Why and how is abortion a state's rights issue?

[AsmodeusPrime]

I have read the decision.

You haven't. Else you wouldn't be making the argument you're making. And certainly where you're missing the "corporations are people" statement

Maybe wikipedia isn't sufficient in your legal reviews. (We'll, certainly without reviewing the footnotes)

I didn't make an argument.

Sure, and what's any of that 1A case got to do with 10A??

 

[adrina]

Why should I have to explain stuff that isn't relevant to the argument?

Yes, that covers the states, rather explicitly so.

No, you put up strawmen that have nothing to do with 10A or abortion seemingly in a bid to try and deflect from the fact you can't show any federal regulations that codify abortion rights.

It's very straightforward. 10A says what it says.... if you can't show us the federal abortion regulations or name the amendment making it a legal right.... states get to regulate, that's what the Constitution says, very explicitly. There is no inconsistency here. You just seem mad Roe got overturned and Democrats REFUSE to regulate or codify abortion as a right. Again, call your congress critters. There is nothing stopping congress and the WH from protecting abortion federally RIGHT NOW.....except those midterms!!! But they don't dare, roe getting overturned is the best thing that could have happened to them for the midterms.

So then your argument is, without any consistency or citation, "it's that way because I say so."

Noted. Time to let the adults discuss this, kiddo.

 

[ll74]

I didn't make an argument.

Sure, and what's any of that 1A case got to do with 10A??

Honestly, at this point, you've already destroyed the position you have. But yes, your argument was that Adriana's questions were irrelevant.

Wikipedia may help you but probably not.

 

[adrina]

Because the highest court in the land says so.

/thread

So then your argument is, without any consistency or citation, "it's that way because I say so."

Noted. Time to let the adults discuss this, kiddo.

 

[ll74]

Because the highest court in the land says so.

/thread

SCOTUS is inconsistent.

Got it.

That totally doesn't scream politics at all.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

So then your argument is, without any consistency or citation, "it's that way because I say so."

Noted. Time to let the adults discuss this, kiddo.

No my argument is that the Constitution says so.

It's perfectly consistent. Where is it not??

The ad hom shows who the kiddo in this situation is.

 

[Dribble]

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

SCOTUS is inconsistent.

Got it.

That totally doesn't scream politics at all.

Not in the overturning of Roe it isn't. (now I've made an argument)

When was political activism a problem?? Roe, overt political activism on the part of SCOTUS, was widely celebrated.

 

[adrina]

No my argument is that the Constitution says so.

It's perfectly consistent. Where is it not??

The ad hom shows who the kiddo in this situation is.

The constitution does not say so however.

The people are not the states. There is no legal basis to repeal Roe.

All you've done is shown that you are incapable of in depth discussion without relying on condescension and talking points.

If you want to be regarded as mature, then you can remedy that by acting maturely. I've asked a question and your answer was "because I say so".

 

[Dribble]

It does not. Unless you wish to allow the States to make all similar decisions. I personally am all for that. Removal of cancer is easy...if one chooses it to be so

No my argument is that the Constitution says so.

It's perfectly consistent. Where is it not??

The ad hom shows who the kiddo in this situation is.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

The constitution does not say so however.

The people are not the states. There is no legal basis to repeal Roe.

All you've done is shown that you are incapable of in depth discussion without relying on condescension and talking points.

If you want to be regarded as mature, then you can remedy that by acting maturely. I've asked a question and your answer was "because I say so".

Yes, it does, in 10A, 10A says the states.

No I answered "because the law says so" and showed you in 10A where it reserves the right of the states to regulate.... a point you haven't even attempted to refute, just tried to ignore.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

It does not. Unless you wish to allow the States to make all similar decisions. I personally am all for that. Removal of cancer is easy...if one chooses it to be so

Again, it does, explicitly so in 10A.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

Unless nothing.

States largely do, most regulation is done at a state and local level.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Honestly, at this point, you've already destroyed the position you have. But yes, your argument was that Adriana's questions were irrelevant.

Wikipedia may help you but probably not.

No, I haven't, I've triggered the shit out of a white knight though. You got a crush on her or something? Sad...

They are irrelevant. What does CU a 1A case have to do with abortion and 10A??? Nothing.

