Do you own your body?

[icanhelp1]

James Wilson:

He did fall victim to bad debt issues due to bad land deals and did serve 2 short periods of time in debtor prison which was unfortunate. He fell victim to the great panic of 1796-1797 the collapse of a land bubble. The early beginnings of our government was a period of great debt and instability of our fledgling economy and worthless currency as a result of the revolutionary war. Many fell victim to fraud land deals including Wilson. The less wealthy, like Wilson, fell victim to land speculation. The British added to America's financial woes by passing the Bank Restriction Act causing the collapse of America's " HOUSE of PAPER ". Many prominent men were sentenced to debtor prison.

To categorize Wilson as *IMMORAL* is a stretch. He accomplished many great things. You have to take into consideration *at that time* every action, every decision tested the blueprint of governing outlined by the new constitution and the First Congress. Debt was a burden and influenced his tenure as a SCJ, he was a staunch constitutionalist with an unyielding belief in national government.

 

[RobDownSouth]

The fetus is not infringing on the rights of the mother. The fetus was created by the mother.

Google "Ectopic Pregnancy" and get back to us, m'kay?

 

[colddiesel]

James Wilson:

He did fall victim to bad debt issues due to bad land deals and did serve 2 short periods of time in debtor prison which was unfortunate. He speculated in land with other folks moneyMany prominent men were sentenced to debtor prison.

To categorize Wilson as *IMMORAL* is a stretch. He accomplished many great things. You have to take into consideration *at that time* every action, every decision tested the blueprint of governing outlined by the new constitution and the First Congress. Debt was a burden and influenced his tenure as a SCJ, he was a staunch constitutionalist with an unyielding belief in national government.

He speculated in land with other folks money and lost it. He was a profiteer guilty of engrossment. He was the paid servant of a foreign government. And a Supreme Court Justice. You can make whatever "moral" judgements that you care to. I would prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.

 

[icanhelp1]

He speculated in land with other folks money and lost it. He was a profiteer guilty of engrossment. He was the paid servant of a foreign government. And a Supreme Court Justice. You can make whatever "moral" judgements that you care to. I would prefer to let the facts speak for themselves.

I'm not judging him *you are*. His brush with speculative land deals was not illegal at the time, not paying his debt got him in trouble. You can challenge him being a principled individual but his opinion on the sanctity of life as it relates to common law is certainly not diminished because of it.

He took a position as Advocate General for France in America during the war, so what? George Washington owned slave and he was president so let's shitcan all the good that came from our founding fathers. Washington also freed all his slaves **but hey! he be a bad man!*

 

[adrina]

So... the lying dumbshit who argues that abortion isn't a right because it's not mentioned in the constitution is trying to argue that someone who helped write the constitution etc wrote about women. And that's supposed to count as women being in the constitution.

Okey dokey.

 

[Wrong Element]

This might be a place to point out that the mass murder in Buffalo actually ties in here, because the "Replacement Theory" wackjobs are absolutely obsessed with the idea that white women aren't having enough children. And if they aren't having enough children voluntarily, well ...

 

[IrezumiKiss]

George Washington owned slave and he was president so let's shitcan all the good that came from our founding fathers. Washington also freed all his slaves **but hey! he be a bad man!*

uhhhh....yeaaaaaah...about that....

https://i.imgur.com/EdMdRZI.png
https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-really-free-mount-vernons-slaves

you might not wanna look into his famous "wooden" teeth, either.

but hey! don't let anyone tell you that you can't keep viewing America's history through 2nd grade Little Golden books, sport!

 

[icanhelp1]

So... the lying dumbshit who argues that abortion isn't a right because it's not mentioned in the constitution is trying to argue that someone who helped write the constitution etc wrote about women. And that's supposed to count as women being in the constitution.

Okey dokey.

Calling everyone you disagree with a lying dumbshit does nothing to strengthen your argument, pretty immature actually.

Abortion, as you so vehemently protect, is not a right and is not mentioned in the constitution. Several posters tried to educate you on the legal aspects of R vs W and how activist judges contorting the 9th and 14TH amendment ruled to protect abortion within the right to privacy clause which under the 9th A you could determine that a hamburger is essential for women's health. It was a flawed decision in 1973, gained precedent due to one bad ruling after another and now the court is going to rule correctly whatever that outcome will be.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Calling everyone you disagree with a lying dumbshit does nothing to strengthen your argument, pretty immature actually.

