Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by Republican nominees since Nixon, please tell us the date after which the Republican nominees were nominally Republican. I believe that occurred under Reagan.

O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - these are Republican nominees who are nominally Republican. And they've provided the bulwark to prevent the Republican majority Court from overturning Roe.

So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?

LOL! If the facts are inconvenient, just make something up...

So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?

No, I advocated for no such conclusion. I only reposted my years old recitation of the party of the justices and the presidents who nominated them.

I find the entire argument absurd. Lo these many years, I have never found the abortion clause of the Constitution. I do not find it to be a constitutional matter at all.

Whether a judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, he or she should decide based on United States law, not some personal perception of God's law. Finding something morally repugnant or acceptable does nothing to determine it to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.

The first law citing murder was in 1790 and only applied to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Murder elsewhere was not a Federal matter. Even if abortion were considered infanticide, it would not have been a crime against the United States.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_9

SEC. 3. And be it [further] enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.

The argument over Roe proceeds from the false choice of Roe, or a reversal of Roe prohibiting all abortion. I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction. Roe should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, and the matter returned to the States.

Whether a judge is Dem or GOP should not determine how he rules. Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.

At the time of Roe, it was entirely possible for a conservative Southern Democrat to be much more conservative than what was then a moderate Northeastern moderate Republican. A party indicator from nearly 50 years ago provides no indicator of that justice's legal leanings. Even a current party indicator does not identify how one would interpret the Constitution.

The party indicator of the nominating official provides less than nothing.

Summary: 'I disagree with Person X, therefore he's a bastard, a piece of garbage and a Communist.' - A K A Stone

Your summary is inaccurate.

It is more like this.

Person X holds an evil act as a good act. So person X is a piece of shit or a communist in your case. In your case because you espouse communist ideology in some manners.

You can disagree and think people that support murdering children are admirable and not pieces of shit. But according to Stones rules if you admire a piece of shit you are a piece of shit.

Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.

Yes he did. He is still a bad person though.

So, we're going to count judges

By their political party.

Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to. Which makes sense you being a supporter of an abortion candidate Bloomdork.

I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction.

Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?

Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?

Where should the power lie?

Should the Supreme Court have the power to make it legal to murder adults or anyone's babies?

Should the Supreme Court have such power in the absence of any decision by the Federal political branch (the Legislature) in the form of a law? There was no Federal law at issue in Roe. No Federal law prevented a State from banning abortion. Roe relied on constitutional interpretation to strike down a Texas State law. In doing so, it made that interpretation applicable to all the States, striking down all conflicting State law.

Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.

Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

But you didn't answer the question.

You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.

So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Why ok for babies but not adults?

Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to.

True.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

Marbury was decided by the Founders. The Founders also manned Congress, the state legislatures and the White House. They did not move to strike down the Marbury decision. Instead, they accepted it, thereby ratifying it.

The Founders, by their decision in Marbury and their ratification of Marbury by their non-reaction to it, demonstrated that Supreme Court review WAS the "original intent" of the Constitution.

The Founders gave us the Constitution, and they gave us Washington's presidential precedents, and they gave us Marbury v. Madison - the Marbury Supremes were Founding Fathers too, and the President Jefferson and Marybury Congress were Founders too. Marbury is part of the "original intent" of the Constitution - it is part of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

The Founders also...

...had a moral compass.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
--President George Washington, in his Farewell Address

Now it's not even PC to articulate what the Washington Monument represented...

www.google.com/search?&q=washington+monument+compass

Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to.

The subject of abortion is rapidly becoming a moot point in the context of the next level of moral challenge rendered by our self-worshiping technocracy...

www.google.com/search?&q=Designer+Babies+in+ukraine

Got CRISPR?

Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by...

Human Nature?

"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"

What did Jefferson have in mind and how did that work in the context of the Tyranny of the Majority that was subsequently observed by De Tocqueville?

Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Only if they're on private property. /sarc.

BTW - Jeffrey Epstein's island was private. How'd that work out?

My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist.

Trump and Netanyahoo's playmates are Tribal, Organized Criminal, Oligarchs.  They are not operating under the constraint of a lawful republic - constituted to have TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS as its specified purpose.

