Re: House Democrats Vote To Make all Abortions Legal

On 9/30/21 10:30 AM, Byker wrote:
> On 9/30/2021 6:17 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
> rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
> and lied:
> 
>> On 9/30/21 8:50 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>   Ted <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who rode his scooter
>>>> into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled and lied:
> 
>>>>> There is NO RIGHT to abortion.  And since it fits the original
>>>>> definition of murder in the Constitution where
> 
> There is no definition of murder in the Constitution.
> 
>>>
>>>> That's a good point.
>>>
>>> Where, exactly, does the constitution define murder?
>>>
>> Where it says you have a RIGHT to LIFE...
> 
> #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty reveals his total ignorance of the Constitution
> once again.  Nowhere does the Constitution say there is a "right to life."


FROM THE BILL OF *RIGHTS*
Amendment 5

Amendment V
*No person shall be* held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in
actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
against himself, nor be *deprived of life* , liberty, or property,
*without due process of law* ; nor shall private property be taken for
public use, without just compensation.

The Declaration of Independence
It also explains that it's an unalienable RIGHT.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


> 
> The Constitution, of course, does not define murder.  The only crime
> defined in the Constitution is treason.

Murder is defined by defining that your LIFE is a RIGHT... which leaves
all taking of your life "except what they define as with due process" is
murder and violates your RIGHT to LIFE in the BILL of RIGHTS.


But hey you can lie all you want, the Democrats always do it.



And you can better understand this system of negative powers by reading
Amendment 10 where bit says the United State has no power but those
delegated by being enumerated "in" the Constitution.

Amendment X
The *powers not delegated* to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

So the U.S. government had *no* powers in the beginning and NOW today
the U.S. government has only the powers that are delegated "in" the
Constitution. And *NO PERSON SHALL* is a MANDATED POWER that is directed
at government to protect those RIGHTS listed... one of which is "LIFE"
with respect to due process.

Ironically Amendment 10 doesn't include anything that's interpreted to
be there because what is interpreted isn't "in" the Constitution it's in
the U.S. Supreme Courts own minds NOT their copy of the Constitution.

You can't use Amendment 10 to point to Articles and Amendments and
clauses that only exist in the Supreme Courts HEADS... they have to be
ratified and made into part of the Constitution to be LAW.

The Supreme Court is Legislating, when they amend the Constitution
without it being by the *ONLY* method the Constitution is able to be
amended with...  and that is an ARTICLE 5 Amendment to the Constitution
all other court rulings and opinions are insufficient to become actual
Constitutional powers. That said, the courts trying to LEGISLATE from
their bench is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Which means that they *can only reject*
a case where they have no actual physically written delegated power but
interpret one to intended, they can't positively create it by
"Legislating" what they have interpreted, they can take what they
interpret and tell Congress that they need try to create what the
Justices say they found while interpreting the Constitution. They need
to use the "Amendment" process to fix the problem, NOT do that by
judicial fiat.


If they use opinions to manage their own
Judiciary and help interpret how the judiciary will view the laws then
that isn't changing the laws it's just creating a pattern of legal
repetition, that is one issue but, to use the opinions to try to create
*Delegated Powers* inside the Constitution, then it's a failed policy.

And all you have to do is look at how there have been no Amendments to
the Constitution recently... to fix any of the NATIONAL issues that have
arisen on Delegated Powers.... which makes it obvious that the Amendment
process has been supplanted by the Supreme Courts interpretations which
is NOT a process of rule by the people for the people and of the people.
  It's rule by life time appointed Overlords called Justices.






-- 
That's karma

You know there is a point when you're adding water to the soup, that you
no longer have soup you just have water...