President Joe Biden

[whatithink]

From the dissent for Roe v Wade:
Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision.[6] White's dissent, which was issued with Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, argued that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children.


White argued that abortion, "for the most part, should be left with the people and the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."[102]

Rehnquist's dissent compared the majority's use of substantive due process to the Court's repudiated use of the doctrine in the 1905 case Lochner v. New York.[6] He elaborated on several of White's points and asserted that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:


From the actual historical record, Rehnquist concluded, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Because of this, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."[106]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ruth Bader Ginsberg had concerns about the Roe V. Wade ruling for decades...

“Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication,” she argued. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.”

Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case.

“Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,”

Supreme Court leak confirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s prescient warning about Roe v. Wade (nypost.com)

Some potential consequences, quotes (my bolding) from the article - I've no idea how this pans out, but it would be naive to think there won't be runs on other "rights" we think we have

By questioning the constitutionality of a right to privacy, Marks told Insider that it posits the question: "What is the definition of liberty?"

"If I ask you to find the right to privacy in the US constitution, you will not find it — there is no explicit right to privacy in the US constitution," Marks said. "So if that draft of opinion becomes the majority opinion and at least five justices sign onto it, even to the extent they may narrow the scope, it doesn't mean there won't be incremental changes in other decisions along the way."

Geoffrey Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, echoed the sentiment, saying "it's perfectly plausible that [the Supreme Court] will say, 'We already decided it. There's no right of privacy in the Constitution.'"

"A key part of the rationale of Alito's opinion is that there is no such thing as a right of privacy in the Constitution. That's what the court relied upon in all of these cases," Stone told Insider. "If that's true in Dobbs, then why isn't true in others?"

Law experts warn that leaked SCOTUS draft opinion on Roe v. Wade exposes a weak spot that puts the use of contraceptions and other privacy rights at risk (msn.com)

 

[crush]

soon states will also decide if you should be vaccinated or not. That is very scary to me. More scary than the abortion issue. Its harder to leave the states that require vaccine mandate as I have a job, a house, a family etc. etc. whereas abortion, I can travel.

Its my body, its my choice to be vaccinated or not.

According to Espola, it's mommies baby and she can do whatever she wants with her baby. Thank God my biological mother had a heart and saved me from pure evil. She kept me safe for 9 months and then my adopted mother took over from there for 18 years and that's it, no more help. All I needed was a chance. The same scientists want to inject me with the Wuhan Special. It's a toxic mix of poison that can do some serious damage to you. I'm watching first hand how messed up this all is with my pal.

 

[blam]

"A key part of the rationale of Alito's opinion is that there is no such thing as a right of privacy in the Constitution. That's what the court relied upon in all of these cases," Stone told Insider. "If that's true in Dobbs, then why isn't true in others?"

That is because a lot of these rights were called that way when the constitution was first written. But privacy is inherent.

For example, there is no right granted for the governemnt to start an air force. So the USAF is unconstitutional?

Another absurd example, the 2nd amendment original intent was to allow the states to call up the militia to fight against the federal government in the event the federal government is too powerful. Does this mean that we should have the right to own tanks, nuclear bombs and submarines in our backyard? We realistically would need these weapons if we are called up by our state to form a militia to fight the US Army.

Finally, another absurd example, the constitution does not give us the right to vote. Why are we voting?

If we go back to the original literal intent, we would live in an absurd world far different from what it is today.

 

[watfly]

Some potential consequences, quotes (my bolding) from the article - I've no idea how this pans out, but it would be naive to think there won't be runs on other "rights" we think we have

By questioning the constitutionality of a right to privacy, Marks told Insider that it posits the question: "What is the definition of liberty?"

"If I ask you to find the right to privacy in the US constitution, you will not find it — there is no explicit right to privacy in the US constitution," Marks said. "So if that draft of opinion becomes the majority opinion and at least five justices sign onto it, even to the extent they may narrow the scope, it doesn't mean there won't be incremental changes in other decisions along the way."