The original article “Bratva” (“Bros,” a slang term for “mob”) is abridged and re-structured for the Western readers not familiar with the intricate details of Russian politics and the history of organized crime. I have also inserted links to my research showing the longterm ties between the Russian organized crime bosses and Trump and his immediate environment...

https://web.archive.org/web/20191120173349/https://medium.com/@ZarinaZabrisky/putinism-introduction-7167f6a6ec9d

Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.

We could go back to the eugenics movement and find lots of Republicans. Eugenics, birth control (population control), and abortion are tightly linked.

I am going to start with Prescott Bush, who was Finance Chairman of the Birth Control League.

Peggy Goldwater (Barry's wife) helped fund Planned Parenthood.

The California legislature had near parity between R's and D's, yet passed an abortion legalization bill in 1967. Reagan was told that they would override his veto (requiring 2/3). He signed the bill.

George "Rubbers" Bush introduced Family Planning Services Act in 1970. George's main interest in Congress was population control. He supported Planned Parenthood, and he advocated family planning as a way to protect a woman's health & to combat poverty. In those days, family-planning advocates spoke openly of contraception, and legal abortion was the goal of many, including Bush. "He was most definitely pro-choice--then," said former Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY). "He was very supportive until he became Reagan's VP. Then he had to adopt Reagan's backward position. After that, when George would see me in the House, he'd say, 'Jim, don't break my cover.' And I never did--until now. George couldn't have continued supporting family planning and still made the national ticket."

Republican National Committee co-chair Mary Dent Crisp, a former Goldwater supporter and the highest-ranking woman in the party, believed that abortion was a woman's individual right.

These are just a few of the mucky mucks that set the stage for Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton which struck down Texas and Georgia abortion prohibition laws in 1973. They were authored by Republican SC Justice Harry Blackmun and joined by 3 other Republican Justices to form a 7-2 majority.

Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system. The guy is a communist. Little Vic is a dick commie.

1. What is the velocity of money?
2. How does derivative a$$paper, denominated in Quadrillion, reflect the actual state of the global economy VS the concept of "supply and demand"?
3. To what degree are Organized Criminals profiting from control over the Military Industrial Complex and the economy?
4. What alternatives are there to the Military Industrial / Organized Criminal Complex's selfish manipulation of the velocity of money?

Maybe it's time for a HUMANE Industrial Complex.

If the system is going to run on the velocity of bullshyte anyhow, then the humane thing to do is to have it benefit all of our species - instead of just the apex predators perched atop the pyramid.

The Powell Memorandum thus became the blueprint for the rise of the American conservative movement and the formation of a network of influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as well as inspiring the US Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.[16][17] CUNY professor David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo.[18][19]

mucky mucks that set the stage for Roe v Wade

Technology set the stage for a hedonistic attempt to alter the consequences of behavior rendered by 1.2 billion years of sexual reproduction.

Human culture is still figuring out how to balance those technological "benefits" against the moral cost of them.

The apex predators perched atop post-modern culture are not the first to figure out that "Sex Sells".

Romans Chapter 1. RTFM.

Putin came up through the system. He appears to be doing good things for his country now.

My impression of Putin is that his ideological affinity with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn appears to be legitimate and is consistent with his support of/by the Russian Orthodox Christian Church.

Putin also appears to be a pragmatist who understands the historical relationships between the Organized Criminals who ran the Soviet Gulag system - and their present-day successors. Ie: Cut off one cockroach head and 6 grow back in its place.

IMHO, the dots connecting Trump (in the role of Useful Idiot) to Simeon Mogilevich's Odessa Mafia are much more self-evident than those connecting Putin to Mogilevich... but YMMV.

"COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM"
--Thomas Jefferson

Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

But you didn't answer the question.

You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.

So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Why ok for babies but not adults?

Yours is an inapplicable question and I will walk you through why that is so.

10th Amendment

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.

ALL power resides in either:

• The United States, or
• The States, or
• The people

Unless you strike down the Constitution, those are your three choices for who has the power to decide whether abortion is constitutional or unconstitutional, lawful or unlawful.

Either the Federal government or the States must be empowered to decide whether to prohibit abortion, or it is left to the people to decide. You must pick one, and only one.

If you choose the Federal government, then you choose to

• permit the Congress to pass a law making abortion a crime, or prohibiting States from making abortion a crime, or

• permit the Supreme Court to preempt Congress and all States by issuing an opinion based on an interpretation of the Constitution

• do nothing, leaving it to the States

If you choose the States, then you choose to

• empower the State government to pass a law making abortion a crime

• do nothing, leaving it to the people

If you choose the People, then you choose to

• render all abortion legal until the People exercise their sovereign power to amend the Constitution to state, for example, "Abortion is a felony punishable by death."

