«12. . .574575576577578579580. . .716717»
Alice from Alice in Wonderland is the symbol of the aristocracy and how they meddle in the people's affairs. Her survival in the end is a show of how the aristocracy forever survives and dominance is the rival of Homo sapiens. The Queen of Hearts, despite being a "queen" is actually a descendant of Robespierre and wants to make sure the Revolution has truly arrived, even if she has to chop off every head.
Must she chop off her own head once she kill monarchs?
I mean, she would, but before would she chop her own husband? Such a dilemma...
Speaking of the flip side (and on a personal note as a Yank), no truly freedom-loving Yank can wholeheartedly celebrate The 4th, when not all 'Americans" are free. Unless one is white, male, eighteen and numbered within Christian privilege, freedom is lacking for most Yanks; the case among First Nations' peoples, African Americans, and women. And from the murmurings of Clarence Thomas on the heels of *SCROTUM's removal of women's basic constitutional right, the LGBTQ+ community appears to be next on the hit list for overturning rights.
I saw a placard during a recent women's rights demonstration which read, Next They'll Come for You!
Rings so true here in *Ameriran.
The north american unified states, France Europe, and Sargk
Please be sarcasm, please be sarcasm.
The north american unified states, Republic of Mesque, Sheepiania, Sargk, and 1 otherNew Sylvan
America grants many freedoms through irrevocable rights, and earned privileges. These rights and privileges are found directly in the constitution, in laws passed by the United States Congress, and in legislatures throughout the 50 states and 6 territories, as well as policies set by the interior department within its power as set by Congress, for areas not served by the states and territories. These amendments, laws, and policies, are set by those elected or appointed by those elected through a representative democracy.
This is a slight tangent. The Supreme Court’s majority is set by a president, who is elected, and confirmed by a senate, which is also elected. (We could go into the Electoral College for all its benefits and flaws, but that is irrelevant, all politicians and campaigns understand how it works, and congress can work independently of the executive, if a majority of representatives disagree with their decision.) To call the Supreme Court illegitimate and rigged is not very bright, as the justices were appointed and confirmed by the peoples elected officials. Was the conduct with regarding the obstruction of an appointment by Obama immoral? Surely yes, it was, but immorality is not a crime or illegality, it is something that can only be punished by the voter at the ballot box, where the issue was more or less dismissed.
Back to my main issue, if it is decided through proper legal means that rights do not exist and are not prohibited in the constitution, these rights “are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (10th Amendment) and if you don’t have a solid majority in Congress to create this right or privilege that you want it will go back to the states. So here we are, take for example abortion, if a state’s elected representatives have passed a bill making abortion illegal or legal, and it is in accordance with their state’s constitution, then the other side is So. Out. of Luck. The will of the people through our system of representative democracy have spoken.
Should be mandatory viewing material along with all the other stuff they show you in health class
Honestly the Family Life units in Health (I guess its considered sex education) need a whole revamp, in my experience it's hardly useful.
Sheepiania and Sargk
I have had… an eccentric teacher, learned nothing, but what a character.
Help, I'm stuck in a never ending cycle of listening to American patriotic music.
Sheepiania, Sargk, and New Sylvan
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.
Valid argument. However I do have to note that the 10th Amendment is a fairly weak amendment, as 'delegated' encompasses both enumerated and implied powers of the federal government. This reflects the reality that the 10th Amendment is a 'truism'. It does nothing but reaffirm the previous enumerated powers (which include implied powers which use enumerated powers like the commerce clause) of the federal government and in Constitutional. In reality, it basically forces SCOTUS to ask the question on whether a certain action of the Federal Government is within its power to do so. However, it can be considered fairly redundant since any federal overreach in the regulation of certain aspects of life (private and government speech, gun ownership, etc) would be covered by the other Amendments. You can codify certain liberties with as little as 60 votes (to force cloture and override a filibuster) and it would work due to the Supremacy clause. You can confirm a SCOTUS judge with a simple majority. If these options are exhausted then yes, it does go back to the states, but the 10th serves only as a truism here.
I think a more apt Amendment to consider would be the 9th, which simply states that rights not explicitly defined within the Constitution does not mean they are not protected by the Bill of rights. For example the right to privacy, the right to gay marriage, and the right to vote are all protected under the 9th since none of these rights are explicitly defined within the Constitution. From the 9th Amendment these rights are then enforced onto the states through the 14th Amendment's Incorporation Doctrine via the Enforcement Clause.
