[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The Constitution (which is the Law of the Land...)

It specifically states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

Yes, laws are to be created by Congress (except when prohibited by the Constitution [see above]), and by the States...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

And the THREE judges just expeditiously appointed all lied under oath and in private conversations and said it was not an issue, then immediately overturned hundreds of years of precedent. This is exactly a case of do anything to get into power, and then change things based on politics or religion.

Nope... (thin ice, my friend...)

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by George Page

WRONG
If the Constitution, or a law enacted by Congress, provided the right to abortion, the Supreme Court could not undo it. The Court can, however, overturn its previous decisions which it has done over 300 times.

Your emphatic assertion aside, many believe the right to control your own body follows from the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments. Previous courts agrees. This one did not.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The question is not that they can, it is that they gave no good legal reason for doing it. Almost everything in the majority opinion was wrong.

Again, Nope...

They had a good reason. The initial RvW decision was a bad decision (not because of the content of the decision, that's another debate), but because it was wrong of the court to try to establish a law. It is not their job to do that. That power belongs to the legislative branch...

RBG explained that quite clearly...

[George Page]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Exactly which law grants freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

The courts did not create law, they affirmed that the right was granted by the Constitution. Then a later court changes its mind.

REALLY?
The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Now you tell me, which federal law provides the right to abortion or where it is addressed in the Constitution.

[kkingston57]

Originally Posted by rsimpson

Easy to fix - Eliminate the HOV lanes. Another failed "green New Deal" idea.

HOV lanes are now toll lanes.

[George Page]

[B][/B]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Your emphatic assertion aside, many believe the right to control your own body follows from the ninth, thirteenth, and fourteenth amendments. Previous courts agrees. This one did not.

I agree.
But, beliefs, decisions, and opinions are not law. If they were, the Supreme Court could not overturn them.

[George Page]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

The question is not that they can, it is that they gave no good legal reason for doing it. Almost everything in the majority opinion was wrong.

In my opinion, the fact that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution is a damn good reason.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by George Page

REALLY?
The First Amendment to the Constitution specifically provides for freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Now you tell me, which federal law provides the right to abortion or where it is addressed in the Constitution.

There are many amendments to the Constitution, not just the first.

See the ninth, it is very short: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we the people have more rights than just those previously enumerated. We retain ALL rights unless they are limited by law. This is how the Constitution works and it is how all laws should work. We do not live in a country where the people have to petition a benevolent government for their rights, we are supposed to be living in a country where the people enjoy all rights except those restricted by law.

So the question isn't, "Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion specifically granted?" The question is, "Where in the Constitution or State Law is the right to abortion specifically denied?" Then, of course, the courts get to decide of such a law violates the Constitution.

At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court decided they violated the Constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment if I remember correctly). This was considered settled for quite some time until the current Court had a chance to make their mark.

It will be interesting to see whether the States enact laws or an argument is made against forced child bearing under the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments.

It is interesting that some argue that this belongs in the hands of the States. I have suggested before that the States have performed poorly in the past in regards to civil rights and human rights. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments all feel as though they were written to deal with the way States have handled these types of rights.

[jimbomaybe]

I find it interesting that no middle ground has been discussed , its a human being when the egg is fertilized and has right or not until birth, I hope I have further clouded the issue

[Caymus]

.....just a related side question...

Are HOV lanes still useful in the current days of remote work?

[George Page]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

There are many amendments to the Constitution, not just the first.

See the ninth, it is very short: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In other words, we the people have more rights than just those previously enumerated. We retain ALL rights unless they are limited by law. This is how the Constitution works and it is how all laws should work. We do not live in a country where the people have to petition a benevolent government for their rights, we are supposed to be living in a country where the people enjoy all rights except those restricted by law.

So the question isn't, "Where in the Constitution is the right to an abortion specifically granted?" The question is, "Where in the Constitution or State Law is the right to abortion specifically denied?" Then, of course, the courts get to decide of such a law violates the Constitution.

At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion. The Supreme Court decided they violated the Constitution (particularly the 14th Amendment if I remember correctly). This was considered settled for quite some time until the current Court had a chance to make their mark.

It will be interesting to see whether the States enact laws or an argument is made against forced child bearing under the 9th, 13th, and 14th amendments.

It is interesting that some argue that this belongs in the hands of the States. I have suggested before that the States have performed poorly in the past in regards to civil rights and human rights. The 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments all feel as though they were written to deal with the way States have handled these types of rights.

You write: “At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion.” In fact, during the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. The Constitution is intentionally silent on the issue to let the colonies (now States) make their own laws. Attempts to retroactively broaden constitutional language to achieve a political agenda, while ignoring the reality of the intent at the time, is blatantly dishonest.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by George Page

You write: “At one time there were laws prohibiting abortion.” In fact, during the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. The Constitution is intentionally silent on the issue to let the colonies (now States) make their own laws. Attempts to retroactively broaden constitutional language to achieve a political agenda, while ignoring the reality of the intent at the time, is blatantly dishonest.

See my comments on the 9, 13, 14, 15, and 19 amendments and then talk to me about broadening the constitution or letting states decide.

I’ve explained all I can on this subject - moving on to roundabouts and dog poop.

[George Page]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

See my comments on the 9, 13, 14, 15, and 19 amendments and then talk to me about broadening the constitution or letting states decide.

I’ve explained all I can on this subject - moving on to roundabouts and dog poop.

My response in #88 stands, there is no specific language in any of your references regarding changing the accepted status quo which existed for about 200 years.

[DAVES]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Completely disagree. Texas made the law that says there were two people in the car; they can't have it both ways. Poorly-considered actions often have unintended consequences.

Law is full of such conflicts. The whole abortion issue is full of conflicts. First amendment outlaws a state religion. Claiming the fetus has a soul is thus in violation of the first amendment. I think it is the 13th amendment that says you cannot own a human thus a fetus does not belong to the state. That leaves the man and the woman responsible to choose or not choose an abortion. I deliberately avoided the term father and mother, that is far more of a commitment than the horizontal polka.