Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to SportTrac.Org
Off Topic Discussion
"Tolerant" NYC Liberals React to McCain Supporters
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jim Johnson" data-source="post: 819200" data-attributes="member: 52761"><p>MTURocks said:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><I>"I think that what Jim is saying is that RvW turned abortion into a "right" that is not actually enumerated by the constitution. According to the constitution, anything not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states. So . . . if RvW is overturned, it is now up to the states to decide if abortion should be legal, which I agree is how it should be. If the people of the state decide that they want abortion to be legal, so be it. But if they decide that they want it to be illegal, so be it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is why it is more constitutional -- because it shouldn't be decided by the federal government. "</I></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Precisely. And from the responses, it's easy to see that those who believe in the supremacy of the Constitution over the branches of government understood the post; those who believe that activist judges should have the power to usurp the Constitution (i.e., re-interpret it to fit their own socio-poliical agendas) did not.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jim Johnson, post: 819200, member: 52761"] MTURocks said: <I>"I think that what Jim is saying is that RvW turned abortion into a "right" that is not actually enumerated by the constitution. According to the constitution, anything not specifically enumerated are delegated to the states. So . . . if RvW is overturned, it is now up to the states to decide if abortion should be legal, which I agree is how it should be. If the people of the state decide that they want abortion to be legal, so be it. But if they decide that they want it to be illegal, so be it. That is why it is more constitutional -- because it shouldn't be decided by the federal government. "</I> Precisely. And from the responses, it's easy to see that those who believe in the supremacy of the Constitution over the branches of government understood the post; those who believe that activist judges should have the power to usurp the Constitution (i.e., re-interpret it to fit their own socio-poliical agendas) did not. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Welcome to SportTrac.Org
Off Topic Discussion
"Tolerant" NYC Liberals React to McCain Supporters
Top