Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/02/us/politics/abortion-kansas-vote-result-no.html

[Espnthree]

And it was Jefferson who persuaded Madison that the Bill of Rights would help make the judicial branch the protector of individual rights and secure them against the shifting winds of popular opinion.  Here's a well known snippet from that Bill of Rights....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

So, the SCOTUS, in the past hundred years articulated some of those rights, like the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, the right to travel within the country and the right to privacy, especially marital privacy.  And medical privacy. These rights, although originally not enumerated, had a path to further definition in the Ninth amendment.  The point of the amendment is that we are not ruled by Napoleonic Codes that are rigidly fixed and completely enumerated at the outset.  Jefferson had a good quote on that, too, which I've posted here before.

So no, not "thank you Scotus" for failing to continue the protection of rights secured a half century ago.  You CPH.

Barton, you are an idiot no matter what name you post under.

[Espnthree]

Dems outnumbered 2-1 in Kansas.

These are not Democratic voters driving these numbers.

This is not a pro-choice vote it is a pro freedom vote.

Pretty amazing.  AP reported

the electorate in Tuesday s vote wasnt typical for a Kansas primary, particularly because tens of thousands of unaffiliated voters cast ballots.   

Sometimes you CAN herd cats.

Nice to see an overwhelming endorsement of SCOTUS.

You Comically Transparent Partisan Hack.

A right has no legitimacy without the consent of the governed.

No. The whole point of Constitutional rights is to protect people from the "consent of the governed". You should try to read some of Madisons Federalist Papers and the debates over the Bill of Rights. Or in your case, have someone read them to you real slow.

A "right" protected only by popularity with the electorate is not a right at all. It is a privilege that can be removed at will.

Except that the Kansas vote was not a popularity vote
And every Constitutional protection listed or amended to the original Constitution was granted by the governed.
I would suggest you research John Locke on consent of the governed  or, if you are lazy, Thomas Jefferson and his most famous words.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."

Among the areas of your ignorance, the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence and its role as a.legal document in our system, the difference between Governments drawing their power from the consent of the governed and rights existing only with the consent of the governed and basic English.

I am sure you were trying to say something.
What was it?

[josh]

\
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [b[That to secure these rights[/b], Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."

Your emphasis was in the wrong place.

The rights exist with or without the consent of the governed. And if a government ceases to secure those rights, then it has lost its cause to be a government at all.

You say it was not a popularity contest, but that is exactly what it was. With a simple majority's being able to overturn a constitutional right (in the state), how could it be anything but?

And with bullshit like this from the anti-abortion side?

The text messages arrived on Monday, the day before Kansans were set to vote on an amendment that would excise abortion protections from their state constitution.

The text claimed that approving that measure, which could allow the Republican-controlled legislature to outlaw abortion, would safeguard "choice." If the amendment fails, constitutional protections would remain in place, buttressing current law that allows abortion in the first 22 weeks of pregnancy.

"Women in KS are losing their choice on reproductive rights," the text warned. "Voting YES on the Amendment will give women a choice. Vote YES to protect women's health."

The GOP-connected firm should be penalized as should the specific individuals involved in the fraudulent text.

[josh]

And it was Jefferson who persuaded Madison that the Bill of Rights would help make the judicial branch the protector of individual rights and secure them against the shifting winds of popular opinion.  Here's a well known snippet from that Bill of Rights....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

So, the SCOTUS, in the past hundred years articulated some of those rights, like the presumption of innocence in criminal cases, the right to travel within the country and the right to privacy, especially marital privacy.  And medical privacy. These rights, although originally not enumerated, had a path to further definition in the Ninth amendment.  The point of the amendment is that we are not ruled by Napoleonic Codes that are rigidly fixed and completely enumerated at the outset.  Jefferson had a good quote on that, too, which I've posted here before.

So no, not "thank you Scotus" for failing to continue the protection of rights secured a half century ago.  You CPH.

Barton, you are an idiot no matter what name you post under.

Your inability to tell one poster from another disguises that this reply means you had no substantive response to the point made.

And your usual retort that there was no point simply underscores the vacuous nature of your position on this.

[facilitatorn]

Ward is still lost in areas of his ignorance.

