a threshold crossed

@no1marauder said
There is no "usurping the Constitution"; the case is being decided in the Federal courts, with the last one to consider it declining to block the moratorium:

"U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich rejected an effort by a group of property owners to put the moratorium on hold. She said she was bound by an appeals court panel's conclusion that an earlier version of ...[text shortened]... com/politics/supreme-court/judge-won-t-block-biden-administration-s-new-eviction-moratorium-n1276771

You know slavery was legal at one time too. Doesn't make it right or constitutional.

@joe-beyser said
You know slavery was legal at one time too. Doesn't make it right or constitutional.

What makes you think slavery was unconstitutional? It was signed by slaveowners and slavery was legal in the USA for almost 100 years after the Constitition was adopted!

@athousandyoung said
You call it "providing dwellings" I call it "competing for housing with people who have less money than you and raising housing costs"

I don't mean go confuse you, but rental rates are usually universal for a certain neighborhood. If rent is $500 in the suburb of Avalon, a landlord usually charges $500.00. Are you mad at him, Thousand? What in the heil are you mad at??

And I have to ask, what has the fact that some people,who have 'less money' than someone else, got to do with negotiating or signing a lease for a home to live in???

What in the heil...............

@joe-beyser said
The left side is in fear that families will have to resort to taking care of its members which leads to a situation of less reliance on government. Sure they are willing to break the constitution to prevent families from becoming closer nit. The right side is in fear the government is going to set bad constitutional precedence and interfere with their business they have wo ...[text shortened]... communist Russia's failure was that there was no incentive to get ahead. Is that what we want here?

I think you are new, Joe?? They will not even think about responding to common sense. You must know who you are dealing with here.
Sometimes, I think the gods invented this site just to entertain me,, that, they are not really people, just figments of the imagination of the gods.
Thankyou, gods. It is fun, I must say. People who think nothing of getting money from producers and spending it on themselves. But they HAVE to be figments, they surely cannot exist.

@athousandyoung said
What makes you think slavery was unconstitutional? It was signed by slaveowners and slavery was legal in the USA for almost 100 years after the Constitition was adopted!

This is true, however the slave did not receive the justice or domestic tranquility the preamble spoke of. It is just as much a part of the constitution as the rest. Through greed and selfishness slaveowners did not give up their livelihoods. What they pulled was defining slaves as people not protected under the constitution. Later they had to spell it out by amending the constitution for what they already knew was wrong. Once slavery was abolished no body would protest the amendments. So just because the amendments weren't there yet didn't mean slavery was ok even if the people that penned the thing were slaveholders. It just means them boys were swimming in a pile of greed filled hypocrisy. An interesting tidbit is the treatment of unborn children that are aborted. Today they are denied constitutional rights and are not considered worthy of basic human rights. A little repetition of history there.

@averagejoe1 said
I think you are new, Joe?? They will not even think about responding to common sense. You must know who you are dealing with here.
Sometimes, I think the gods invented this site just to entertain me,, that, they are not really people, just figments of the imagination of the gods.
Thankyou, gods. It is fun, I must say. People who think nothing of getting money f ...[text shortened]... om producers and spending it on themselves. But they HAVE to be figments, they surely cannot exist.

No, I have been on here from time to time. I enjoy the exchange with folks. There is no convincing folks about anything but I get to say what I think and reply to their replies and it makes me think about my own beliefs and world view in a way that is gratifyingly bolstering my position on issues. I have been persuaded to rethink things too when I am wrong. I particularly like to take a childish swing at someone's character mostly out of fun and do not apologize for being such a small person.

@joe-beyser said
No, I have been on here from time to time. I enjoy the exchange with folks. There is no convincing folks about anything but I get to say what I think and reply to their replies and it makes me think about my own beliefs and world view in a way that is gratifyingly bolstering my position on issues. I have been persuaded to rethink things too when I am wrong. I particularly ...[text shortened]... h swing at someone's character mostly out of fun and do not apologize for being such a small person.

The people here are seeds that Obama has planted, to populate his new beginnings. I actually think that they are real people, not actors. They are being led to slaughter. They think Nirvana-Utopia is just over the hill. I feel sorry for them, because the present liberal atmosphere is making them complacent. They are losing the concept of self-reliance. Downer.
And of course, there is no ‘mind changing’, both sides do this only to see how the other can POSSIBLY think like they do.
Eg, they wonder why we love sovereignty, we wonder why they do not.

@averagejoe1 said
The people here are seeds that Obama has planted, to populate his new beginnings. I actually think that they are real people, not actors. They are being led to slaughter. They think Nirvana-Utopia is just over the hill. I feel sorry for them, because the present liberal atmosphere is making them complacent. They are losing the concept of self-reliance. Downer.
And ...[text shortened]... POSSIBLY think like they do.
Eg, they wonder why we love sovereignty, we wonder why they do not.

