19 May 19
@whodey saidSeriously, have you ever actually read the Constitution? Have you studied the ratification debates? Have you read the Federalist Papers or any of the many extemporaneous writings regarding the Constitution circa 1787?
Don't try to make sense of the Leftist mind. They do sound desperate though, don't they.
Because you consistently show little, if any, awareness of what it actually contains or what the Framers intended.
@no1marauder saidQuote what the Constitutuon says about who makes laws.
Yes the Framers were aware that the Courts would have to interpret the Constitution; that's a central component of the "Judicial Power" that they vested in the SCOTUS and whatever inferior courts Congress created. See Article III, Section 1.
Article 3 section 1 says there will be a Supreme Court. It does not say he Supreme court can make laws.
19 May 19
@no1marauder saidUnlike animals, killing the unborn can result in charges like manslaughter or murder. Unlike animals, there are laws defining the unborn as human.
They aren't given any specific rights "that are only given to human beings":
§ 353-a. Aggravated cruelty to animals
1. A person is guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals when, with no justifiable purpose, he or she intentionally kills or intentionally causes serious physical injury to a companion animal with aggravated cruelty.
https://www.animallaw.info/statute/ny-cruelty-consolidated-cruelty-statutes#s353a
19 May 19
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp
19 May 19
@no1marauder saidI said the Constitution dumb ass.
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practic ...[text shortened]... t to nothing.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 78 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.asp
19 May 19
@vivify saidIF the Legislature felt like it, it could create something called "Animal Murder" and stick it in the Homicide section of the law. That would not create any "rights" for the category included.
Unlike animals, killing the unborn can result in charges like manslaughter or murder. Unlike animals, there are laws defining the unborn as human.
Your constant insistence to the contrary is fallacious reasoning.
19 May 19
@no1marauder saidAlright, you officially lost this one.
IF the Legislature felt like it, it could create something called "Animal Murder" and stick it in the Homicide section of the law. That would not create any "rights" for the category included.
Your constant insistence to the contrary is fallacious reasoning.
@eladar saidThe SCOTUS doesn't make "laws" ( what you are actually referring to are "statutes" ) but it and courts can and do make "law". The Framers weren't ignorant of the hundreds of years of courts defining the Common Law in Britain and the colonies even if you apparently are. "The Judicial Power" they referred to included it.
Quote what the Constitutuon says about who makes laws.
Article 3 section 1 says there will be a Supreme Court. It does not say he Supreme court can make laws.
Alexander Hamilton was a delegate at the ratifying Convention and the Federalist Papers were an influential compendium of the ideas of the majority of the delegates. Obviously, you never read them.
19 May 19
@no1marauder saidLaws explicitly defining the unborn as human were created, making your point invalid.
IF the Legislature felt like it, it could create something called "Animal Murder" and stick it in the Homicide section of the law. That would not create any "rights" for the category included.
Your constant insistence to the contrary is fallacious reasoning.
19 May 19
@vivify saidWould a law that stated "No human being can be killed except by their mother" be permissible according to you? Or would it run afoul of human beings' Natural Right to life?
Unlike animals, killing the unborn can result in charges like manslaughter or murder. Unlike animals, there are laws defining the unborn as human.
19 May 19
@vivify saidWho's moving goalposts now? You claimed those laws granted specific rights to the unborn. I say they did not and could not. Laws stating that Group A is X for the purposes of Law Y do not do what you think they do.
Laws explicitly defining the unborn as human were created, making your point invalid.
19 May 19
@no1marauder saidThose rights are in the form of legal protection. Arizona treats the unborn as minors.
Who's moving goalposts now? You claimed those laws granted specific rights to the unborn. I say they did not and could not. Laws stating that Group A is X for the purposes of Law Y do not do what you think they do.