Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - stack

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 134  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: July 02, 2022, 08:48:51 PM »
It doesn't matter what I believe about your post.

Of course it doesn't matter what you believe. I'm just curious as to where someone like you with your post history stands on the topic at hand.

You were talking a lot about personhood, victims, etc. So a natural clarifying question, which is kinda at the root of the entire debate on the topic, is when is something considered a "person"?

So, from a person with your POV, it's a curiosity to see where you stand. As in is a blastocyte a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

Or is it only a person when the blastocyte becomes an embryo 3 weeks after conception?
Now that you finally agree, we can put this to rest.
[/quote]

I would say no, a blastocyte is not a person. So since you said we agree, I'm thinking that you too agree a blastocyte is not a person, therefore, if aborted, it is not a victim and is not murder and is not a crime. Thanks for clarifying & agreeing.

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 02, 2022, 08:39:22 PM »
Trump must've been riding in the front seat to pull off this one.

Per protocol, right?

The reports, whether true or not, is that he was in the second row behind the driver and was lunging toward the front seat driver.

The normal presidential 'beast' limo has a glass divider between the front seats and rear. Apparently, only the President has a button to lower it.

However, the Chevy SUV version of the beast that Trump was in I don't think has a divider.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: July 02, 2022, 05:41:42 PM »
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start?

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Again, the topic is abortion, not conception.

Correct. And here's a question about abortion, the topic: Do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
It doesn't matter what I believe about your post.

Of course it doesn't matter what you believe. I'm just curious as to where someone like you with your post history stands on the topic at hand.

You were talking a lot about personhood, victims, etc. So a natural clarifying question, which is kinda at the root of the entire debate on the topic, is when is something considered a "person"?

So, from a person with your POV, it's a curiosity to see where you stand. As in is a blastocyte a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

Or is it only a person when the blastocyte becomes an embryo 3 weeks after conception?

4
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: July 01, 2022, 10:43:05 PM »
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start?

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?
Again, the topic is abortion, not conception.

Correct. And here's a question about abortion, the topic: Do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

5
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: July 01, 2022, 08:59:14 PM »
And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?
I refer you back to the topic of abortion.

Abortion takes place at a time after conception.

When does a pregnancy start?

The start of pregnancy is actually the first day of your last menstrual period. This is called the gestational age, or menstrual age. It’s about two weeks ahead of when conception actually occurs. Though it may seem strange, the date of the first day of your last period will be an important date when determining your due date. Your healthcare provider will ask you about this date and will use it to figure out how far along you are in your pregnancy.

What happens right after conception?

Within 24 hours after fertilization, the egg begins rapidly dividing into many cells. It remains in the fallopian tube for about three days after conception. Then the fertilized egg (now called a blastocyte) continues to divide as it passes slowly through the fallopian tube to the uterus. Once there, its next job is to attach to the endometrium. This is called implantation.
Within three weeks, the blastocyte cells ultimately form a little ball, or an embryo. By this time, the first nerve cells have formed.


So do you believe a blastocyte is a person and a potential victim if an abortion occurs at this stage, post-conception, pre-embryo?

6
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: July 01, 2022, 05:44:51 PM »
Anyone willing to offer direct testimony of what happened has not been called to testify.

Coming soon, I hope...

Yesterday:

"I don't want to get into too many details," Cheney said. "The committee has spoken to both Mr. Ornato and Mr. Engel, and we welcome additional testimony under oath from both of them, and from anybody else in the Secret Service who has information about any of these issues."

Cheney added, "We have been working with the Secret Service, we have interviewed, as I said, a number of individuals in the Secret Service. We will continue to do so. And I think it is important that their testimony be under oath.
"

7
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: July 01, 2022, 05:39:46 PM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
The law already defines it.

If you murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder.

Pretty clear cut.

Not really that clear cut:

Some of the state-specific feticide laws considered the fetus to be a person if it is viable, meaning it can survive out of the womb independently.

Some States, the ones you would expect, consider a fetus a "person" at any stage of pregnancy, hence the double homicide. Other States say a fetus is a "person" at viability, not before.
And even some States have no laws on the books regarding this at all.

So no, the blanket statement of "murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder," is not true in all cases.
Of course, it isn't true in all cases due to the fact there are people who want to substitute their own reality for actual reality so they can kill a person via abortion without fear of external consequence.

People who do this are no better than John Wayne Gacy or Jeffery Dahmer or Ted Bundy.

The reality is that a victim = a person.

And you believe that conception immediately equals personhood?

8
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 07:25:15 PM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?
The law already defines it.

If you murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder.

Pretty clear cut.

Not really that clear cut:

Some of the state-specific feticide laws considered the fetus to be a person if it is viable, meaning it can survive out of the womb independently.

