DiscussMormonism.com

Binger wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:32 am

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:31 am

Cultellus:
I am following this conversation.

Also Cultellus:
What is that you are asking regarding the 9th amendment?

honor, you mentioned the 9th amendment. You followed that with a question mark. What is your question?

You asked what the point was about the exchange you had with Res above. Seemed you could use reminding that it existed.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:16 am

Binger wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 3:32 am

honor, you mentioned the 9th amendment. You followed that with a question mark. What is your question?

You asked what the point was about the exchange you had with Res above. Seemed you could use reminding that it existed.

So you were not asking a question. You were reminding me of enumerable rights that were listed in the constitution. Got it. And these distinctions are unique when compared inalienable rights from the Bill of Rights.

Is that the point you were attempting to make?

Binger wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:38 am

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:16 am

You asked what the point was about the exchange you had with Res above. Seemed you could use reminding that it existed.

You were reminding me of enumerable rights that were listed in the constitution.

Ah, I see the reminder failed as apparently you don't actually know what the 9th amendment says. That explains the wrongness I guess.

You should check it out.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:48 am

Binger wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 4:38 am

You were reminding me of enumerable rights that were listed in the constitution.

Ah, I see the reminder failed as apparently you don't actually know what the 9th amendment says. That explains the wrongness I guess.

You should check it out.

Well, I certainly should too:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment

Ninth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.

Amendment IX

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

So, because of that amendment, the Constitution itself says, in effect:

"Hey people! In me you will find a lot of rights that you definitely have, 'cos I say you have them. But don't worry - you have lots of other rights too, and the fact that I don't say you have them certainly does not mean you don't have them. Enjoy!"

So I agree that Binger's reference to you reminding him of "enumerable rights [...] listed in the Constitution" suggests strongly that he does not have any real idea what you were talking about.

Tinfoilhat wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 11:09 am

It's about time RvW was overturned!! Life wins!!

Yup. Those 12-year old girls raped by their fathers need to face up to their responsibilities to bring their brothers and sisters into the world.

Of course doing so may kill them, and will wreck their education and future lives, but so what? That's life, hey? And the more of it the better!

Chap wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:12 am

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 5:48 am

Ah, I see the reminder failed as apparently you don't actually know what the 9th amendment says. That explains the wrongness I guess.

You should check it out.

Well, I certainly should too:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment

Ninth Amendment
The Ninth Amendment was James Madison’s attempt to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. In recent years, some have interpreted it as affirming the existence of such “unenumerated” rights outside those expressly protected by the Bill of Rights.

Amendment IX

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

So, because of that amendment, the Constitution itself says, in effect:

"Hey people! In me you will find a lot of rights that you definitely have, 'cos I say you have them. But don't worry - you have lots of other rights too, and the fact that I don't say you have them certainly does not mean you don't have them. Enjoy!"

So I agree that Binger's reference to you reminding him of "enumerable rights [...] listed in the Constitution" suggests strongly that he does not have any real idea what you were talking about.

Well that's helpful. Hopefully Cultellus can use the civics lesson to rethink his position on how relevant it is that certain issues are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights now.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:21 pm

Chap wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 7:12 am

Well, I certainly should too:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment



So, because of that amendment, the Constitution itself says, in effect:

"Hey people! In me you will find a lot of rights that you definitely have, 'cos I say you have them. But don't worry - you have lots of other rights too, and the fact that I don't say you have them certainly does not mean you don't have them. Enjoy!"

So I agree that Binger's reference to you reminding him of "enumerable rights [...] listed in the Constitution" suggests strongly that he does not have any real idea what you were talking about.

Well that's helpful. Hopefully Cultellus can use the civics lesson to rethink his position on how relevant it is that certain issues are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights now.

So basically, everything I have said applied and is relevant, including my questions about the California Constitutional Amendment which was squirreled by honor and chap in favor of petulance and nonsense.

The state Assembly voted Monday to amend Article 1 of the California Constitution to say, "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.

If at any point over the last 50 years the members of the US House and US Senate had decided to do the same thing, we would not be in this mess. This should have already been done. Amendment IX should have been removed and replaced with a new amendment that included abortion, contraceptives and whatever the hell else. But, it did not happen. So, the the Supreme Court sent it to the states to do exactly what California is doing and what should be done 50 more times. That is 50+1 if you are following at home.

Binger wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:33 pm

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 1:21 pm

Well that's helpful. Hopefully Cultellus can use the civics lesson to rethink his position on how relevant it is that certain issues are not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights now.

So basically, everything I have said applied and is relevant, including my questions about the California Constitutional Amendment which was squirreled by honor and chap in favor of petulance and nonsense.

The state Assembly voted Monday to amend Article 1 of the California Constitution to say, "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.

If at any point over the last 50 years the members of the US House and US Senate had decided to do the same thing, we would not be in this mess. This should have already been done. Amendment IX should have been removed and replaced with a new amendment that included abortion, contraceptives and whatever the hell else. But, it did not happen. So, the the Supreme Court sent it to the states to do exactly what California is doing and what should be done 50 more times. That is 50+1 if you are following at home.

So your belief is you were right all along because in your mind the Constitution should have been amended to make explicit a right to an abortion?

You don't strike me as the type who actually reads things, especially when it means your assertions about the world are wrong you confabulate out of that thing your therapist is concerned about. My guess is you don't know much about the debates that went into the writing of the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights, so you don't see how your suggestion is actually as opposed to majority competing views among the founders of how government ought to operate as could be. The entire concept that the rights have to be explicitly enumerated or the government can and should infringe with impunity was seen as an issue that may occur if the government overstepped. The Bill of Rights itself was a compromise, primarily between Anti-Federalists who feared unenumerated rights would be swept aside, and the Federalists who felt the danger of enumerating some rights would lead to the issue you yourself advocate, under the assumption once one starts enumerating rights the implication is any rights not enumerated don't exist. Neither believed unenumerated rights could rightly be infringed. The 9th amendment is a small little detail in the Bill of Rights written specifically with the numbnut asshats like you in mind.

honorentheos wrote: ↑

Wed Jun 29, 2022 2:18 pm

The 9th amendment is a small little detail in the Bill of Rights written specifically with the numbnut asshats like you in mind.

The 9th amendment is not in the Bill of Rights.

I think this video from "America's best Christian" Betty Bowers is precious. Please forgive me if someone else has already posted it.

Life Is Precious . . . Unless It's Not

It's only 5 minutes and 4 seconds long.

See also: God Comes Out as Pro-Choice