Geoffrey Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, echoed the sentiment, saying "it's perfectly plausible that [the Supreme Court] will say, 'We already decided it. There's no right of privacy in the Constitution.'"

"A key part of the rationale of Alito's opinion is that there is no such thing as a right of privacy in the Constitution. That's what the court relied upon in all of these cases," Stone told Insider. "If that's true in Dobbs, then why isn't true in others?"

Law experts warn that leaked SCOTUS draft opinion on Roe v. Wade exposes a weak spot that puts the use of contraceptions and other privacy rights at risk (msn.com)

Just out of curiosity who do you think is going to push for a ban of contraceptives? I don't even think given an opportunity to do so the Catholics or other anti-contraceptive religious groups are going to challenge it. The Catholics have only fought against their hospitals being forced to pay for contraceptives. I don't get any sense they care about what non-Catholics do in the privacy of their own home. Hell, I'd bet that even Matt Gaetz used a condom with the teenage girl.

Have any of the justices ever questioned contraceptives? Whose is this contraceptive bogeyman?

 

[Lion Eyes]

Roe v. Wade: 1973
From the actual historical record, Rehnquist concluded, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Because of this, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.

When the justices ruled in Roe V. Wade Rehnquist in descent pointed out his concern that the ruling took away States power to legislate.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 1992 had the same concerns.

The ruling would give back those powers...

 

[what-happened]

Another absurd example, the 2nd amendment original intent was to allow the states to call up the militia to fight against the federal government in the event the federal government is too powerful. Does this mean that we should have the right to own tanks, nuclear bombs and submarines in our backyard? We realistically would need these weapons if we are called up by our state to form a militia to fight the US Army.

Certainly off topic..but really? tanks, nuclear bombs, and submarines. The afghanis must have missed this memo.

 

[Desert Hound]

No, abortion won’t rescue Dems in November - Washington Examiner

NO, ABORTION WON'T RESCUE DEMS IN NOVEMBER. There's a lot of speculation that a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, if that indeed happens, would be a boost for Democrats in this November's midterm elections. There seems no doubt the decision will motivate some part of the Democratic...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[Lion Eyes]

That is because a lot of these rights were called that way when the constitution was first written. But privacy is inherent.

For example, there is no right granted for the governemnt to start an air force. So the USAF is unconstitutional?
Another absurd example, the 2nd amendment original intent was to allow the states to call up the militia to fight against the federal government in the event the federal government is too powerful. Does this mean that we should have the right to own tanks, nuclear bombs and submarines in our backyard? We realistically would need these weapons if we are called up by our state to form a militia to fight the US Army.
Finally, another absurd example, the constitution does not give us the right to vote. Why are we voting?
If we go back to the original literal intent, we would live in an absurd world far different from what it is today.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, (the air force is part of the armies of the USA)


Article 1, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
Those dreaded states rights again...

 

[whatithink]

Just out of curiosity who do you think is going to push for a ban of contraceptives? I don't even think given an opportunity to do so the Catholics or other anti-contraceptive religious groups are going to challenge it. The Catholics have only fought against their hospitals being forced to pay for contraceptives. I don't get any sense they care about what non-Catholics do in the privacy of their own home. Hell, I'd bet that even Matt Gaetz used a condom with the teenage girl.

Have any of the justices ever questioned contraceptives? Whose is this contraceptive bogeyman?

I haven't called that out anywhere, although it's in the article, so I'm not sure why you focus on that specifically rather than, say, same sex marriage which I could see someone having a run at. That said, there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only. Given our legal system, there's no reason one or more of them couldn't bring this before SCOTUS.

 

[Lion Eyes]

I haven't called that out anywhere, although it's in the article, so I'm not sure why you focus on that specifically rather than, say, same sex marriage which I could see someone having a run at. That said, there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only. Given our legal system, there's no reason one or more of them couldn't bring this before SCOTUS.

Alito, in the draft opinion, explicitly states that the court is only targeting the right to abortion, not those other matters.