Nothing is murder, or any crime at all, until there is a law stating that it is murder or a crime. It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.

Whoever is empowered is empowered to decide abortion is a crime by passing a law so stating. Should they not pass such a law, then abortion is not a crime within that jurisdiction. Whoever is empowered is empowered to pass a law making interference with lawful abortion a crime, or to regulate abortion in the manner of its choosing.

As you seem to support Federal jurisdiction, where the power now resides, States cannot decide whether to make abortion a crime.

So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Why ok for babies but not adults?

The inapplicability of your question is shown by the fact that States have no power to declare abortion lawful or unlawful. The Federal government has declared that it is empowered to decide the matter and it has decided it by declaring to all 50 States that abortion is not unlawful, much less murder, and that it is a constitutional right.

Everything is legal unless there is a law stating it is illegal. Whoever is empowered makes something legal by doing nothing. They make something lawful by not passing a law making it unlawful.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

As a matter of law, you are simply wrong about Marbury. However, assume arguendo that you are correct.

You appear perfectly happy to support an activist Supreme Court deciding the legality of abortion, just as long as the majority agrees with you in exercising jurisdiction you alternately appear to deny exists.

Marbury actually resolved whether the Federal courts could strike down a Federal law as repugnant to the Constitution. In Roe, there was no Federal law involved. Had there been an inconsistent Federal law, the Federal law would have prevailed pursuant to Article 6.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.

The birth control pill is, in effect, abortion. Most folks just don't understand how it works -- how it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

And the subject of abortion will be moot in the context of...

www.google.com/search?&q=designer+babies+in+ukraine

The Founders gave us the Constitution, and they gave us Washington's presidential precedents, and they gave us Marbury v. Madison - the Marbury Supremes were Founding Fathers too, and the President Jefferson and Marybury Congress were Founders too. Marbury is part of the "original intent" of the Constitution - it is part of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

While what you state is absolutely correct, it may also be worth observing that the Constitution and Washington created a Supreme Court that was packed with 100% Federalists. Never since those early days has the court been packed so one-sidedly.

Comparing the Federal government as founded, to the Federal government of today, reveals that something has gone askew.

And the subject of abortion will be moot in the context of...

www.google.com/search?&q=designer+babies+in+ukraine

Abortion has always been moot in the context of strongly desired pregnancies.

Aspiring baby mamas can always find a way to get knocked up the old fashioned way, and subsequently invoke a lady's prerogative to change her mind.

Abortion has always been moot in the context of strongly desired pregnancies.

Will it still be abortion/murder if the zygote is vaporized after a scan detects an undesirable trait in its genome?

Will it still be abortion/murder if the zygote is vaporized after a scan detects an undesirable trait in its genome?

Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder.

Nothing is a crime unless a law says it is. Do you have a law in mind that says vaporizing a zygote is murder? Cite the statute.

Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder.

Noun: crime krIm
1. (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act
2. An evil act not necessarily punishable by law

Noun: zygote zIgowt
A zygote is a diploid cell resulting from the union of a haploid spermatozoon and ovum (including the organism that develops from that cell).

You and your buddy like to dehumanize people you want to beat, imprison, or kill, yet that organism is a human being by definition, and completely innocent. Killing a human being is homicide, which may rise to murder if there is premeditation and demonstrated intent, and there is no self-defense or in defense of anothers' life or great bodily harm.

The fact that there is no law at this time that punishes this particular homicide doesn't mean it isn't a crime. Our founding documents cover the sanctity of life, starting with George Mason:

A Declaration of Rights

Is made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government.

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder.

Noun: crime krIm
1. (criminal law) an act punishable by law; usually considered an evil act
2. An evil act not necessarily punishable by law

Noun: zygote zIgowt
A zygote is a diploid cell resulting from the union of a haploid spermatozoon and ovum (including the organism that develops from that cell).

Abortion cannot be a criminal act while it is a constitutional right.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

You may disagree with Roe, but it is the law. Any law inconsistent with Roe is unconstitutional, null and void. No State may criminalize abortion.

Try using a real law dictionary.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed

Crime. A positive or negative act in violation of penal law; an offense against the State or United States.

