4 ms·

> Regarding abortion, what aspect of the constitution would cover it? The US Constitution does not contain the word abortion, and so decisions by the Court on

> Regarding abortion, what aspect of the constitution would cover it? The US Constitution does not contain the word abortion, and so decisions by the Court on abortion either way are only indirectly guided by applying other parts of the Constitution.

InTheArena 4y ago
Except this is not the way the consitution is actually written: "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." To the people == legislative branch. to the states means the states legislative branch.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  The Constitution also says, > [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Which is the go-to argument for federal control over things. If you pay for it, and buy it from another state, then the feds can regulate it. It seems perfectly legal to make a federal law that states don't have the power to block access to medications produced in elsewhere. Nor do they have the power to prosecute people for buying such medications, regardless of the effects, from businesses which have locations in multiple states.
  - InTheArena 4y ago
    I think you would have better luck arguing the equal protection clause. The commerce clause can be used to strike down a state trying to prevent it's citizens getting abortions in other states, but cannot be used to restrict the laws of a single state.
    - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
      Which is meaningless now that the USSC has determined that it's fine if people sue over abortions they suspect may have happened.
    - mywittyname 4y ago
      In an ideal world, SCOTUS would point to the Ninth Amendment, say, "this seems like an un-enumerated constitutional right" and allow it. But since we don't yet live in that world, we need every argument we can find, no matter how flimsy or contrived. Because, despite having a solid foundation sitting right there, we are forced to build on top of a patchwork of whatever else we see laying around.
      - InTheArena 4y ago
        Or we can just pass a law, instead of allowing judges to do so. Remember that the supreme court has a somewhat checkered history. IT is the least of the democratic branches, but has unarguably limitless rights. What is the supreme court decided that I had a in-numerated constitutional right to have slaves? Or a un-enumerated right to not have Japanese or Chinese in my state. These are not hypothetical.
- cryptonector 4y ago
  > To the people == legislative branch. This is the first time I've seen that assertion.
helloooooooo 4y ago
The Constitution also doesn’t say I am allowed to bear an Ak47, but apparently it’s a constitutionally protected right. You have a right to bear arms, but if you are going by the strictest interpretation, those arms should be a firearm built using 1776 technology. Fuck originality interpretation. We all know exactly what SCOTUS is going to overturn next and it is going to backslide America into a further shithole
- Empact 4y ago
  Actually, it does: "arms" is a general term that describes weapons including the Ak47. The problem with saying technological change invalidates the 2nd amendment, is that you have to also explain or accept that the 1st amendment only applies to letters written with a feather and a pool of ink.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    "Arms" includes nuclear weapons too, strictly speaking. After-all, the term for the period in which the USA was building ever more powerful nuclear weapons was called the "nuclear arms race."
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Ah the classic nukes "gotcha." If you want to argue nukes ought to be included as bearable arms, I'm all for that too. The federal government has shown itself very willing to infringe on the right to bear arms. A constitutional amendment could easily ban nukes. It's not like there isn't a process to get them out of private hands the legitimate way. It probably wouldn't even be difficult amendment to pass. Similarly an amendment should be required if you want to exclude certain technology from the 1st amendment.

InTheArena 4y ago

Except this is not the way the consitution is actually written: "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." To the people == legislative branch. to the states means the states legislative branch.

mywittyname 4y ago
The Constitution also says, > [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; Which is the go-to argument for federal control over things. If you pay for it, and buy it from another state, then the feds can regulate it. It seems perfectly legal to make a federal law that states don't have the power to block access to medications produced in elsewhere. Nor do they have the power to prosecute people for buying such medications, regardless of the effects, from businesses which have locations in multiple states.
- InTheArena 4y ago
  I think you would have better luck arguing the equal protection clause. The commerce clause can be used to strike down a state trying to prevent it's citizens getting abortions in other states, but cannot be used to restrict the laws of a single state.
  - MisterBastahrd 4y ago
    Which is meaningless now that the USSC has determined that it's fine if people sue over abortions they suspect may have happened.
  - mywittyname 4y ago
    In an ideal world, SCOTUS would point to the Ninth Amendment, say, "this seems like an un-enumerated constitutional right" and allow it. But since we don't yet live in that world, we need every argument we can find, no matter how flimsy or contrived. Because, despite having a solid foundation sitting right there, we are forced to build on top of a patchwork of whatever else we see laying around.
    - InTheArena 4y ago
      Or we can just pass a law, instead of allowing judges to do so. Remember that the supreme court has a somewhat checkered history. IT is the least of the democratic branches, but has unarguably limitless rights. What is the supreme court decided that I had a in-numerated constitutional right to have slaves? Or a un-enumerated right to not have Japanese or Chinese in my state. These are not hypothetical.
cryptonector 4y ago
> To the people == legislative branch. This is the first time I've seen that assertion.

helloooooooo 4y ago

The Constitution also doesn’t say I am allowed to bear an Ak47, but apparently it’s a constitutionally protected right. You have a right to bear arms, but if you are going by the strictest interpretation, those arms should be a firearm built using 1776 technology. Fuck originality interpretation. We all know exactly what SCOTUS is going to overturn next and it is going to backslide America into a further shithole

Empact 4y ago
Actually, it does: "arms" is a general term that describes weapons including the Ak47. The problem with saying technological change invalidates the 2nd amendment, is that you have to also explain or accept that the 1st amendment only applies to letters written with a feather and a pool of ink.
- mywittyname 4y ago
  "Arms" includes nuclear weapons too, strictly speaking. After-all, the term for the period in which the USA was building ever more powerful nuclear weapons was called the "nuclear arms race."
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Ah the classic nukes "gotcha." If you want to argue nukes ought to be included as bearable arms, I'm all for that too. The federal government has shown itself very willing to infringe on the right to bear arms. A constitutional amendment could easily ban nukes. It's not like there isn't a process to get them out of private hands the legitimate way. It probably wouldn't even be difficult amendment to pass. Similarly an amendment should be required if you want to exclude certain technology from the 1st amendment.