*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3280
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #360 on: June 27, 2022, 10:24:28 PM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #361 on: June 27, 2022, 11:01:50 PM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal an punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If by another stretch of fantasy they could not get a 3/4ths majority then it is not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 12:01:51 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #362 on: June 27, 2022, 11:13:13 PM »
It’s funny how Tom makes this arguement comfortably but when the same arguement is made about late term
abortion, he is up in arms. Troll on you crazy diamond.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3077
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #363 on: June 27, 2022, 11:20:50 PM »
Tom, Roe v Wade was decided in 1973.

Are you old enough to have been an adult at that point?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3280
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #364 on: June 28, 2022, 12:02:41 AM »
Why have a United States? I mean all men are created equal, right? Should it be a State's right to allow slavery? Should it be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal? Because that's what the people want?

This is NOT what you want to do, however. You don't want a proper amendment to the Constitution. You have certain rights which you are demanding and want to force it onto people without going through the proper procedure.

Is what you’re saying that it should be a States right to consider interracial marriage illegal in the absence of a specific amendment protecting interracial marriage? Thereby potentially resulting in some States making interracial marriage illegal and punishable? And that’s ok with you?

The things you are bringing up are simply no longer applicable. Many years ago people did not like interracial marriage because it was an unknown, like sodomy, and thought that it would lead to the degradation of society. This is no longer the case, and now interracial marriage is widely supported by over 90% of the population.

The majority of the American's did not want RvW axed. So what's the difference?

Going by your fantasy, if the Supreme Court determined that it was one of those rulings that was improperly made, and several States then made interracial marriage illegal, which is extremely doubtful at this point, the States could simply band together simply make a proper Constitutional amendment on that subject. If they can't get a 3/4ths majority then it's not accepted well enough and society has not progressed enough that it should be a national blanket rule.

So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

In this scenario, SCOTUS throws out Loving v Virginia on the same grounds as the current situation, the 14th doesn't cover it. 33% of the States make interracial marriage illegal and obviously won't sign off on any amendment. That would be ok with you? Having 1/3 of the States making interracial marriage illegal?

If the States failed to get the required agreement they would then treat each other like countries in the EU who have objectionable laws to each other: Peacefully, diplomatically, and under mutual understanding that they are part of a Constitution or Charter with an understood and agreed upon method for amendment.

I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #365 on: June 28, 2022, 12:15:46 AM »
Quote from: stack
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

Quote from: stack
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges

Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 03:41:17 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #366 on: June 28, 2022, 12:27:26 AM »
Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of provisions means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored.

Any originality would have to conclude it was impossible, as idiotic as that is.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3280
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #367 on: June 28, 2022, 12:59:28 AM »
Quote from: stack
So you're saying that there needs to be an amendment for every right that isn't specifically named in the constitution?

Correct. The Constitution originally just gave men the right to vote. There was a successful Constitutional amendment for the right for women to vote, for which a super majority of States agreed. By this standard there should be something specific in the Constitution about abortion if you are insisting on the national right to abortion. If a super majority of the States can't agree on it then it is a subject that is still too controversial for a national blanket law.

Obviously, this topic is too controversial for such an amendment. The Constitution is clear: It is given to the States to decide. The same standard is given to all other "rights".

The argument you are making is that you you know that there is an agreed upon procedure in place, but you simply don't care. This is a fault on your part.

So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Quote from: stack
I'm not sure why you bring up the EU. If a nation state doesn't want to play under EU rules, they can leave whenever they want. I.e., Brexit.

If a US State doesn't want to play under US Fed rules, they can't leave. Not at least without having to go to war over it. I.e., US Civil War.

Apples & Oranges


Actually the Constitution doesn't mention what happens when a State wants to leave the Constitution at all. Some say the lack of a procedure means that it is impossible to leave, but that has not been fully explored. The Constitution doesn't bring it up at all.

The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

But the Constitution definitely does not say that if a State leaves the Constitution that people must start killing each other. That would clearly be a naked act of aggression, and the North was probably guilty of that when they started killing people for wanting to break away from the Constitution.