"Crime” and "misdemeanor”, properly speaking, are synonymous terms; though in common usage "crime” is made to denote such offenses as are of a more serious nature. In general, violation of an ordinance is not a crime.

A crime may be defined to be any act done in violation of those duties which an individual owes to the community, and for the breach of which the law has provided that the offender shall make satisfaction to the public. A crime or public offense is an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, either, or a combination, of the following punishments: (1) death; (2) imprisonment; (3) fine; (4) removal from office; or (5) disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit. While many crimes have their origin at common law, most have been created by statute; and, in many states, such have been codified. In addition, there are both state and federal crimes (as to the latter, see Title 18, U.S.C.A.).

- - - - - - - - - -

Quasi crimes. This term embraces all offenses not crimes or misdemeanors, but that are in the nature of crimes. A class of offenses against the public which have not been declared crimes, but wrongs against the general or local public which it is proper should be repressed or punished by forfeitures and penalties. This would embrace all qui tarn actions and forfeitures imposed for the neglect or violation of a public duty. A quasi crime would not embrace an indictable offense, whatever might be its grade, but simply forfeitures for a wrong done to the public, whether voluntary or involuntary, where a penalty is given, whether recoverable by criminal or civil process. Also, offenses for which some person other than the actual perpetrator is responsible, the perpetrator being presumed to act by command of the responsible party. Sometimes, injuries which have been unintentionally caused. D.W.I. (driving while intoxicated) offenses are sometimes classified as quasi crimes.

- - - - - - - - - -

The fact that there is no law at this time that punishes this particular homicide doesn't mean it isn't a crime.

Yeah, it does. One cannot be charged with a crime that does not exist. I can say you are guilty of mopery, but you cannot be charged and convicted.

Our founding documents cover the sanctity of life, starting with George Mason

Geroge Mason's Declaration of Rights and Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence are no part of United States law. Thomas Jefferson wrote All men are created equal while being tended to by his slave Jupiter. When Jefferson went to France, he was accompanied by his slave Sally Hemings, who was the half-sister of his wife. TJ father about six kids withy Sally and started a whole branch of the Jefferson family tree. A load of jefferson DNA was discovered in that tree.

Abortion is also clearly a violation of the 9th amendment.

Abortion is a constitution right. See Roe v. Wade, where you defend the jurisdiction of the court.

It isn't in the constitution. The supreme court gave itself powers not given to it by the framers. That is indisputable truth. Abortion is also indisputable murder I

You are welcome to live in your alternate reality. It is indisputable truth that people interfering with others entering or leaving abortion clinics are charged with a crime, while people receiving or performing abortions are not.

The only way to overturn Roe is by constitutional amendment or by another action of the Supreme Court itself. A blog entry declaring Roe null and void does not get it.

You appear to actively support the Court usurping power to impose their opinion upon the fifty states and the federal legislature. Your only disagreement is with the opinion they issued.

Just imagine the Framers' surprise when they learn that they created a constitutional right to gay marriage.

Abortion is murder in this world. The intentional taking of a human life is murder no matter what some douchebag you worship in a black robe says.

It is av violation of the 9th amendment. The right to life once conceived. It is a human being that is being murdered. A human being not a fuckiing zygote. That is idiot liberal talk.

Don't you respect the 9th amendment. I don't think you do. Just like the second amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms. We already had that right. Can you give us some of the rights the 9th gives us. I don't think you can.

Also the Declaration of Independence is superior the constitution. It suts higher in the pecking order. Also no good people give a shit what the Supreme Court says when they get it wrong. If you want to know when they get it wrong ask me and I will tell you.

The constitution means what it says not what the majority votes on a given day.

You can disagree but you would be wrong.

What you promote is color of law. I don't have tine to explain what color of law is go look it up.

The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion. Most of the framers would kill, the abortionists with muskets or hanging.

Most of the framers would kill, the abortionists with muskets or hanging.

Preferably after tarring and feathering them to make sure the public understood how amorally repugnant and inhumane the abortionists were.

If you lived in Nazi Germany in stead of abortion murder America. You would be saying the Jew are being gassed and the Germans are gassing and not being arrested.

If I were living in Nazi Germany and you asked me what the law was, I would try to respond with an accurate recitation of Nazi German law. I would not make believe that Nazi German law was an A K A Stone brainfart.

Abortion is murder in this world. The intentional taking of a human life is murder no matter what some douchebag you worship in a black robe says.