In the case of abortion, SCOTUS decided that abortion was not protected under the 9th, and since there were no federal laws nor is the right explicitly protected in the Constitution, it goes to the States. The 10th reaffirms what is already obvious. The case of abortion pills is different. This is because mifepristone is approved for distribution by the FDA, a federal agency. If a state restricts the distribution of mifepristone to prevent usage of abortion pills, then it is incredibly easy to argue that a state has violated either the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Supremacy Clause. In particular the interstate commerce clause is particular relevant if a state ban on mifepristone hampers federal regulatory action on creating a safe and uniform environment for drug distribution. For example, one concern I have (and is likely already happening), is the creation of underground black markets of mifepristone. Lawmakers can likely argue on the unconstitutionality of the rational-basis test, although it will be difficult since constitutionally speaking, nothing stops legislatures from enacting stupid laws.
Anyways, another thing to note is that your argument is more reasonably based on federalism and separation of powers, rather than representative democracy. Almost all modern democracies are representative as all modern democracies elected representatives. It's counterpart, a direct democracy, really only exists in a few countries like Switzerland that have semi-direct democracies.
As for those calling SCOTUS illegitimate, I do agree with you. It is both stupid and dangerous to declare an institution illegitimate just because it's decisions do not fit your political agenda. In all due honesty, however, I don't think pro-choice advocates will have to wait long for a reversal. Support for abortion has remained consistently in the high 50s and low 60s for the past two decades. Christianity in America continues to decline at a rapid pace, dropping 10%+ over the past decade, which will overtime reduce Christian opposition towards abortion as their numbers dwindle. The last time any party had a 60 senator majority was in 2009 when the Democrats obtained that filibuster-proof number. With some Republican moderates engaging in bipartisanship, in reality Dems need perhaps 58 senators to codify Roe. Right now it seems impossible, but reality may be completely different in a couple election cycles. Even if abortion fails to be codified in federal law, I have a strong suspicion states will fail to restrict abortion due to the availability of mifepristone, which I think will likely hold itself in court.
And that right there is why you should always use protection if you don't want a baby or a STD, no denying of that. Of course there are exceptions to that like rape in which you don't really get to choose or if you wanted a baby but it would end badly for the mother. Of course if you forget it(not really a valid argument, always use stuff, under no means do it without it if you don't plan on getting a child) you should for me personally get the right to abortion but I really just want to make it clear: better be safe than sorry.
Are you telling me that you can prevent 95% of abortions just by using a piece of plastic? NO WAY! If this was true, there would be no outrage in the US right now, people would just use that, right? Right?
Sargk and Shahi Bengal
I’m gonna chunk this.
And since those options currently seem to be exhausted, the tenth amendment makes perfect sense(at least to me) to use here.
What you might have to worry about is less the rational basis test, but more that the court could take up a narrower interpretation of the commerce clause which would be groundbreaking if they replaced gibbons but it still may be possible to restrict it without going that far.
My legal argument was more on the principal of federalism, but the whole representative democracy thing was there because the post was an implied response to new slyvan’s. I have gotten into debates with other people who have after saying freedoms are being unfairly attacked will then go down the “wElL tHiS mIlDlY SKeTcHy PoLl i FoUnD sHoWs tHaT a MaJoRiTy oF aMeRiCaNs SuPpOrT mY sIdE oF tHe IsSuE” then when nothing gets done about it “tHiS iS aN aTtAcK oN dEmOcRaCy” road, which really irritates me, so I preemptively countered it.
The time it takes for the democrats to get these seats will take awhile, a rough midterm this year could see them lose control of the senate, and then look at the 2024 map. There are about 10 potentially competitive democratically held seats to maybe 2 for the republicans, if the republicans play their cards right, then could have the foundations for a long term ability to stop the democrats from getting anywhere near 60 votes. Another thing, Susan Collins, I have a hard time seeing her survive 2026.
There is little that can probably be done in the end about mifepristone, but states could probably get away with further regulating it, but not banning it, making it harder to access.
1. Hells Yea
2. No, because there always will be an outrage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones
Go down and read the description tab and then the interpretations. They are kind of cryptic if you read too much into them.
I watched a show on them a long time ago, some people tie them into the whole new world order theory.
The first thing I did was read the wiki. Did not understand it at all. The monument would be nice to look at if it was 5000 years old, but I think modern society can do better than a scuffed stonehenge.
It’s a big deal because people make conspiracy theories about it. That’s about it.
To all of the Brit’s in the region~
How long does Boris have left? An hour? A day? A week? The remainder of his term? A lifetime?
https://apple.news/AqZUVMsRaQwe1xlMbH3-I9Q
How is that man still PM he is an actual national embarrassment.
Republic of Mesque and Sheepiania
«12. . .574575576577578579580. . .716717»
Advertisement