It is fine, so long as the country keeps moving on without him.

Republicans want to ban abortion, contraception, marriage equality, privacy, and individual legal protections while increasing school shootings, poison tap water, toxic spills and terrorism. It is a dire fight we are in to save the nation and our future from the insidious right wing.

[Espnthree]

\
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [b[That to secure these rights[/b], Governmen are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."

Your emphasis was in the wrong place.

The rights exist with or without the consent of the governed. And if a government ceases to secure those rights, then it has lost its cause to be a government at all.

Which is the whole point of the Constitution,that those rights be protected by the Government. Which the governed demanded through representative government and state by state approval.

You say it was not a popularity contest, but that is exactly what it was. With a simple majority's being able to overturn a constitutional right (in the state), how could it be anything but?

I suggest you read the ballot language and maybe try to think about it.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/opinions/abortion-rights-win-kansas-filipovic/index.html

[Espnthree]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/opinions/abortion-rights-win-kansas-filipovic/index.html

Farming out your opinions to CNN?
What did any of that soup salad prove other than our democracy is founded on consent of the governed?
And what government body protected that right?

[josh]

https://www.msnbc.com/chris-jansing-reports/watch/alex-jones-lawyers-accidentally-sent-sandy-hook-families-lawyers-years-worth-of-texts-145412165567

Among other things, disproving Jones' claims of no Sandy Hook-related texts.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/opinions/abortion-rights-win-kansas-filipovic/index.html

Farming out your opinions to CNN?
What did any of that soup salad prove other than our democracy is founded on consent of the governed?
And what government body protected that right?

Nothing ever proves anything to you, Ward.

You are impervious to facts and unwilling or unable to ever admit mistakes.

[josh]

Oh, look!

Another GOP MAGA conspiracy theory put to rest.

https://apnews.com/article/elections-arizona-donald-trump-phoenix-government-and-politics-e11fb4726ee010e4d031a63acff939cd

They claimed 282 dead people voted.

It was ONE.

[Espnthree]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/03/opinions/abortion-rights-win-kansas-filipovic/index.html

Farming out your opinions to CNN?
What did any of that soup salad prove other than our democracy is founded on consent of the governed?
And what government body protected that right?

Nothing ever proves anything to you, Ward.

LOL!

Poor Josh was all loaded up with bigotry against Kansas  Republicans hiding behind  their bibles
to cast the devil out of their state Constitution and move toward outlawing abortion.
But those Kansans instead supported the Constitution deciding not change it.
Now Josh is left to finding something to bitch about but is still searching for a reason.
He can never be happy.

[facilitatorn]

Hopefully it is a sign that everywhere republicans are a shrinking dying breed of diminishing influence no matter what they cling to. That would be best for our rights, our government, and the rule of law.

[Hairy Lime]

Dems outnumbered 2-1 in Kansas.

These are not Democratic voters driving these numbers.

This is not a pro-choice vote it is a pro freedom vote.

Pretty amazing.  AP reported

the electorate in Tuesday s vote wasnt typical for a Kansas primary, particularly because tens of thousands of unaffiliated voters cast ballots.   

Sometimes you CAN herd cats.

Nice to see an overwhelming endorsement of SCOTUS.

You Comically Transparent Partisan Hack.

A right has no legitimacy without the consent of the governed.

No. The whole point of Constitutional rights is to protect people from the "consent of the governed". You should try to read some of Madisons Federalist Papers and the debates over the Bill of Rights. Or in your case, have someone read them to you real slow.

A "right" protected only by popularity with the electorate is not a right at all. It is a privilege that can be removed at will.

Except that the Kansas vote was not a popularity vote
And every Constitutional protection listed or amended to the original Constitution was granted by the governed.
I would suggest you research John Locke on consent of the governed  or, if you are lazy, Thomas Jefferson and his most famous words.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed . . ."

Among the areas of your ignorance, the historical purpose of the Declaration of Independence and its role as a.legal document in our system, the difference between Governments drawing their power from the consent of the governed and rights existing only with the consent of the governed and basic English.

I am sure you were trying to say something.
What was it?

That you are an idiot. Wait, I better type that more slowly. You     are      an       idiot.