Abortion is not murder if the law says it is legal. Murder defines a criminal act punishable under the law. Try charging someone with criminal abortion.

It is av violation of the 9th amendment. The right to life once conceived.

9th Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It does not say a mumbling word about abortion or the right to life of a fetus.

5th Amendment

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....

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Capital case or crime. One in which death penalty may, but need not necessariy, be imposed.

Yea verily, under the Constitution, living people have been gassed, shot, hanged, and electrocuted until dead. And then there is lethal injection.

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence which has never been the law of anyplace. Murder is punished as murder under a murder statute, not the Constitution.

A human being not a fuckiing zygote. That is idiot liberal talk.

Zygotes were brought up at #62 by Anthem, to whom I responded. Take it up with Anthem. I never claimed a zygote is a human being. A zygote is a fertilized egg.

Don't you respect the 9th amendment. I don't think you do.

It appears you either have not read it, or you find therein some imaginary provision that criminalizes abortion. But then, the District Court in Roe found therein the right to abortion, and the Supreme Court opined that, "This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

Then there is Section 1 of 14th Amendment where SCOTUS finds the imaginary right to abortion,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

An abortion clinic is not a State.

Remember, you are the one supporting the power of SCOTUS to strike down all the state laws that prohibited abortion. My personal finding is that abortion is not addressed by the Constitution, Roe took up an argument based on a non-existent provision of the Constitution, and the case should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. You, on the other hand, ignore the constitutional and jurisdiction issue and find the court should decide the lawfulness of abortion on constitutional grounds.

Note that at the time of Roe, there was no Federal law banning abortion to overturn. Note also that the final arbiter in interpreting a State law is the highest court of the State, not the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS decided that abortion was a right under some vaguely identified provision emanating from a penumbra.

Just like the second amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms. We already had that right. Can you give us some of the rights the 9th gives us. I don't think you can.

Neither the 9th Amendment, nor the 2nd Amendment, created or gave any new right. Neither purports to do so. The right to keep and bear arms was cut and pasted from English common law, which was the law in the colonies before independence.

Also the Declaration of Independence is superior the constitution. It suts higher in the pecking order.

The DoI sits in equal status with a blog entry as far as being law. It is not law. In fact, it was crafted before there was a United States.

Also no good people give a shit what the Supreme Court says when they get it wrong. If you want to know when they get it wrong ask me and I will tell you.

When SCOTUS gets it wrong according to you or me, their interpretation of the law is still the law of the land.

Tell yourself whatever you want. Since SCOTUS said abortion is a constitutional right, abortion has been legal. Since they said gay marriage is a constitutional right, gay marriage is legal. Recognizing that something is legal is not the same as agreeing with it. Believing something is murder does not make it murder. An act may be murder in Texas and less than murder elsewhere. It simply depends on what the applicable statute says.

The constitution means what it says not what the majority votes on a given day.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter in interpreting the Constitution and what it says is the governing interpretation. Abortions and gay marriage are legal.

You can disagree but you would be wrong.

You can disagree with SCOTUS and it does not change the law. They are empowered as the final arbiter in interpreting Federal law, including the Constitution, and you and I are not. Our opinions are not binding on the courts, Their's are.

What you promote is color of law. I don't have tine to explain what color of law is go look it up.

I will take the time to clear up your evident confusion about color of law and Federal constitutional law.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clother with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law.” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.

When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).

Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.

Acts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.

"Color of law" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion.

And yet, it is the law. Abortion and gay marriage are legal. Pete Buttigieg, a candidate for president, has a husband. We even have laws against using the wrong pronouns. And guys who identify as girls are transformed into record breaking "lady" track stars and "lady" weight lifters.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. It does not say a mumbling word about abortion or the right to life of a fetus.

Then what rights toes the 9th protect. It doesn't list any. You have to use your common sense.

Mayor buttplug is not married. He is pretending to be married. That is the truth.

If the SUpreme court told you two plus two was five you would believe them.

They don't get it right that often.

I know you are just saying what the government says the law is. But when they lie aboutit why do you go along with it.

Just like when they lied about Obamacare.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Yep clearly a 9th amendment violation. Clear as day.

The framers didn't make a right to faggots pretending to be married just like they didn't make a right to abortion. And yet, it is the law.

I wanna see that law. Can you cite it? Why not?

