The Russo-Ukrainian War Thread (FKA Political Thread)

[Bobby Barrows]

Very closely related in that both were made up "interpretations" in which said issue was not even mentioned in the Constitution. My whole gripe with it was they should have had to pass a Federal law OR Amend the Constitution. However they knew that was not going to happen so activist Judges made a decision.

Neither was secession

Therefore Secession was not a protected clause of the United States and never was before the Civil War

 

[Bobby Barrows]

Dak, man the problem is. At first they come for rights that don’t affect you, they slowly strip them away from folks. Then when they come for yours, there’s no one left to protect yours. Keep that in mind. If you don’t stand for others, who’s gonna stand for you?

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

 

[CakeWalker]

Very closely related in that both were made up "interpretations" in which said issue was not even mentioned in the Constitution. My whole gripe with it was they should have had to pass a Federal law OR Amend the Constitution. However they knew that was not going to happen so activist Judges made a decision.

so dislike towards abortion and gay marriage - is based solely on it not being the constitution?

 

[Dakstang]

None of this tracks if the Supreme Court can determine what is or isn't constitutional via Judicial Review. So you can't have your cake and fucking eat it, Dak.

They shouldn't be reviewing any issues that are not in the Constitution. If you can think of a relevant example give it to me. Searching a car? That falls under the 4th Amendment. Same with unlawful detainment. Issues such as that is what they should rule on. Not some vague interpretation of something that is not even mentioned in the document.

 

[Dakstang]

Dak, man the problem is. At first they come for rights that don’t affect you, they slowly strip them away from folks. Then when they come for yours, there’s no one left to protect yours. Keep that in mind. If you don’t stand for others, who’s gonna stand for you?

Like they are trying to strip an ACTUAL Constitutional Right in the 2nd Amendment?

There is no right to an abortion. There is no Federal law against it either.

 

[Y2Jayne]

View attachment 5D975A9D-D055-49FA-BD02-E9BDC68E48C0.webp

 

[Dakstang]

so dislike towards abortion and gay marriage - is based solely on it not being the constitution?

Not necessarily. But it is definitely why it should have never been made legal in the way it was. At least if it was done the right way I wouldn't really have an argument would I? Other than I don't agree.

If it was done the right way to begin with we wouldn't be having the conversation now.

 

[Deezy]

If the Supreme court made it a LAW it's a federal law.

 

[Deezy]

That's how the supreme court works.

 

[Dakstang]

Neither was secession

Therefore Secession was not a protected clause of the United States and never was before the Civil War

It was not mentioned either way in the Constitution. So with my argument, the Supreme Court had no say in it. Thanks for proving me right.

 

[Bobby Barrows]

It was not mentioned either way in the Constitution. So with my argument, the Supreme Court had no say in it. Thanks for proving me right.

So then the Confederate States were still in the wrong, thanks for finally admitting to it after all these years.

 

[Crash]

 

[Bobby Barrows]

And even if you want to argue that, it's a pretty piss-poor argument to make, you defend something that wasn't in the constitution one second but when another thing is being argued against, you're totally against it?

 

[Dakstang]

So then the Confederate States were still in the wrong, thanks for finally admitting to it after all these years.

No. There was no law against it. There was no mention of it in the Constitution. Therefore they could not have been in the wrong.

It was completely legal for them to do so.

It was a State's Right issue. They chose to no longer be affiliated with the U.S. and created their own sovereign nation.

 

[Hidden Blaze]

Like they are trying to strip an ACTUAL Constitutional Right in the 2nd Amendment?

There is no right to an abortion. There is no Federal law against it either.

I honestly don’t care if it’s in the constitution or not. No one has the right to tell a woman she has to give birth. It’s going to get messy. Surely in the places I mentioned that have ZERO expectations. Women are going to have to die, just so a baby can be born. Is that right?