In a related vein, it’s worth pointing out that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged to “actively support” a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. So much for “state’s rights” and “activist judges,” eh?
Really? Quantify that. Give the dollar amount of interstate abortion services verus the dollar amount of interstate marijuana trade.
Such an amendment would have to be passed by three-fourths of the . . . what was that word?
I’ll start you off with some information from NORML:
That isn’t the right way to compare the two even if the comparison meant anything. The way to compare them would be % of abortions done on out of state patients Vs. % of MJ produced in accordance with the medical marijuana laws.
When something is explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, there isn’t much argument about “states’ rights” is there? It’s pretty clear that the 10th amendment doesn’t apply to parts of the constiutiton that read “no state may…”
How would she have been an “activist judge” by trying to get something passed by the legislature? Do you even know the difference between the legislative and judicial branches of government?
So, do you wish to go on the record standing behind the principle “If A make thus-and-such a detrimental-to-B assertion, and B does not make a denial, then the assertion should be presumed true.”?
In this particular circumstance, since Mary Calderone’s statement is supposedly a matter of public record, having been reported in the July 1960 issue of The American Journal of Public Health…
YES.
All right, let’s see a cite of that that does not come from a pro-life website.
“Republican-controlled Congress.”
Only if you’re willing to disregard any and all claims that come from any pro-choice sources. This includes NARAL, Planned Parenthood and any authors with pro-choice leanings.
Me, I’d rather refute the arguments themselves, rather than ignore the ones that come from people whose viewpoints I dislike.
Of course. I don’t want those, either- I want a cite from a neutral site. The original journal would be best, but any site that wouldn’t have a motivation, financial or otherwise, to manufacture a quote or take one out of context to prove a point will do.
I was just looking up that article. It isn;t avalible on the net, but is intead avalible here for 15 dollars a shot. Looking through anti-abortion sites (Ugh!) I find this “article” is cited for everything from “A” to “Z”
I ssupect it says nothing of the kind.
Well, if it’s the Republican controlled Congress, then it would indeed be an act by activisit judges. Gosh, how did we miss that. :rolleyes:
As for “states’ rights”, the GOP is no more a defender of that than the Dems. They just want to control different things. Generally, though, that phrase is meant to interpret the constitution to prohibit the feds from overriding the states unless the feds are explicitly allowed to do so in the constitution. As I said earlier, if the constitution forbids the states to allow abortion, it isn’t an issue of “states’ rights”.
non sequitur?
Damn those dems, and they way they took away the states freedom to control the wombs of female residents! Damn them for taking away the states right to express that America was founded with Christian princibles.
It sure would. If they kept the right to privacy, but excluded abortion from that right, it may not have that drastic of effect on other rights. But, if it were a “strict constructionist” opinion, it most likely would call into question all those things.
Enlighten me.
Hey, first response post and already you’re telling me what I’m thinking. How surprising from you. :rolleyes:
No, the courts are not the ONLY body that can address unjust laws, but they are certainly part of the Constitutional review of legislation. It was those wonderful legislatures that you trust so much that enacted laws not allowing people to decide whether to use artificial methods of birth control, legislating what goes on in our bedrooms, and telling us how to raise our children. You really think, especially in this climate, that legislators have the best views of minorities in mind? Heh.
That’s not the “ideal.” The ideal is having a Constitution protect the rights of it’s people. The “ideal” is having another branch of government acting as a check and balance on the “will of the majority”.
Hey, two times you’ve put words in my mouth that I never said. And called them a mistake. No wonder I get such joy debating you.
“Pretend” it does. Your rhetoric is, as usual, dripping all over the issues. Here’s some more quotes for you:
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.
Thomas Jefferson
“Nothing is more revolting than the majority; for it consists of few vigorous predecessors, of knaves who accommodate themselves, of weak people who assimilate themselves, and the mass that toddles after them without knowing in the least what it wants”
Goethe
No, such a Constitutionanl amendment would have to be passed by three-fourths of the states. That’s why talk of
makes no sense. If anything, making it a Constitutional amendment would take it out of the hands of “activist judges”, and then only if three-fourths of the states concurred.
Then why did you make the comparison?
Where in your original post did you specify “medical marijuana”? And where did you get the idea that the interstate commerce justification has anything to do with medical marijuana?
And my preference would be to call all those new rights emanating from penumbrae into question.
And the Supreme Court has made equally stupid and short-sighted decisions. Absent any consideration for what the Constitution actually says, there is no check on the power of the Supremes to be stupid. Therefore, it is in everyone’s best interests to reserve that power for the responsive legislature rather the unresponsive courts.
Then see above. If judges are the sort of absolute autocrats who can bring about anything they like by simply informing us that this is what the Constitution really says, then there is no limit on their power. And the rights of the people have no protection.
You asked the question, and I responded. Words like “may” or “I think” apparently escape your notice. That being the case, feel free not to ask me questions in future, if you dislike my responses so much.
Probably not possible.
Regards,
Shodan
First off, I didn’t say how I was comparing the two just that it had a much greater impact. I should have been clearer and for that I apologize.
I brought up the comparison becuase it shows that the standard is set at a drop in the ocean. If the California law was enacted in all 50 states we are talking at most a couple hundred pounds maybe a thousand pounds of marijuana. Considering that (according to your cite) 5.5 million pounds of MJ were grown in the country you will be hard pressed to convince me that a thousand pounds will have a greater impact than legalizing/banning abortion in an entire state will.
I didn’t and I apologize for not making it explicit.