is a distraction. It’s much clearer and more effective to properly name what they are doing rather than indulge their demand of what ever silly term they invent to justify it. There is no such thing as textualism, there is just (1) a belief that your are doing a thing you labeled textualism but is philosophically incompatible with the concept of the law or (2) lying. Anything from the right in the us as it relates to the constitution is (2).

kolanos 4y ago

Abortion isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution, aside from perhaps a right to life? Are you referring to Roe v. Wade? If so, that's a court decision.

Akronymus 4y ago
roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right. But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up. Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.
  - sophacles 4y ago
    You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.
    - robonerd 4y ago
      I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.