She's deflecting, trying to pretend 10A isn't there or doesn't say what it very clearly says.

 

[adrina]

Yes, it does, in 10A, 10A says the states.

No I answered "because the law says so" and showed you in 10A where it reserves the right of the states to regulate.... a point you haven't even attempted to refute, just tried to ignore.

No actually you didn't. You quoted 10A - which states, the states or the people. Or. The people are not the states. I've pointed this out at least twice now and again all you do is rely on talking points.

Explain why abortion is covered by 10A but QI and corporations as people aren't. Can you do this one simple thing?

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

No actually you didn't. You quoted 10A - which states, the states or the people. Or. The people are not the states. I've pointed this out at least twice now and again all you do is rely on talking points.

Explain why abortion is covered by 10A but QI and corporations as people aren't. Can you do this one simple thing?

Yes, showing you where it explicitly gives states the right to regulate what the feds do not. That means the states have a right to regulate "or the people" doesn't make "the states" part go away no matter how many times you try to pretend it does. I've pointed this out to you at least twice now and again I'm relying on the word of the law, not talking points.

Abortion isn't covered, the states right to regulate anything the federal government does not (like abortion) is.

Those weren't 10A cases... again with this "How come soccer rules don't apply to the 400m swim??" deflection.

"corporations as people" was a 1A case and QI I believe was a 4A case. They have absolutely nothing to do with 10A protecting states rights to regulate that which the feds do not.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Again, it does, explicitly so in 10A.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

Unless nothing.

States largely do, most regulation is done at a state and local level.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Cite?

 

[Dribble]

Again, it does, explicitly so in 10A.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

Unless nothing.

States largely do, most regulation is done at a state and local level.

Again...it does not. Know why? Because of the other Amendments guaranteeing equal rights. Can't have it both ways. So choose which path you wish to walk.

 

[adrina]

Yes, showing you where it explicitly gives states the right to regulate what the feds do not. That means the states have a right to regulate "or the people" doesn't make "the states" part go away no matter how many times you try to pretend it does. I've pointed this out to you at least twice now and again I'm relying on the word of the law, not talking points.

Abortion isn't covered, the states right to regulate anything the federal government does not (like abortion) is.

Those weren't 10A cases... again with this "How come soccer rules don't apply to the 400m swim??" deflection.

"corporations as people" was a 1A case and QI I believe was a 4A case. They have absolutely nothing to do with 10A protecting states rights to regulate that which the feds do not.

So... more talking points without consistency.

This isn't sports. These are human rights.

Deflect less. Explain more.

Your specific point was that abortion had no federal laws and was therefore unconstitutional. But that doesn't matter for QI or corporations as people because... reasons. The reality is that your "reasons" are constructed out of hysteria and not law.

The people are not the states. They are different entities and quite purposefully so.

"The states" do not hold "the states" accountable, "the people" do. This entire argument that the people are the states and therefore states have the right to control what women do with their bodies is not logical or sound. It has no legal basis and no logical basis.

All you've done is, again, spout talking points.

Maybe you can tell us why cadavers can't be compelled to donate their tissues and organs to preserve a life. Maybe.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

Again...it does not. Know why? Because of the other Amendments guaranteeing equal rights. Can't have it both ways. So choose which path you wish to walk.

Yes, rights.

But abortion is not a right. Back to needing actual legislation or even better an amendment to protect it as such.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Cite?

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096...o-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

So... more talking points without consistency.

No, again with word of law and there only thing without consistency is your bringing up 1A and 4A cases that have nothing to do with the subject you brought up.

 

[AsmodeusPrime]

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096...o-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

Nice link to a leftist propaganda site.

I await your citation to back up your previous claims.

 

[adrina]

Yes, rights.

But abortion is not a right. Back to needing actual legislation or even better an amendment to protect it as such.

Bodily autonomy is not a right? So then the government can come for your blood and tissues. To preserve the life of another.

 

[adrina]

No, again with word of law and there only thing without consistency is your 1A and 4A cases that have nothing to do with the subject you brought up.

Not really. You've not demonstrated at all why abortion is a state's right issue when it comes to regulation. No one outside of your choir has been convinced of your perspective. You've convinced no one but those who already believe as you do.

Is that success?