And guys who identify as girls are transformed into record breaking "lady" track stars and "lady" weight lifters.

Good example. Is a man a man because he has a penis or because some bullshitting judge says a woman with a vagina is a man?

If the Supreme court says a man is a woman you will have to say you agree. Me I will go with the truth and say the chick has a dick and is a man who belongs in a mental institution.

Then what rights toes the 9th protect. It doesn't list any. You have to use your common sense.

Use YOUR common sense. SCOTUS has held that abortion is a constitutional right. If you want to go there, the right to abortion, not enumerated elsewhere, is protected by the 9th Amendment.

If you want to go there, the right to abortion, not enumerated elsewhere, is protected by the 9th Amendment.

Kook talk. You're better than that Chan.

SCOTUS has held that abortion is a constitutional right.

If their opinons differ from the words of the constitution it is color of law.

They usurped power that is why you can't cite their power in the constitution.

If you want to worship the Supreme court as infallible that is your prerogative.

Sure they rule and their rulings are enforced. Their rulings can put you in jail. But it is still TRUTHFULLY color of law.

I wanna see that law. Can you cite it? Why not?

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2008)

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a mar­riage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawful­ly licensed and performed out-of-State.

Obergefell at 4:

(3) The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. The Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause are connected in a profound way.

I didn't write it, but it is now the law. You can make believe otherwise.

Laws are passed by congress and signed by the president.

Can you cite a law? Because you said it was a law.

I didn't write it, but it is now the law. You can make believe otherwise.

More color of law.

If their opinons differ from the words of the constitution it is color of law.

Yo8u quite obviously refuse to recognize what "color of law" signifies, despite my quoting it to you from Black's Law Dictionary. Your attempted usage is meaningless.

What SCOTUS is the law. What you say is your opinion and does not displace the opinion of SCOTUS. They are empowered by the Constitution as the final arbiter of federal law, you are not.

More color of law.

If you do not know what it means, stop trying to use it.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clother with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law.” Atkins v. Lanning, D.C.Okl., 415 F.Supp. 186, 188.

When used in the context of federal civil rights statutes or criminal law, the term is synonymous with the concept of "state action" under the Fourteenth Amendment, Timson v. Weiner, D.C.Ohio, 395 F.Supp. 1344, 1347; and means pretense of law and includes actions of officers who undertake to perform their official duties, Thompson v. Baker, D.C.Ark., 133 F.Supp. 247; 42 U.S. C.A. § 1983. See Tort (Constitutional tort).

Action taken by private individuals may be "under color of state law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 governing deprivation of civil rights when significant state involvement attaches to action. Wagner v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority, C.A.Tenn., 772 F.2d 227, 229.

Acts "under color of any law” of a State include not only acts done by State officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of an official to be done "under color of any law”, the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his official duties; that is to say, the unlawful acts must consist in an abuse or misuse of power which is possessed by the official only because he is an official; and the unlawful acts must be of such a nature or character, and be committed under such circumstances, that they would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then and there exercising his official powers outside the bounds of lawful authority. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)

Color of law refers to an appearance of legal power to act that may operate in violation of law. For example, if a police officer acts with the "color of law" authority to arrest someone, the arrest, if it is made without probable cause, may actually be in violation of law. In other words, just because something is done with the "color of law" does not mean that the action was lawful. When police act outside their lawful authority and violate the civil rights of a citizen, the FBI is tasked with investigating.

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the US Constitution to construct laws regulating the actions of the law enforcement community. Under "color of law," it is a crime for one or more persons using power given by a governmental agency (local, state or federal), to deprive or conspire wilfully to deprive another person of any right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Criminal acts under color of law include acts within and beyond the bounds or limits of lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may also be covered if official status is asserted in some manner. Color of law may include public officials and non-governmental employees who are not law enforcement officers such as judges, prosecutors, and private security guards.

"Color of law" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

You just quote what the governent currently says the law is. Even when they get it wrong. You quote what will happen to you if you disobey it.

See i'm different.

I'm interested in the truth of what the words actually mean and not some lawyer spin. The Constitution means what it actually says. Even when a usurping supreme court (yes small letters like in the Constitution) says differently. I agree that they have the actual power to do that. It doesn't make it truth though as the actual meaning and intent of the Constitution. Another example would be the interstate commerce clause doesn't mean what the traitors on the Supreme court said it means. You know that. You do know that. Admit it. Please.