Exactly!! It is fascinating though frustrating to see this happen. My brother is in their clutches. It reminds me of a cult.

@joe-beyser said
This is true, however the slave did not receive the justice or domestic tranquility the preamble spoke of. It is just as much a part of the constitution as the rest. Through greed and selfishness slaveowners did not give up their livelihoods. What they pulled was defining slaves as people not protected under the constitution. Later they had to spell it out by amending the ...[text shortened]... al rights and are not considered worthy of basic human rights. A little repetition of history there.

Arbitrarily granting zygotes, embryos and fetuses "rights" can only be done by simultaneously destroying a woman's Natural Right to bodily sovereignty (the most basic right of all).

By contrast, no one's Natural Rights were disturbed by the legal recognition that slavery was a violation of other's rights and should be abolished.

@no1marauder said
Arbitrarily granting zygotes, embryos and fetuses "rights" can only be done by simultaneously destroying a woman's Natural Right to bodily sovereignty (the most basic right of all).

By contrast, no one's Natural Rights were disturbed by the legal recognition that slavery was a violation of other's rights and should be abolished.

You would have a point there except for the fact for the fetus, taking away its human rights and killing it is far worse than for the woman who may do this out of convenience. With exception of rape, then the woman used her sovereignty to get pregnant and even in the case of rape the fetus was not responsible either. As you know a human embryo is fully human and perfectly formed for its age not withstanding disease. Once the genes come together and the cell divides you have a human being. Without this definition it leaves it up to the prevailing opinion of the lawmakers no matter how corrupt and of moral decadence now and in the future. A case could be made that a 9 month old baby is not fully formed and would feel no pain if a procedure was done in a manor in which it felt no pain.

The legal recognition as you say is not what makes something right or wrong. It was wrong and they knew it. The public selling of a human being in the streets, the public floggings, the killings and total control over their life does not need legal recognition to be wrong for it to be wrong. It was justified just as you would do withholding the rights of the unborn. The whole thing is ugly but seems to me there have been cases where someone beat their girlfriend so bad it killed the fetus and charged with murder. Is that true?

@joe-beyser said
You would have a point there except for the fact for the fetus, taking away its human rights and killing it is far worse than for the woman who may do this out of convenience. With exception of rape, then the woman used her sovereignty to get pregnant and even in the case of rape the fetus was not responsible either. As you know a human embryo is fully human and perfectly ...[text shortened]... here someone beat their girlfriend so bad it killed the fetus and charged with murder. Is that true?

Whatever a woman does with what's inside her body is her business. Your assertions about embryos being "fully human" after conception is your opinion and not a biological fact. And your opinions shouldn't be the basis for denying actual human beings their most basic, Natural Right.

A fetus that can live outside its mother is a different story.

@no1marauder said
Whatever a woman does with what's inside her body is her business. Your assertions about embryos being "fully human" after conception is your opinion and not a biological fact. And your opinions shouldn't be the basis for denying actual human beings their most basic, Natural Right.

A fetus that can live outside its mother is a different story.

I can hear the slave holders giving the same argument. What a man does with his own property is his own business. Just cause you say a slave is a person with rights is your opinion and not backed by law. Your oppinions shouldn't be the basis for denying my family the actual legal right to run our farm as we see fit.

What is the difference between inside or outside. Both will not survive without care.

@joe-beyser said
I can hear the slave holders giving the same argument. What a man does with his own property is his own business. Just cause you say a slave is a person with rights is your opinion and not backed by law. Your oppinions shouldn't be the basis for denying my family the actual legal right to run our farm as we see fit.

What is the difference between inside or outside. Both will not survive without care.

I suggest you re-read my post up the page.

A viable fetus does not have to live inside the woman's sphere of bodily sovereignty; a nonviable zygote, embryo, fetus (ZEFs for short) does.

@no1marauder said
I suggest you re-read my post up the page.

A viable fetus does not have to live inside the woman's sphere of bodily sovereignty; a nonviable zygote, embryo, fetus (ZEFs for short) does.

The body of sovereignty and the fetus live inside the sphere of human rights. Same is true for the human life form at all stages regardless of naming scheme.

@joe-beyser said
The body of sovereignty and the fetus live inside the sphere of human rights. Same is true for the human life form at all stages regardless of naming scheme.

That is your opinion. Why it should be binding on woman who don't agree with it is something you'd have to explain; no human society has ever recognized a ZEF as having "human rights" until after its birth.