What did the Justices do wrong?

@no1marauder said
It's the SCOTUS' job to invalidate laws which violate your rights.

only if those laws violate rights given by the constitution

@no1marauder said
Can you possibly get it through your thick head that they saw no need to include every right in the Constitution? Are you too stupid to understand what the Ninth Amendment explicitly says?

Rights are not given to you by the government; that would imply that rights can be taken away by the government but the Founders said you were endowed with "inalienable" rights.

rights can be taken away by constitutional amendment...you are looking fairly ignorant of how our govt works

inalienable rights do not appear in the US constitution. The DOI is not a lawfully binding document

@mott-the-hoople said
only if those laws violate rights given by the constitution

The Constitution, like any document written by men, cannot give you rights.

@no1marauder said
The Constitution, like any document written by men, cannot give you rights.

dumbass

@mott-the-hoople said
rights can be taken away by constitutional amendment...you are looking fairly ignorant of how our govt works

inalienable rights do not appear in the US constitution.

The Framers didn't change their minds from 1776 to 1787. They meant what they said in the DOI and nothing in the Constitution is to the contrary.

@no1marauder said
It's the SCOTUS' job to invalidate laws which violate your rights.

But do you not say here that one has a constitutional right to abortion? You are saying if someone has such a right, from WHEREVER, that the constitution protects it? Even though the right does not come from the Constitution ? I'm trying to help you here, to thresh this out so we can see light at the end of the tunnel. You obviously have the skinny on this, but you are not getting it across. How bout using an analogy.
What a can of worms, that would be, Marauder. If anyone feels like they have some right, SCOTUS has to drop everything and check it out!?!?!?
It is up to states to grant a right to abortion, with an equal ability to cancel a right to abortion that they might have given last year. SCOTUS has nothing to do with it.
My fingers are tired. I will send son house your way

@no1marauder said
The Constitution, like any document written by men, cannot give you rights.

Just to clarify 'right', I can give you a right to park in my driveway. And take it away next week. The inalienable rights of course are absolute. Why jap up these simple points by mentioning a court of law? I don't get it.

@no1marauder said
The Framers didn't change their minds from 1776 to 1787. They meant what they said in the DOI and nothing in the Constitution is to the contrary.

they meant what they said in the constitution, that and that alone is the law of the land. when is the last time your heard scotus rule on the doi...LOL laughable isnt it
/

@sonhouse said
@techsouth
So for you there is no difference between a 38 special and an AR15.

Tell me who wants to take away all your guns? All I want is to at least raise the age of ownership to 21 so teenagers can't just legally buy their weapon of choice, the AR15 and start killing school children like what just happened in Texas.
But OF COURSE it is NEVER guns that kill people but tell me, how many kids could he kill with a 38 before he was deservedly killed by cops?

I'll limit my involvement to clarifying what I've observed.

1. Plenty of people claim there is no individual right to own guns to be found in the Constitution. I stand by that observation about the existence of such people. Whether I can tell a difference between a 38 special and an AR15 is irrelevant to this observation and after re-reading my post, I don't see how you'd suspect I don't know the difference.

2. Plenty of people want to take all guns from private citizens and frequently hold up other countries as models.

3. Plenty of people see an obvious right to abortion in the Constitution. To these people, those of us who cannot see that right are not just mistaken, but stupid, vile, and filthy for refusing to see something so obvious.

4. I don't suppose there are many polls that tease out the overlap, but based on party alignments and talking points, it seems very common for a person to both believe you'd have to be stupid to not see the right to abortion in the US Bill of Rights, but also have to be stupid to think that same Bill of Rights grants the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not here to argue specifics of gun restrictions based on age, criminal history, mental sanity, etc. I'm just here to express a sense of amazement at the combination of what people can find and not find in the Constitution when it lines up with their party narratives.

@jimm619 said
More coming thru CANADA than MEXICO
.............Where's the outrage?
..Why no wall?.....Hmmmm?
Could it be....gasp.....brown people?

BS.

You have a government link saying that?
Or just more crap from leftist biased sources?
Yahoo? 🤣

You're suggesting that 100,000 plus immigrants cross into the USA from Canada every month?

Canada and the USA just ignore that and don't report on it?

Jesus you're not only dumb but wilfully dumb.
Dumb by choice. The worst kind.

@beowulf said
BS.

You have a government link saying that?
Or just more crap from leftist biased sources?
Yahoo? 🤣

You're suggesting that 100,000 plus immigrants cross into the USA from Canada every month?

Canada and the USA just ignore that and don't report on it?

Jesus you're not only dumb but wilfully dumb.
Dumb by choice. The worst kind.

saying stupid things is his forte

@techsouth said
I'll limit my involvement to clarifying what I've observed.

1. Plenty of people claim there is no individual right to own guns to be found in the Constitution. I stand by that observation about the existence of such people. Whether I can tell a difference between a 38 special and an AR15 is irrelevant to this observation and after re-reading my post, I don't see how yo ...[text shortened]... what people can find and not find in the Constitution when it lines up with their party narratives.

What about ''......a well regulated militia.................?''

@techsouth said
I'll limit my involvement to clarifying what I've observed.

1. Plenty of people claim there is no individual right to own guns to be found in the Constitution. I stand by that observation about the existence of such people. Whether I can tell a difference between a 38 special and an AR15 is irrelevant to this observation and after re-reading my post, I don't see how yo ...[text shortened]... what people can find and not find in the Constitution when it lines up with their party narratives.

" it seems very common for a person to both believe you'd have to be stupid to not see the right to abortion in the US Bill of Rights,"

they are numbered one through ten...to which do you refer?

@jimm619 said
What about ''......a well regulated militia.................?''

militias are constitutionally guaranteed.

@jimm619 said
What about ''......a well regulated militia.................?''

above post ask for your link, are you ignoring that?