(no message)
(no message)
Something tells me you will run away, and post later about a living breathing constitution. You don't really want to be limited to the text on your own issues, do you. No, I know you don't. Progressives hate the Constitution, and work constantly to get away from the limiting text.
(no message)
If so, we can have a long conversation about a lot of things the Federal government has done since the New Deal. You would lose on 90% of them. I'm willing to give up my 10%. Are you willing to give up your 90%?
Somehow, I suspect you are going to fight a limited fight on this one issue, and then reverse yourself later. Nice talkin' to ya.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Privacy is not in the Constitution, which was how SCOTUS got to abortion, and condoms in the first place. They created rights that "emanated" from the Constitution but were not mentioned in the text. By the time they got there, they were several steps away from the Constitutional text.
Same with gun control, which all hinges on the Commerce Clause. SCOTUS has finally been reigning that in during the past 25 years.
At least gun rights have a specific amendment.
SCOTUS has always generally frowned on restrictions that effectively take away the key aspects of the right...such that one could say they don't really have the right anymore. For example, the restrictions on gun owners in New York would never pass muster if they applied to free speech or the free practice of religion. Imagine having to get a permit to pray from local government.
(no message)
(no message)
color?
How dare you give women the choice - it's baby killing!"