Abortion, as you so vehemently protect, is not a right and is not mentioned in the constitution. Several posters tried to educate you on the legal aspects of R vs W and how activist judges contorting the 9th and 14TH amendment ruled to protect abortion within the right to privacy clause which under the 9th A you could determine that a hamburger is essential for women's health. It was a flawed decision in 1973, gained precedent due to one bad ruling after another and now the court is going to rule correctly whatever that outcome will be.

The fact that its not mentioned in the constitution is irrelevant to an adult conversation. I'm having one helluva time finding the part where you have a right to hunt (which apparently you don't, you can only hunt in certain seasons and only so much, same with fishing but I'm pretty sure that's not what the FF had in mind) it doesn't give you the right to cut down trees, wear clothing, farm the land, raise live stock so on and so forth. The Founders were notorious for giving only the most important, in their eyes, details. Hell about half of them opposed the Bill of Rights because most of that was common sense.

The Framers are long since dead. When someone can explain to me why 'We the Living' should be slaves to the dead I'll honestly give a shit about the Constitution as anything more than a cudgel people with no good arguments to make lean on in the hopes nobody calls them out. Because that is primarily what it is today.

 

[icanhelp1]

uhhhh....yeaaaaaah...about that....

https://i.imgur.com/EdMdRZI.png
https://www.history.com/news/did-george-washington-really-free-mount-vernons-slaves

you might not wanna look into his famous "wooden" teeth, either.

but hey! don't let anyone tell you that you can't keep viewing America's history through 2nd grade Little Golden books, sport!

I said Washington freed his remaining slaves, what happened after he died is another story. His will was not followed for the reasons you so aptly googled. It's a dark period in our history, we all agree to that.

Be sure to brush on how slavery came to America. 1619 was a landmark in the history of slavery in America not the beginning. Black people had slaves, West and Central Africa traded slaves to western European colonies then on to America, purely unintentional, started as a trade for food.

 

[adrina]

Calling everyone you disagree with a lying dumbshit does nothing to strengthen your argument, pretty immature actually.

Abortion, as you so vehemently protect, is not a right and is not mentioned in the constitution. Several posters tried to educate you on the legal aspects of R vs W and how activist judges contorting the 9th and 14TH amendment ruled to protect abortion within the right to privacy clause which under the 9th A you could determine that a hamburger is essential for women's health. It was a flawed decision in 1973, gained precedent due to one bad ruling after another and now the court is going to rule correctly whatever that outcome will be.

So maybe you can defend qualified immunity and public funds for private institutions - as neither are listed in the constitution but have been ruled as such by this very same court.

I'm sorry that you, a lying dumbshit, does not like being called a lying dumbshit.

My suggestion is that you should quit lying and quit being a dumbshit.

I can't help it that all anti abortion fanatics and the anti abortion movement is inherently dishonest. That's on you. Don't like the spotlight? Step out of it.

 

[icanhelp1]

The fact that its not mentioned in the constitution is irrelevant to an adult conversation. I'm having one helluva time finding the part where you have a right to hunt (which apparently you don't, you can only hunt in certain seasons and only so much, same with fishing but I'm pretty sure that's not what the FF had in mind) it doesn't give you the right to cut down trees, wear clothing, farm the land, raise live stock so on and so forth. The Founders were notorious for giving only the most important, in their eyes, details. Hell about half of them opposed the Bill of Rights because most of that was common sense.

The Framers are long since dead. When someone can explain to me why 'We the Living' should be slaves to the dead I'll honestly give a shit about the Constitution as anything more than a cudgel people with no good arguments to make lean on in the hopes nobody calls them out. Because that is primarily what it is today.

There are 27 amendments to the constitution, I suggest you familiarize yourself with them. Start with the first 10 ( bill of rights ). When you're done with that move on to the other 17. Then move on to the 7 articles of confederation, concentrate of the first 3, by then you should have a good idea of what the constitution is all about, maybe you'll get a handle on the importance of separation of powers and the power each branch of government is granted by the constitution, defined by articles 1- 3.

If you really get friskie take a hack at the federalist papers, you can get into the heads of our FFs and discover for yourself how brilliant they were.

 

[Sean Renaud]

There are 27 amendments to the constitution, I suggest you familiarize yourself with them. Start with the first 10 ( bill of rights ). When you're done with that move on to the other 17. Then move on to the 7 articles of confederation, concentrate of the first 3, by then you should have a good idea of what the constitution is all about, maybe you'll get a handle on the importance of separation of powers and the power each branch of government is granted by the constitution, defined by articles 1- 3.

If you really get friskie take a hack at the federalist papers, you can get into the heads of our FFs and discover for yourself how brilliant they were.