"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #368 on: June 28, 2022, 01:42:01 AM »
Quote from: stack
So the bottom line is that you would be ok with some States making interracial marriage illegal if SCOTUS says it's not a constitutional right?

Actually I wouldn't. But I would accept that different cultures have the right to govern themselves and make their own laws. The United States does not go around invading countries because of their marriage laws.

Quote from: stack
The Constitution doesn't bring it up specifically. But I'm pretty sure it's been "explored", mostly between 1861 through 1865.

According to this Georgia was readmitted into the Union in 1870, a full five years after the Civil War. How is that possible if it was impossible to leave?

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/georgia-civil-war-108886



Seems to say that it was established that it was possible to leave.

However, it's not so clear that there had to be murder involved.

Quote from: stack
"George Sholter James, the commander of the mortar battery that fired the first shot of the American Civil War, was born in Laurens County, South Carolina in 1829. He was the second son of a prominent attorney and merchant and spent most of his young life in Columbia, the state capital. At the age of seventeen, James left his college studies for the adventure of fighting in the Mexican-American War."
https://www.nps.gov/people/george-s-james.htm

Looks like the South, not the North, started the killing.

That occurred when the Union sent a military supply vessel into their harbor.

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-sumter

    On April 4, Lincoln informs southern delegates that he intends to attempt to resupply Fort Sumter, as its garrison is now critically in need. To South Carolinians, any attempt to reinforce Sumter means war. “Now the issue of battle is to be forced upon us,” declared the Charleston Mercury. “We will meet the invader, and the God of Battles must decide the issue between the hostile hirelings of Abolition hate and Northern tyranny.”

Read your link carefully:

"Captain George S. James ordered his battery to fire a 10-inch mortar shell, which soared over the harbor and exploded over Fort Sumter, announcing the start of the war."

It doesn't even say that it killed anyone or damaged any property. The first shot shell flew over the entire harbor and exploded in the air. It was a warning shot due to the entrance of the vessel. A shell that explodes in the air and which doesn't actually kill anyone is hardly a start of the "killing".
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 03:09:28 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #369 on: June 28, 2022, 02:10:20 AM »
Lincoln sending a US vessel to a US port to result a US Fort isn’t an act of aggression. Firing a shell that signals they are beginning a war is indeed a start to killing though.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #370 on: June 28, 2022, 02:17:04 AM »
It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see below that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

    "A standoff ensued until January 9, 1861, when a ship called the Star of the West arrived in Charleston with over 200 U.S. troops and supplies intended for Fort Sumter. South Carolina militia batteries fired upon the vessel as it neared Charleston Harbor, forcing it to turn back to sea."

Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:

    "Lincoln announced his intention to send three unarmed ships to relieve Fort Sumter. Having already declared that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression, South Carolina militia forces soon scrambled to respond."

From what stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 03:22:21 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #371 on: June 28, 2022, 02:30:21 AM »
It wasn't a US port anymore. South Carolina had already given their notice that they were leaving the Union peacefully, yet we can see that at least at one point Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops into South Carolina. When a foreign government sends troops into your country uninvited it's usually seen as an act of war.

As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

Quote
In January of that year the Union was fired upon when trying to send a military vessel into the harbor:

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/fort-sumter

    "A standoff ensued until January 9, 1861, when a ship called the Star of the West arrived in Charleston with over 200 U.S. troops and supplies intended for Fort Sumter. South Carolina militia batteries fired upon the vessel as it neared Charleston Harbor, forcing it to turn back to sea."

Lincoln later announced he was sending ships anyway, even though he was already fired upon, and was specifically warned by South Carolina that it would be an act of aggression:

    "Lincoln announced his intention to send three unarmed ships to relieve Fort Sumter. Having already declared that any attempt to resupply the fort would be seen as an act of aggression, South Carolina militia forces soon scrambled to respond."

From what Stack had posted, the first shot from the Confederates had exploded in the air. It's possible that this was ineptitude, but this could have been clearly be interpreted as a warning shot to go away. Lincoln was clearly the aggressor in this situation.

Ah yes, the unarmed ships were clearly the aggressors, sailing in to their port. Definitely not the ones firing munitions. 👍🏻
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #372 on: June 28, 2022, 02:36:00 AM »
The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.



