Message from @realz
Discord ID: 781764040203960350
It's 9 not 10
I am not sure what you mean by this; are privilege and right a dichotomy ?
If so, pretty much, yes.
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
So just because it's not a right as written doesn't mean it does not exist. Doesn't mean it does exist either though
Btw this is the amendment used to defend Roe v Wade iirc
Is there anything in the constitution not allowing the banning of remote controlled cars
not explicitly enough
in practice the answer is no.
Very well
the federal government can ban remote controlled cars
The constitution can always be changed as you may know alcohol was banned for a time. Right now, I do not believe anything would be used for that
he asked it the constitution can _stop_ the banning of X
the answer for most things is no
the federal government (via congress and senate) can and does ban a lot of things
illicit drugs for example
they can also ban alcohol
without an amendment
The abortion issue is tough for me and I am not sure that it is the best example of judicial activism, because I think that the SC did the legislature a favor. Voting for the limited right of abortion would have been political suicide - no matter how distasteful / abhorrent it is, it was likely preferred over the back alley coat hanger days. By saying it was a constitutional issue, they bailed them out. I'm probably wrong, but I never stopped to think about it that way.
Although unless people claim using rc cars as their religion then there may be a problem
and I think the states would have converged to where they are now
after all abortion is popular, at least in most states
Abortion has been on the decline for many years
Percentage wise
I don't mean doing abortion
I mean the support of the ability
Oh
Well, when states wanted slavery to be left to the states it started a war. I wonder if abortion would be the same
If she held that someone with similar legal philosophy to Scalia should replace any and all vacancies on the court that could be a view she could hold with full integrity ... you might not agree but I don't think that is a reason to doubt her integrity
obviously it didn't
(because they didn't leave it to the states; they mandated the right to abortion)
(and we are still here)
gah I think that was a misunderstanding, don't frustrate me with this talk 🙂
(i'm jk, talk away)
I’m not a big fan of states rights , well I can’t think of it being a benefit currently, so far they have used to to keep weed illegal, make abortion illegal, historically it was about slavery, , what’s a good state right used to give to protect its citizens freedoms ?
Her body her choice
not if she's in the womb, huh?
I didn't get that she was advocating for all seats to be filled by originalists. I think she was being protective of her mentor's seat. I get that she might not hold RGB in the same regard. I just thought it was morally inconsistent and , consequently, could be construed as hypocritical. The question was posed as to why someone might disagree with her nomination and that was part of it. The other was her lack of practical experience.
um weed is _federally_ illegal
some states have legalized it