I'm familiar with all but the articles which don't really matter any more. Not even sure what separation of powers has to do with a damn thing here but okay. The Founders may or may not have been brilliant. They are still quite dead and that should nullify their vote.

 

[icanhelp1]

So maybe you can defend qualified immunity and public funds for private institutions - as neither are listed in the constitution but have been ruled as such by this very same court.

I'm sorry that you, a lying dumbshit, does not like being called a lying dumbshit.

My suggestion is that you should quit lying and quit being a dumbshit.

I can't help it that all anti abortion fanatics and the anti abortion movement is inherently dishonest. That's on you. Don't like the spotlight? Step out of it.

If not for qualified immunity our government would come to a screeching halt. It provides some protections allowing government officials to govern and uphold our laws within the confines of the constitution. It's a touchy subject but without it I believe police protection as we know it will crumble.

Public funds for private institutions? example?

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm familiar with all but the articles which don't really matter any more. Not even sure what separation of powers has to do with a damn thing here but okay. The Founders may or may not have been brilliant. They are still quite dead and that should nullify their vote.

I can't help you, maybe move to N Korea.

 

[adrina]

If not for qualified immunity our government would come to a screeching halt. It provides some protections allowing government officials to govern and uphold our laws within the confines of the constitution. It's a touchy subject but without it I believe police protection as we know it will crumble.

Public funds for private institutions? example?

Sorry it's not in the constitution. And whether our gov't would come to a screeching halt without it is your opinion. A very biased one at that.

This is where I know you're truly fucking stupid. Taxpayer funded religious based anti abortion clinics for one. JFC There's others but that's a huge one given this discussion.

This is also where you have handily demonstrated what a liar you and all anti abortion freaks are. It's okay for your pet causes but not abortion - even though neither are in the constitution at all.

Again if you don't want to be called a lying dumbshit I would strongly suggest you quit being a lying dumbshit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I can't help you, maybe move to N Korea.

You're right you can't help me. You're a slave and I'm not.

 

[icanhelp1]

Sorry it's not in the constitution. And whether our gov't would come to a screeching halt without it is your opinion. A very biased one at that.

I never wrote that QI was in the constitution I didn't write anything about QI. It's a principle established by the high court to protect government official and lawmakers while conducting the people's business.

This is where I know you're truly fucking stupid. Taxpayer funded religious based anti abortion clinics for one. JFC There's others but that's a huge one given this discussion.

What harm do these religious based anti-abortion clinics do other than piss you off. They counsel clients against having an abortion, what's wrong with that. I'm certain that many religious institutions provide prenatal health for mothers. Doesn't Planned Parenthood get tax dollars and I'm fine with that just don't use my tax money for abortion.

This is also where you have handily demonstrated what a liar you and all anti abortion freaks are. It's okay for your pet causes but not abortion - even though neither are in the constitution at all.

Again if you don't want to be called a lying dumbshit I would strongly suggest you quit being a lying dumbshit.

Still don't know what lie?
Funding for anything is a legislative function or a charitable donation, if people vote for it it gets funded. I'm sure New York, CA will get their piece of the pie. I know for sure NY, CA and IL will state fund abortions for instate and out of state abortions which is an advantage to abortion hunters.

 

[Lady2020]

Yes, I own my own body. Although there apparently are those who think I don't. In daily life and in watching the shitshow known as the GOP.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

I said Washington freed his remaining slaves, what happened after he died is another story. His will was not followed for the reasons you so aptly googled. It's a dark period in our history, we all agree to that.

We can agree that you were incorrect on them being freed and Washington doing the freeing, yes.

Be sure to brush on how slavery came to America. 1619 was a landmark in the history of slavery in America not the beginning. Black people had slaves, West and Central Africa traded slaves to western European colonies then on to America, purely unintentional, started as a trade for food.

I'm very aware of how chattel slavery became an institution in America and how it is routinely equalized alongside other diverse slavery systems worldwide throughout history as deflection in order to dilute its legacy and impact on systemic racism and white supremacy in past and contemporary American society, yes.

 

[adrina]

I never wrote that QI was in the constitution I didn't write anything about QI. It's a principle established by the high court to protect government official and lawmakers while conducting the people's business.

What harm do these religious based anti-abortion clinics do other than piss you off. They counsel clients against having an abortion, what's wrong with that. I'm certain that many religious institutions provide prenatal health for mothers. Doesn't Planned Parenthood get tax dollars and I'm fine with that just don't use my tax money for abortion.

Still don't know what lie?
Funding for anything is a legislative function or a charitable donation, if people vote for it it gets funded. I'm sure New York, CA will get their piece of the pie. I know for sure NY, CA and IL will state fund abortions for instate and out of state abortions which is an advantage to abortion hunters.