Some States, the ones you would expect, consider a fetus a "person" at any stage of pregnancy, hence the double homicide. Other States say a fetus is a "person" at viability, not before.
And even some States have no laws on the books regarding this at all.

So no, the blanket statement of "murder women who are pregnant, you are guilty of two counts of murder," is not true in all cases.

9
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 08:43:45 AM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.
This is just so lazy. You're telling me I'm wrong for pasting a literal law that explicitly excludes abortions and pretending like you understand legal terms better than people who write the laws.
Lazy?

The source I posted is a legal source, defining what a victim is.

A victim is a person, period, end of sentence.

That means when an abortion happens, a person is killed.

You have to define first whether a fetus is a ‘person’ or not. Then you can make the claim that when an abortion happens, a person is killed. That’s pretty much the crux of the whole issue; is a fetus a person at 6 weeks gestation? 12 weeks? 24 weeks? At conception?

Once you’ve defined that, then comes the sticky wicket around exceptions for the mothers health & rape and incest. And perhaps even viability of the fetus.

The easy out is a person exists at conception and there are no exceptions, all abortions under any circumstances are forbidden. Is that where you are?

10
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 07:24:34 AM »
Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.
And how, exactly, does that affect the legality of that path?

I'm not sure I understand the question. But Tom's point is that if the Southern States wanted to keep slavery and leave the Union and the North was like, "Ok cool, let's draw up the paperwork" - That would be legal. I agree. If everyone agrees, great, off we go. No harm, no foul, legal or otherwise. But that's not what happened, obvi. Why the North didn't just let the South bail out of the Union, I don't know. But they obviously didn't.

The legal issue we're discussing is around the post-Civil War decision handed down by SCOTUS in Texas v White. Nothing to do with the legality of the North deciding to not let the South secede back in 1861. The ruling in question was made a few years after the war ended and a year or so before Reconstruction basically ended. Though I suppose retroactively, it basically said it was unconstitutional for the South to secede prior to the war and the Feds didn't recognize secession States as a separate entity from the Union throughout the war - It was considered a rebellion instead.

Probably similar to how Jan 6th is classified, was it a protest, a demonstration, a rebellion, an insurrection, or a coup. Depends on who you ask.

Not sure if I addressed your question.

11
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 06:56:07 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

As bad as the constiutional argument was to get there in that case, the feeling Justices wanted to express about secession had at least a little logic.

They are saying that single state could not do it alone. If the Nortern states decided that they did not want to tolerate slavery in the Union they could have decided to split apart from the Southern states in secession. There was a secessionist solution there. They could have mutually split apart from each other if they wanted to, without resorting to violence.

They could of, but didn't. Hence a little thing called the 'Civil War'.

Your argument seems to be that they could have done something different. Whatever. They chose not to take the path you outlined. And that is that.

You were simply incorrect about it being impossible to leave and about it necessitating war. If the states do not like each other's laws they are free to split up, even by the opinion of that court.

Who said something was "impossible"? Anything is possible, but the fact remains that SCOTUS ruled secession unconstitutional. Period.
States are allowed to split themselves. There have been attempts to do so in at least California and Texas. But as evidenced by the Texas vs White decision, States are not allowed to wholly secede even if their people vote for it. Simple as that. And, even though those States did secede, the SCOTUS said that's all fine and good, but under our Constitutional eye, the secession was not recognized and the Feds determined they were still part of the union, even during Reconstruction. It's all right there in the decision.

As an alternate to secession, it was also possible for the states to simply decide that slavery was prohibited with the proper process of a Constitutional amendment and could have simply accepted the loss with sportsmanship and understanding if the country was not ready for it. This would have solved the issue. A number of countries largely came to reject slavery, so there is no excuse for calling for violence or workarounds when you are unable to pass a law in your own. Britain was able to pass legislation properly and end slavery without bloodshed. France managed to do it. Spain did it. Germany did it. All did it by their established and accepted process of abridging their national laws.

We're not talking about "could of's" because the fact of the matter is the actual history that occurred. Not what you would have preferred as an option.

In this case when you are told that you need a Constitutional amendment for abortion and to follow the rules the liberal response is "Noooo" and an insistance that everyone must accept an unwritten law about abortion. It is pretty sad that you can't seem to accept rules and the proper process of amending the Constitution to your liking.

It's sad they I can't accept the rules? Talk about talking out both sides of your mouth. As has already been shown, SCOTUS deemed secession unconstitutional. There's your rule to follow which you don't seem to want to accept.
As for abortion, the SCOTUS ruled that RvW is out and States can make their own rules. I'm not happy about it, find fault with it, but SCOTUS has ruled. So I must abide by the rule and work toward getting it changed.

Same for you. If you don't like the secession ruling from SCOTUS, work to have it changed. I'm not sure why you're getting all hypocritical and not grasping these simple facts.

12
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 04:02:26 AM »
Yes, the definition of unilateral was posted already. It means that if the blue and red states don't like each other's laws and would rather govern themselves, secession is possible.

