5 ms·

Funny how the list of exceptions for the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights (well ok maybe not #3) is neverending

by ta1243 3y ago

FireBeyond 3y ago
"The right to an abortion is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist". (I recognize some of the "issues" with Roe v Wade, tangential/orthogonal to that of access to medical services...) "The right to purchase arms is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, but must exist despite that, because how else could you bear arms?" Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't. Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"? "This document is correct and perfect in every way. Except the bit where the authors say it isn't."
- rpmisms 3y ago
  They are originalists, and if the origin changes, so does the meaning. Change the origin document if you'd like to change the meaning.
- Clubber 3y ago
  >Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't. Banning interracial marriage was deemed unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't have any text about same-sex marriage. That's why it's left up to the states. (10th amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendmen... https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment >Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"? The constitution has methods to amend it, that's what a living document means, not that some political party gets to decide what it means on a whim.
  - FireBeyond 3y ago
    > The constitution has methods to amend it, that's what a living document means, not that some political party gets to decide what it means on a whim. What does it have to say about the Supreme Court legislating from the bench?
    - Clubber 3y ago
      Can you give some examples of what you consider legislating from the bench?
    - rpmisms 3y ago
      Roe v Wade was legislation from the bench. The current court undid that, and are basically shredding any Sua Sponte legislation that comes before them.

Funny how the list of exceptions for the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights (well ok maybe not #3) is neverending

by ta1243 3y ago

Funny how the list of exceptions for the other 9 amendments in the bill of rights (well ok maybe not #3) is neverending

"The right to an abortion is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, therefore it doesn't exist". (I recognize some of the "issues" with Roe v Wade, tangential/orthogonal to that of access to medical services...) "The right to purchase arms is not explicitly and specifically in the Constitution, but must exist despite that, because how else could you bear arms?" Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't. Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"? "This document is correct and perfect in every way. Except the bit where the authors say it isn't."

rpmisms 3y ago
They are originalists, and if the origin changes, so does the meaning. Change the origin document if you'd like to change the meaning.
Clubber 3y ago
>Just like how, for Justice(hah) Thomas, same-sex marriage is a state's right/decision, but interracial marriage... isn't. Banning interracial marriage was deemed unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment doesn't have any text about same-sex marriage. That's why it's left up to the states. (10th amendment) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourteenth_amendmen... https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment >Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the very people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"? The constitution has methods to amend it, that's what a living document means, not that some political party gets to decide what it means on a whim.
- FireBeyond 3y ago
  > The constitution has methods to amend it, that's what a living document means, not that some political party gets to decide what it means on a whim. What does it have to say about the Supreme Court legislating from the bench?
  - Clubber 3y ago
    Can you give some examples of what you consider legislating from the bench?
  - rpmisms 3y ago
    Roe v Wade was legislation from the bench. The current court undid that, and are basically shredding any Sua Sponte legislation that comes before them.