It's the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," that seems to be invisible to some people, including the Supreme Court. Especially the words "well regulated".
US Supreme Court overturns abortion precedent
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government. Anti-Federalists believed that a centralized standing military, established by the Constitutional Convention, gave the federal government too much power and potential for violent oppression.
OK
let us consider the prefatory clause
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
In line with what Madison intended
we would then understand "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed"
would naturally include weapons commonly used by the army
including select fire rifles
Did you really want to go down that rabbit hole?
It's rather telling he used the word anything instead of anyone
Unintelligent people with small vocabularies refer to cursing as a sign of laziness and unintelligence, it's actually a science of a higher intellect.
secondly, if you are referring to a person as a thing you don't love them.
Thirdly their is no states right to deny women personhood no matter what you think.
We would naturally understand that those weapons were intended for a "well-regulated militia" - not for every yahoo who wants to play Rambo.
Not in this thread. Let's stick with oppressing women in this thread and leave arming idiots to a more appropriate one.
Exactly
You want a gun. Sign here and here are the dates and times you will attend training and marching drills and be on call 24 hours a day in case of any insurrection. Don't worry the police will be there to help you
As I understand this well-regulated militia would be used against a despot Government out to plunder the country for itself
So who would be in charge of this well-regulated militia? Who would be running this rag tag militia keeping them well-regulated? Who would decide the Government was becoming despot and it was time to turf them out and not via the ballot box?
It seems like it would be some sort of opposition which has not been elected into Pallament. This opposition has rounded up a bunch of like minded, people who have weapons to take down the Government
Very odd
Last edited:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Now
You're just being silly
Did the Supreme Court consider what the effect of handing abortion control back to the state level would be on women's choice?
Say you live in a state where it's legal and you have an abortion, then years later you move to a state where it isn't. Do you get charged with murder?
Or if you travel to a legal state to have an arranged abortion, then go home but your home state doesn't allow abortions beyond the time you had yours. What happens? Is Biden going to be able to protect such cases from their states?
Say you live in a state where it's legal and you have an abortion, then years later you move to a state where it isn't. Do you get charged with murder?
Or if you travel to a legal state to have an arranged abortion, then go home but your home state doesn't allow abortions beyond the time you had yours. What happens? Is Biden going to be able to protect such cases from their states?
there is nothing silly about calling out your misogyny.
if you are refering to the last bit, im sorry you think reality is silly. the fact remains with with this ruling a woman literally has more right to bodily autonomy as a corpse than as a living breathing person.
bold of you to assume they give a damn. they don't care that their risking lives. its all about making sure everyone lives according to their beliefs
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
Unless said state has a specific law against traveling out of state to get an abortion, they could not legally charge someone who did so. As of yet, I haven't heard of any state seriously considering one.
This could change, but I think it would turn out badly for the state that does it. For the most part, people that would travel out of state to get an abortion would be those that could afford to do so. Remove that option and many will choose to relocate out of state. This would drain the state of a portion of of its high income earners, making it a "poorer" state, and less attractive to new businesses, starting in a downhill slide.
Then there is the fact that a good number of legislators who vote for anti-abortion laws in their state don't do so from their own moral position, but because it panders to a specific voter base. They are in that group that can afford to, and would have out of state abortions done. They would be reluctant to close that loophole.
texas has made it illegal to go to another state with its bounty bill
I suppose Canada can expect another wave of refugees from the US.
In Missouri they are trying to pass such a law. Republican state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman is one of the polticians pushing this; she said it specifically targets a Planned Parenthood clinic in Illinois just across the river from St. Louis. She said “If you believe as I do that every person deserves dignity and respect and protection whether they’re born or unborn, then of course you want to protect your citizens, no matter where they are. If a Missouri resident is hurt, even in Illinois, by a product that they bought in Illinois, there is still jurisdiction for them to sue in a Missouri court because that’s home for them … and this is extending that same kind of thought to abortion jurisprudence.”
There is precedence for that decision - the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. It was a federal law that allowed (say) Georgia to pursue escaped slaves into (say) New York, then charge anyone who helped the slave escape with a crime. This has been cited several times by republicans as an indication that penalties for out-of-state abortions are legal.
Of course there's something chilling about targeting women by citing a law once used to keep slaves from freedom, but that's where we are now as a country.
Bells
Staff member
Is that constitutional though? I thought the 14th Amendment allowed the 'right to travel'?
Unless they want to detain or check women at the various entry points and borders for Texas, they cannot infringe on the right of people to travel where they wish to travel. And if they attempt to stop women or essentially declare women are prisoners in Texas if they are pregnant or could be pregnant and cannot leave in case they are going to procure an abortion, or even if they leave the state to obtain an abortion, then that would be unconstitutional - particularly when it comes to the right to privacy, would it not?
Bells
Staff member
What does this have to do with the subject matter of this thread and why do you view us as "things" or objects?
Human rights laws that the US ratified begs to differ, same with rights to privacy in the US.. No?
Unless you wish to view women as being less human?
That's nice. No one cares.
Why are you trying to throw this thread off topic?
is it constitutional? probably not. will the current nut job supreme court rule it is? who knows. they just threw out a settle precedent with the most flimsy of bullshit arguments, essentially ruling, at least as far as i'm concerned, women aren't people. I don't know where the line is and that scares me. not to be melodramatic but roe v wade overturned could be the beginnings of the end of humanity. if the us loses the republic, especially to a person like trump i don't see how humanity lives. its all a matter of time. if the us loses democracy, its gonna go fascist. fascist countries tend to need to be put down militarily and i don't see how that can happen with the us unless we go full kleptocracy like russia.
Might come under something like "Travelling for the purpose of commuting a act which would be a crime in Texas's"