More bullshit from bullshit.

The entire basis of the anti abortion argument is that it isn't in the constitution. That it's not even rightfully based in any of the constitution.

Yet you support QI. Again which has zero mention and is not based in the constitution. Same with the private funding. Your cherry picking is what makes you anti abortion zealots dishonest.

I have a problem with using taxpayer funds to lie to and then abandon women in need. You don't care about women, pregnancy, the fetus or the baby that will be born so you just think they're doing great. Again, fuck off with your bullshit.

Name the constitutional basis - what passages and specific texts - allow for qualified immunity and taxpayer funds for religious/private organizations. Abortion has the 9th and 14th, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. What's the constitutional basis for QI and taxpayer funding?

 

[pecksniff]

Without an expansive reading of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights would never have been applied to state and local governments. It was so applied through a rather contorted interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[icanhelp1]

More bullshit from bullshit.

The entire basis of the anti abortion argument is that it isn't in the constitution. That it's not even rightfully based in any of the constitution.

The anti-abortion argument for pro-life advocates is more of a moral argument, although it's been a political firestorm even before 1973. Overturning R v W just takes it out of the court's hands and give it back to the states, no ban involved

Yet you support QI. Again which has zero mention and is not based in the constitution. Same with the private funding. Your cherry picking is what makes you anti abortion zealots dishonest.

Again QI is not a right it's a legal principle, a judicial creation by the high court. I do support it as long as it defends lawmakers and police from frivolous lawsuits, not statutory violations or prosecution from a violation. If you wore the uniform you might feel different

I have a problem with using taxpayer funds to lie to and then abandon women in need. You don't care about women, pregnancy, the fetus or the baby that will be born so you just think they're doing great. Again, fuck off with your bullshit.

I had 2 grandmothers, a mother, a wife and 2 girls, to accuse me of not caring is a pretty ignorant comment on your part. I also never agreed to a total ban on abortion. Any abortion after the first trimester pretty much falls within the range of agreement with most women as unacceptable

Name the constitutional basis - what passages and specific texts - allow for qualified immunity and taxpayer funds for religious/private organizations. Abortion has the 9th and 14th, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. What's the constitutional basis for QI and taxpayer funding?

 

[adrina]

The anti-abortion argument for pro-life advocates is more of a moral argument, although it's been a political firestorm even before 1973. Overturning R v W just takes it out of the court's hands and give it back to the states, no ban involved

Again QI is not a right it's a legal principle, a judicial creation by the high court. I do support it as long as it defends lawmakers and police from frivolous lawsuits, not statutory violations or prosecution from a violation. If you wore the uniform you might feel different

I had 2 grandmothers, a mother, a wife and 2 girls, to accuse me of not caring is a pretty ignorant comment on your part. I also never agreed to a total ban on abortion. Any abortion after the first trimester pretty much falls within the range of agreement with most women as unacceptable

You don't give three fucks about women. You'll vote for politicians that will enact a nationwide ban. Fuck off with your bullshit.

Again for the dumbshit liars in the back: this court - this very court as a matter of fact - has ruled that both QI and taxpayer dollars for private organizations are constitutional.

Where in the constitution - what specific text - supports them?

 

[icanhelp1]

You don't give three fucks about women. You'll vote for politicians that will enact a nationwide ban. Fuck off with your bullshit.

Again for the dumbshit liars in the back: this court - this very court as a matter of fact - has ruled that both QI and taxpayer dollars for private organizations are constitutional.

Where in the constitution - what specific text - supports them?

Again, QI has no statutory relevance, it was created by the supreme court, it's a judicial precedent to provide protection to police officers from frivolous civil lawsuits.
Unfortunately QI has been misused in the past to shield police officers from being prosecuted for statutory violations, it definitely needs to be cleaned up. When civil servants violate other people's constitutional rights they need to be prosecuted. The misuse of QI has eroded trust in the community and has damaged the law enforcement community as well. Better training for police officer, video cams and better laws to help police officers keep the straight and narrow. Police unions have played a big role in the misuse of QI. It's a very complex issue, QI is not grounded in constitutional law leaving it to be a very amorphous standard.

The remedy: congress needs to pass legislation clarifying section 1983 that when government actors at all levels are held accountable and liable when violating someone's federally protected rights. Without QI I believe recruitment for highly qualified personnel would suffer greatly.

HR 1470 is the house bill to eliminate QI, not sure what stage it's at.
S.492 to eliminate QI not sure what stage its at