Calling for a Boycott of the fundamentalist State of South Dakota

I've argued this point before. I disdain dredging up past shit if I can help it. But, very well.



See, that's very much open for debate.

It's within the system NOW, by virtue of existing unchallenged for far too long. Really, Roe V. Wade was a circumvention of the system - It should have been handled as a constitutional ammendment. However, it's not always easy to get an ammendment through, so the SCOTUS pulled the penumbra arguement out of their ass to create the same effect as a constitutional ammendment, but without going through the proper, already existing, channels. Roe V. Wade is the first *major* example of the SCOTUS attempting to make law, which is outside of their jurisdiction in the normal course of events.

Once again, before anyone tries to invent arguments I didn't say - I'm not opposed to the effect of Roe V. Wade. I'm opposed to how it was implimented.

I've argued this point before. I disdain dredging up past shit if I can help it. But, very well.

OK, none of that post bore any relevance to the comparison of fundamentalists and activists being made before.

It was an example of it, actually.

Again, no mindreading=you have to explain things.

Roe V Wade = Example of activists circumventing established methodology for bringing about changes.

in your opinion.

Sure, so is everything else in this thread, really.

Roe V Wade = Example of activists circumventing established methodology for bringing about changes.

Yeah, um no. How is a SCOTUS ruling not an established methodology? Because you do realize that Roe was a court ruling, right? They'd been having those for more than a hundred years before Roe.

try facts sometime. they're fun!

Because it circumvented the established procedure for the scope of change they were implimenting. Really, did you read what I posted before? I explained myself fairly well.

What you're doing is second-guessing the Supreme Court's interpretation of The Constitution. Frankly --you're not qualified.

Because it circumvented the established procedure for the scope of change they were implimenting.

Again, no, it didn't. It wasn't different from any other major court ruling. The arguments were different, but the methodology was not. Do you understand the difference?

I thought you were all about questioning the government, Kendra?

And, no, I'm not. I agree with them that the the spirit of "right to privacy" exists. I simply disagree with the mechanics by which they went about it.

The methodology for "patching" the constitution is to make an ammendment. Not to imagine things that don't exist and say they do in "spirit".

This had nothing to do with "patching" the constitution. Are you really saying that the SCOTUS doesn't have the power to rule laws unconstitutional? Go read Marbury v. Madison and get back to me.

If the law is not unconstitutional as the constiution stands, yes. Hence, why there should have been an ammendment. Marbury says the court may overrule laws that go against the constitution. Not that go against some imaginary version of the consitution that should exist.

Very good. Now, just because the Court made an argument with which you disagree doesn't mean it's imaginary.

If we don't interpret the Constitution to make it relevant, we should re-write huge portions of it, because so much of it has little bearing on the modern world.

Once again, please read my actually position, instead of responding to one I didn't make.
I agree with their position.

If a part of the constitution needs changing, it needs to be *ammended*. That's what an ammendment is for. If we simply interperate to suit the mood of the decade, the words themselves loose meaning.

Do you understand the difference between interpretation and revision?

You need to go back and re-read what I wrote - you're making assumptions again. I never wrote that you disagreed with the SCOTUS in the Roe case.

You're right, but Roe didn't change the Constitution. The SCOTUS can't do that. That can only be done through an amendment. Roe simply interpreted the Constitution to determine whether a modern law regarding abortion was constitutional.

Are you really writing that it's never OK to interpret a text? We should take everything absolutely literally? Again, if we do that we need to rewrite vast portions of the Constitution, because they clearly don't apply to the modern world.

Do you understand the difference between interpretation and revision?

You say, and I quote, that "the Court made an argument with which you disagree". The arguement I agree with.

In effect, they did, though. They essentially *invented* a new part of the constitution, which doesn't exist, and declared that the law was constitutional based on that.

No. I'm saying they can only interperet what actually exists. Not imaginary stuff that doesn't exist. That's the point. What they interperted isn't in the constitution.

Very imaginative, but no. I wrote "Now, just because the Court made an argument with which you disagree doesn't mean it's imaginary." I did not refer to a specific case, now did I? You might actually read what I write before you respond to it next time. I never wrote "Reitsuki disagrees with Roe."

No, in no possible effect did they. If you actually think that you have only a surface understanding of the case. Interpretation from what is there to apply to modern cases is not invention.

Yes, it is. It's in the Constitution, and more than 30 subsequent cases have continued to uphold that view. At this point it's established precedent.