“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the draft states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

LGBTQ advocates worry other rights at risk if court overturns Roe v. Wade

Little doubt remains about what the Supreme Court plans to do with Roe v. Wade. But uncertainty abounds about the ripple effects as the court nears a final opinion expected to overturn the landmark 1973 case that created a nationwide right to abortion.

www.pbs.org

 

[whatithink]

Alito, in the draft opinion, explicitly states that the court is only targeting the right to abortion, not those other matters.

“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the draft states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

LGBTQ advocates worry other rights at risk if court overturns Roe v. Wade

Little doubt remains about what the Supreme Court plans to do with Roe v. Wade. But uncertainty abounds about the ripple effects as the court nears a final opinion expected to overturn the landmark 1973 case that created a nationwide right to abortion.

www.pbs.org

From your article,

"The draft opinion ... argues that unenumerated constitutional rights - those not explicitly mentioned in the document - must be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." And it says abortion doesn't meet that standard."

How far a leap to same sex marriage?

 

[Lion Eyes]

From your article,

"The draft opinion ... argues that unenumerated constitutional rights - those not explicitly mentioned in the document - must be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." And it says abortion doesn't meet that standard."

How far a leap to same sex marriage?

View attachment 13473

See Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment & the ruling itself.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

The sky is not falling....

 

[watfly]

I haven't called that out anywhere, although it's in the article, so I'm not sure why you focus on that specifically rather than, say, same sex marriage which I could see someone having a run at. That said, there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only. Given our legal system, there's no reason one or more of them couldn't bring this before SCOTUS.

"there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only". None of which have the substance, standing or public support to pursue a ban of contraception. If you take a look at the "abstinence in peril" articles, they don't provide any evidence of a group, or a case even in the lower courts that would be a challenge to contraceptives. It's a "chicken little" and fear mongering approach to curry votes for the November election.

Of course, if I was a leftist I would exploit the Supreme Court's decision as well in an attempt to prevent a Red Wave. The SC has handed the far left a gift for November. It will have an impact that benefits the left, but mostly with those that are single issue abortion voters. I suspect at the end of the day inflation will far outweigh abortion rights. Let's be honest, there is really nothing an individual can do to fight inflation, but there is plenty an individual can do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[espola]

"there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only". None of which have the substance, standing or public support to pursue a ban of contraception. If you take a look at the "abstinence in peril" articles, they don't provide any evidence of a group, or a case even in the lower courts that would be a challenge to contraceptives. It's a "chicken little" and fear mongering approach to curry votes for the November election.

Of course, if I was a leftist I would exploit the Supreme Court's decision as well in an attempt to prevent a Red Wave. The SC has handed the far left a gift for November. It will have an impact that benefits the left, but mostly with those that are single issue abortion voters. I suspect at the end of the day inflation will far outweigh abortion rights. Let's be honest, there is really nothing an individual can do to fight inflation, but there is plenty an individual can do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

Griswold v Connecticut, which most people see as the foundation of privacy right being extended to the use of contraceptives, was originally decided in favor of married couples. It's not hard to imagine a legal pursuit to back up to that narrow finding. Just saying no one has substance now is irrelevant.

 

[crush]

Griswold v Connecticut, which most people see as the foundation of privacy right being extended to the use of contraceptives, was originally decided in favor of married couples. It's not hard to imagine a legal pursuit to back up to that narrow finding. Just saying no one has substance now is irrelevant.

 

[crush]

REPORTER: "Does [Biden] support any limits on abortion?"

PSAKI: No

REPORTER: "Does the president support abortion until the moment of birth?"

PSAKI: Yes

 

[blam]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, (the air force is part of the armies of the USA)


Article 1, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
Those dreaded states rights again...

The constitution is very clear, Army is not the Air Force. The constitution also says Congress can mint coins not dollars. That is why the government does not print dollars and only mints coins. Its a very literal interpretation. You cannot argue that coin and dollars are just monies.

Article 1 Section 4 talks about Election. It does not grant every citizen the right to vote. Remember, when the USA was first founded, it is not a democracy. The founders were infact wary of democracies for it would lead to mob rule. So do not pretend that there is a right to vote in the USA in the constitution. Your quote supports this. Right to vote is not a national right if we were to interpret the constitution literally.