How do you get that from this:

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

Essentially, they (Texas) could not unilaterally (may NOT take the authorized action to secede without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association (The US Governmment).

It's pretty clear. What laws or rulings are you looking at that say the SCOTUS' interpretation of the Constitution was wrong?

13
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 03:05:15 AM »
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

Wow. You did not even read your own posted text you pasted from "the lawyers" -

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union"

Law Definition:

Unilaterally means that the Declarant may take the authorized action without the consent, approval, vote, or joinder of any other person, such as Owners, mortgagees, and the Association.
https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/unilaterally

"The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature..."

14
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 30, 2022, 12:33:34 AM »
Interesting interpretation of constitutional law you're making. I'll stick with lawyers making the actual interpretation, not you.

In the meantime, according to lawyers, you are wrong:

1.1 The distinction between a (mere) justification and having a claim-right
We begin with a distinction between unilateral and consensual secession. The former is secession without the consent of the state from which a portion of territory is taken by the seceding group or without constitutional sanction.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/secession/

From Cornell’s Legal Information Institute (LII), Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law re Texas v White 1869:

Conclusion
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that Texas did indeed have the right to bring suit. The Court held that Texas had remained a state, despite joining the Confederate States of America and its being under military rule at the time of the decision. The Court further held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas legislature--even if ratified by a majority of Texans--were "absolutely null." Even during the period of rebellion, however, the Court found that Texas continued to be a state.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/74us700

15
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 29, 2022, 09:22:40 PM »
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/94.102

Seems a crime victim is a person

You are just flat-out wrong.

So, there you have it.

An unborn fetus is a person.

In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court asserted that corporations are people. Seems like a lot of things can be a person. Until such time that States out-and-out ban all abortions with no exceptions, all abortions are crimes against victims/persons?

If the mother dies and her death could have been prevented if she aborted, yet a law states that abortion under any circumstances is a crime, is the mother not a person, a victim? Who deserves to live, the Mother or the fetus?

16
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 29, 2022, 07:06:02 PM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.
According to you, if a country doesn't want its territories to secede, that's the end of the story and there is no need for any form of outside law to determine that. This would be a ridiculous position to hold and is clearly and blatantly wrong.

Wrong, not according to me. According to the SCOTUS.

If you have an issue with it, put forth a case to the SCOTUS to reverse Texas v White. Or, take the issue to the ICJ and see if they will back you up.

In the meantime, the SCOTUS ruling on Texas v White interprets that State succession is forbidden by the constitution, whether you like it or not. Simple as that.

17
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 29, 2022, 12:16:21 AM »
So again, the issue has not been determined.

Sure it has been determined. Texas v White. State secession is considered unconstitutional.

Now would that stop Texas or California, or whatever State, from voting to secede from the Union? Of course not.

Just like if I want to discriminate based upon a person's disability, I certainly can. But that would be unconstitutional and unlawful therefore I would have to face the consequences of doing so.

If a State wants to secede, it is forbidden by the US Constitution as stated by SCOTUS, therefore, they would face the consequences, whatever they may be, of attempting to do so. Simple as that.

Whether you agree with that is neither here nor there. Your opinion doesn't matter. Just like my opinion doesn't currently matter against the SCOTUS recent ruling. Until such point I put forward a case to challenge that decision and the SCOTUS rules in my favor.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

What I really want to know is why Thomas called out to revisit Obergefell and not Love? What's the difference? There's nothing in the constitution about marriage. If Thomas has his way, both should be revisited and tossed.

18
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 10:48:48 PM »
Here is liberal justice hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg explaining that she thought justices were legislating on the bench with the Roe vs. Wade ruling -

So what? As it stands, succession is deemed forbidden by the 150 year old ruling by the SCOTUS. Until some law is passed saying succession is federally allowed, and it passes through the courts and through SCOTUS, succession is still federally forbidden. Simple as that.

Ginsburg clarified her statement in the video you referenced during her confirmation:

When Sen. Hank Brown (R-CO) asked about her remarks during her confirmation hearing, she clarified her stance: “Abortion prohibition by the State, however, controls women and denies them full autonomy and full equality with men. That was the idea I tried to express in the lecture to which you referred.”

You not liking that fact is the same as me not liking the removal of RvW. As it is, just like the 150 year old succession ruling, it stands until challenged and defeated. Simple as that.

Quote from: stack
The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

Incorrect. SCOTUS rulings are not laws. Rulings that do attempt act as new laws can be overturned as unconstitutional. SCOTUS merely acts to clarify an existing law. This is why Roe vs. Wade was thrown out. Justices were creating legislation from the bench. You have made no effort to show that the 1869 Texas v. White ruling is constitutional, or that there was an existing law on this at all.