So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

Quote from: Rama Set
As you admitted the constitution doesn’t recognize self-declared independence as legal, so it was still US territory.

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

The Constitution does say this though:

Tenth Amendment: 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.

It says that if it's not in the Constitution it's up for the States to decide themselves. The tenth amendment was ratified in 1791 and is the source of the broad and expansive powers of the States.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 03:28:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #373 on: June 28, 2022, 03:48:45 AM »
The link clearly says that Lincoln attempted to send hundreds of troops via ship into South Carolina on January 9, 1861. This is less than a month after South Carolina peacefully left the Union.



So a State indicated that they were leaving, and then was met with Lincoln trying to send hundreds of troops into their State. Lincoln was warned that attempting to send further ships would be seen as an act of aggression. Lincoln decided to do so anyway. It doesn't matter if the ships were armed or not. The Chinese military can't send ships into the harbor of any country and expect it to be fine, especially if they kept doing it after being warned not to do so.

You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.  You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Quote

The Constitution doesn't say anything at all about secession or the power to leave.

Please try and be consistent.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #374 on: June 28, 2022, 05:34:08 AM »
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.



United States = the Union




« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 05:47:07 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #375 on: June 28, 2022, 05:45:55 AM »
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.



United States = the Union



Please post the date when the federal government kicked them out of the union.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #376 on: June 28, 2022, 05:51:08 AM »
They weren't kicked out. They left. It says right here on this "Today in History" Library of Congress page:

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/november-06/



« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 05:57:25 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Online Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9748
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #377 on: June 28, 2022, 05:59:03 AM »
So.  Getting back on track.  Do you think it would be moral to rescind same sex marriage rights and contraception?
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3280
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #378 on: June 28, 2022, 06:02:44 AM »
Quote
You keep acting as if South Carolina wasn't part of the USA.

It wasn't. They weren't readmitted into the Union until July 9, 1868.

Actually, according to SCOTUS, succession states were still a part of the US and succeeding is actually forbidden:

Even before Texas formally rejoined the nation, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that secession had never been legal, and that, even during the rebellion, Texas continued to be a state.

In 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.”

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase added: “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”

If there were any doubt remaining after this matter, the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia set it to rest when he asked by a screenwriter in 2006 whether there was a legal basis for secession. In his response, he wrote: “The answer is clear,” Scalia wrote. “If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. (Hence, in the Pledge of Allegiance, ‘one Nation, indivisible.’)”

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/29/texas-secession/

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10066
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Bye Bye Abortion
« Reply #379 on: June 28, 2022, 07:25:11 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.

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.

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

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.

The tenth amendment gives powers not determined in the Constitution to the states to decide on their own:

https://medium.com/politicoid/constitutionality-of-secession-19ce11c3b671

    How does another nation become a state in the union? Congress must vote to allow the nation to become a state. This is clearly written in ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, CLAUSE 1 (Article IV). However, there is nothing in the constitution about how a state can go about leaving the union. Neither is there anything in the constitution saying that a state cannot leave the union. Therefore, as per the tenth amendment, the federal government has no authority on the matter, and it is the decision is left to each individual state. To demand that the states lack the power to seceded is to ignore the tenth amendment itself

What is the rebuttal to this? The Confederate states used the same argument:

https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/tenth-amendment

    The Confederate states did not consider secession an act of rebellion. In fact, they argued that leaving the United States was well within the states’ legal powers under the Constitution. Jefferson Davis (1808–1889) of Virginia was elected president of the Confederacy. He and other Confederate leaders argued that the states had voluntarily entered the Union when they ratified the Constitution; therefore, it was logical that any state could voluntarily leave it.

    Davis also used the Tenth Amendment as a justification for secession. Since the Constitution did not give the federal government any powers to regulate secession (in fact, the Constitution made no mention of secession whatsoever), the Tenth Amendment must grant the power of secession to the states.

There has to be something more coherent than "nah-uh" and mumblings about how a perfect union is forever here.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2022, 07:45:53 AM by Tom Bishop »