 

[blam]

Certainly off topic..but really? tanks, nuclear bombs, and submarines. The afghanis must have missed this memo.

Not of topic as we are discussing if the constitution should be taken literally or not.

How do you think our California Militia can take on the US Army without these weapons? Remember, the 2nd amendment purpose is so that our state militia can take on the Federal government if there was ever a need.

Recap. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.......

It appalls me that nowadays people are thinking of exercising the 2nd amendment in order to hunt....no, it was way bigger than that when it was first thought up.

 

[what-happened]

Not of topic as we are discussing if the constitution should be taken literally or not.

How do you think our California Militia can take on the US Army without these weapons? Remember, the 2nd amendment purpose is so that our state militia can take on the Federal government if there was ever a need.

Recap. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.......

It appalls me that nowadays people are thinking of exercising the 2nd amendment in order to hunt....no, it was way bigger than that when it was first thought up.

Go ahead and be appalled. The 2nd amendment protects YOUR right to possess a firearm without having to be part of a militia. I'd rather not be connected to the government in order to own a firearm. YOU have a right to lawfully defend yourself. It's basic American right, unlike any other in the free world. Do firearms have their drawbacks? of course, criminals will always have access. But please go ahead and be appalled. I'm sure I will not be able to change your mind being as you likely live in CA and me in AZ. My right to possess a lawfully purchased firearm isn't dictated by my state government or the federal government. You are likely happy in the manner CA manages gun ownership...that's your right, it's how you voted.

What CA militia are you talking about? The CA national guard? or the ca state guard? Anyway....the "militias" of aghanistan and vietnam managed to politcially defeat the worlds greatest superpower and military. You don't have to "beat" the US Army, you have to beat the US government.

 

[Lion Eyes]

The constitution is very clear, Army is not the Air Force. The constitution also says Congress can mint coins not dollars. That is why the government does not print dollars and only mints coins. Its a very literal interpretation. You cannot argue that coin and dollars are just monies.

Article 1 Section 4 talks about Election. It does not grant every citizen the right to vote. Remember, when the USA was first founded, it is not a democracy. The founders were infact wary of democracies for it would lead to mob rule. So do not pretend that there is a right to vote in the USA in the constitution. Your quote supports this. Right to vote is not a national right if we were to interpret the constitution literally.

Are these examples of what you ponder, contemplate and worry about?
Whatever was left out of the Constitution was left to the states to implement and/or has been addressed through amendments to the Constitution.

The Air Force was once called the Army Air Force and was part of the US Army...

Here's something from wikipoo that you may find educational...or not.

The United States Army Air Forces (USAAF or AAF)[1] was the major land-based aerial warfare service component of the United States Army and de facto aerial warfare service branch of the United States[2] during and immediately after World War II (1941–1945). It was created on 20 June 1941 as successor to the previous United States Army Air Corps and is the direct predecessor of the United States Air Force, today one of the six armed forces of the United States. The AAF was a component of the United States Army, which on 2 March 1942[1] was divided functionally by executive order into three autonomous forces: the Army Ground Forces, the United States Army Services of Supply (which in 1943 became the Army Service Forces), and the Army Air Forces. Each of these forces had a commanding general who reported directly to the Army Chief of Staff.

The AAF succeeded both the Air Corps, which had been the statutory military aviation branch since 1926, and the GHQ Air Force, which had been activated in 1935 to quiet the demands of airmen for an independent Air Force similar to the Royal Air Force which had already been established in the United Kingdom.
In its expansion and conduct of the war, the AAF became more than just an arm of the greater organization. By the end of World War II, the Army Air Forces had become virtually an independent service. By regulation and executive order, it was a subordinate agency of the United States Department of War (as were the Army Ground Forces and the Army Service Forces) tasked only with organizing, training, and equipping combat units, and limited in responsibility to the continental United States.

entire article:

United States Army Air Forces - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.