I'm not a constitutional lawyer (neither are you). I don't have to make an argument why something is constitutional or not. That's up to SCOTUS. And the fact of the matter is that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

You know that there was not an existing regulation. This is the exact sort of behavior this Supreme Court is ruling against.

Asking whether secession is legal is also a nonsensical question. When one political body secedes from another, the seceding body is rejecting the authority of the first. All laws in effect in the original nation are no longer applicable to the seceding nation, since it is no longer part of that original nation. This is what occurred when the United States peacefully seceded from Great Britain. It did not matter if it was legal in the British system of government for the US to do it or not. It was then the British government who acted as aggressors against the United States for walking away. The British government could have opted to let them go peacefully, but did not.

You are doing the equivalent of appealing to a British judge ruling that the US could not secede from Britain. It could and did, and that ruling would be irrelevant to the US. The British chose to become the aggressors. They could have simply chosen to let them leave, or perhaps have tried harder to negotiate their grievances before it got to that point. The US did make a good faith effort to negotiate with Britain at the time but were rebuffed on multiple occasions, leading to eventual secession.

None of this changes the fact that Texas v White still stands as succession is unconstitutional therefore forbidden. Same for RvW. So until those rulings are changed, States have the right to decide their abortion laws & States are forbidden from the succession.

If you would like to change that, take it up with the courts. In the meantime, SCOTUS rules and you do not.

19
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 07:16:21 PM »
The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter.

Actually, it kind of does. The current Supreme Court just made a determination that if it's not spelled out in the Constitution then it can be ruled unconstitutional. This is why you were worried about the reversal of other rulings based on loose concepts being ruled unconstitutional.

The fact remains that the SCOTUS ruled that succession was (is) forbidden and that is the current law of the land. You said it wasn't. But it is.

That may change with a new ruling, but thus far no new ruling exists.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-overturned-roe-v-wade-what-s-next-abortion-n1296339



By this standard a lot of those old creative interpretations based on vague concepts are unconstitutional.

By whose standard? Jessica Levinson, MSNBC Opinion Columnist, standard? A lot of stuff is interpreted by SCOTUS. That's what SCOTUS is charged with. Your opinion on what's a "creative interpretation" or not has no bearing on the rulings from SCOTUS.

The 1869 Texas v. White ruling incredulously took the definition from the Articles of the Confederation declaring a union to be "perpetual" and also took the "more perfect union" phrase from the US Constitution to creatively and illogically declare that a state can't ever leave the US. Clearly reprehensible.

Again, your personal interpretation as to what the SCOTUS ruled on matters not. You're not a constitutional lawyer (neither am I) and have no sway as to what ruling is "incredulous" or "reprehensible".

The fact remains, SCOTUS forbids succession and you were wrong about that. Whether you agree with the ruling or not.

And the super odd fact is why Thomas recently called out revisiting, specifically Obergefell v. Hodges (established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage), and didn't call out Loving v. Virginia (protects the right to interracial marriage)?

Why Obergefell and not Love? What's the difference? There's nothing in the constitution about marriage. If Thomas has his way, both should be revisited and tossed.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« on: June 28, 2022, 08:05:46 AM »
Yeah, the Supreme Court has made invalid interpretations in the past and its past rulings are regularly overruled. One was just overruled a few days ago.

Well it’s valid until it isn’t, like what just happened a few days ago.

In the meantime, the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

So Texas v White ruling is still valid until SCOTUS wipes it out. They haven’t yet.

When Texas left the Union it was stripped of its representation as a State:

https://tnm.me/news/political/texas-vs-white-why-the-supreme-court-is-dead-wrong-on-texas-independence/

    "This U.S. Supreme Court decision is full of contradictions. The most obvious of these is the contention that Texas never ceased to be a state, yet, the people of Texas were denied representation as a state until they agreed to certain “reconstruction” acts of the U.S. Congress."

A state denied representation and rights of a state as guaranteed by the Constitution, how does that work? If you think the Civil War decided the issue and not the Constitution, as you have argued previously, then by all intents Texas was not a State.

Yeah SCOTUS rulings can be filled with contradictions, like recently. So what? Doesn’t change the fact that a ruling was made and stands until it is dispensed with. Your argument is neither here nor there.

On what basis exactly, does Salmon P. Chase say that the states couldn't leave?

Don’t know, but that was the ruling in Texas v White some 150+ years ago. Still stands today.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about leaving. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t address the issue of secession. It neither gives states the right to secede nor denies it. Where do these "rules" come from then? The Constitution is silent on the issue.

Doesn’t matter. SCOTUS ruled that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”

SCOTUS decides what’s covered by the constitution and what’s not by interpreting the constitution and applying it where appropriate.

So as it stands, state succession is forbidden an states that did succeed were still apart of the union even though their rights were hampered as a punishment during reconstruction.

So there you have it in a nutshell.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 134  Next >