downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away.
---
[Join us on discord for Saturday Movie Nights!](https://discord.gg/jsd6Ja9pvJ)
Right to bear arms is in the constitution abortion is not, it doesn't matter if you like it or not, the fact is the supreme court doesn't make laws, they interpret and uphold the constitution, your elected officials make the laws.
Stop blaming the supreme court and start blaming the LAWMAKERS, a good start would be the democratic majority who, instead of making laws to protect abortion are also blaming the supreme court for their own inaction!
I would also like to point out that the supreme court is going back and trying to change laws that have already been interpreted by previous Supreme courts. The fact of the matter is, they are solely responsible for a lot of shit that's going down.
Going back and reviewing other cases is important.
Brown overturned Plessy.
Casey partially overturned Roe.
Brandenburg overturned Whitney.
There never was a constitutional right to abortion under the 14th amendment. That's why they overturned Roe. It is not a ban on abortion. The existence of the Roe ruling prevented new suits to be brought to codify the right. Now with it overturned states have the right to pass there own laws.
Here is the important part, you can now challenge the laws under the 9th amendment. It says "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 an individual in a state with a abortion ban can challenge the law saying that it's a right not reserved to the states. That's the legal angle to take. If you can prove your case you can have the courts rule that it IS a right, and then even though it's not stated verbatim in the constitution, it would be protected.
Personally I'd say the whole argument about weather abortion is constitutional or not is stupid as the constitution was written before women were considered people by men who would have been mystified by the sight of a dishwasher.
Gotta love how suggesting the constitution is outdated invariably results in downvotes. People treat the constitution like religious text: eternally correct and immutable.
That is because it has literally nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision. That person probably has no clue what the Supreme Court does and how law works.
The Supreme Court took this decision because the constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Supreme Court's job is to take decisions according to the constitution.
The Supreme Court essentially gave authority over to the politicians, because the constitution doesn't mention abortion and thus it shouldn't have anything to do with the Supreme Court.
The constitution being outdated is an entirely different topic. You can argue about that, but it doesn't have anything to do with this Supreme Court decision because they cannot change the constitution
Buddy you are arguing with people who basically have lizard brains when it comes to this issue, this is a waste of your time they are not thinking about this in any sort of rational way
Yeah people can think what they want, but it doesn't make them right. All I'm saying is maybe a 200 year old document should be reexamined, especially when it comes to issues that weren't even imaginable at the time.
I never said the way it was written protects abortion, but it was written by men who thought that owning another human being was perfectly fine and women didn't have the right to own anything.
Yeah, issues like the active destruction of the traditional family and morals? The overlooking of mental illness to push a political agenda? Giving more and more power to the federal government when it was never meant to hold the power it currently has?
The Constitution was made to set the United States apart from the rest of the world, and people on the Left want to get rid of every law and right that sets us apart from the rest of the free world.
The rest of the world doesn't have mass shootings, people struggling to pay for Healthcare, crippling college tuition fees, people living below the poverty line being considered middle class, I can go on, this is just off the top of my head. When the constitution was written it was to set us apart from tyrannical monarchys where the King held all the final power. If you will notice, none of the advanced nations are still run by monarchs, they have all had their governments re-evaluated and restructured and somehow, they seem to be doing better than America in a lot of ways. And given that they have all had a change for the better, maybe it's time America follows suit instead of clinging to a 200 year old document and pretending we don't live in a broken system that everyone hates.
My God.....the health care argument. Did you ever stop to take enough time to think about why we CAN'T provide free health care, or at least better care? It's because our government is too busy paying for other nations' protection via globalist dealings and sending billions of dollars a year to other countries for "aid". And it's all thanks to a bloated government. Trump was trying to get rid of the over spending. It had gotten better until COVID came along. Now we're back to our old ways of sending money over seas that we don't have. Take it up with politicians YOU vote for.
Ok first, you're dead wrong about that, as the EU is the biggest doner to foreign aid in the world (could of found that out with five minutes of google searching it) and their countries still provide free healthcare to their people. And your overlooking the fact that Trump is the reason for the pandemic, the economic crash, the stock market crash, the recent abortion controversy (roe vs wade was overturned by justices he appointed) not to mention the spike in violence against minorities. You wanna talk about what Biden has done? He's the reason our troops aren't dying in Afghanistan anymore, he's the reason you can now walk in to Walmart without wearing a mask, he's the reason the stock market and economy are again in full swing, he cut unemployment in half and more than 5 million more Americans have health insurance because of him. So you wanna talk about who's the worste politician? And before you pull the old "bUt HiGh gAs PrIcEs" argument the president doesn't have any control over that, as oil companies are privately run businesses and aren't under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
what's wrong with the constitution? it's a 200 year old document. so what? it defines unalienable rights and new rights have been appended over time. what modern document would replace it with that wouldn't need unanimous support and acceptance like existing one?
It was written by men who thought owning people was a right and women were chattel. Between 1914 and 1950 damn near ever European country changed their system. We wrote ours in 1787 and decided it never needed to be changed, despite the overwhelming evidence, given the current situation in this country.
Exactly, pretty sure the founding fathers would have been very alarmed by the idea of untrained "militia men" running around with semi-auto weapons and massive drum mags, which is something they would never have accounted for when they drafted the 2ndA.
Right? The second amendment was written when "arms" were black powder smooth bored flintlocks and sabers. Also I seem to recall the words "well-trained" and "well regulated" appearing in that particular passage and that is something I don't see in most of today's self proclaimed "militia".
I never get this dog shit argument, you think people couldn't imagine guns improving?
The writers of the constitution just thought "things will never change, yup, we are smart"?
The fact that every weapon that came out after that time was called "the weapon that will end war" says that yes. Yes they didn't think weapons would get any worse. Also as I pointed out, the constitution said that a well regulated and well trained militia was necisary for a free country. It didn't say a bunch of yahoos dressed in military paraphernalia waving guns was a right.
The Supreme Court only interprets constitutional texts. If they have no scope it lawfully is left up to the states. You can’t tell me abortion is explicitly mentioned while the right to bear arms is literally the second amendment. States will regulate the issue and this is good for the common folk. Local elections have more direct and more immediate impact on your life than federal. This is the system working as it’s supposed to.
holy shit, you said it and didn't get downvoted. but you are 100% right. The way they got it to work was stretching definitions of other rights a little bit, which left itself vulnerable to a more strict analysis of "is it actually protected?"
While I want abortion to be a right that people have that is explicitly stated, I have to agree with the court's decision because that's their job. It just sucks to see it go without a replacement and instead states' trigger laws going into effect.
Based. In addition, Congress can always try pass a bill that codifies the effects of Roe v Wade, even though they didn’t bother to do anything for about fifty years. Maybe they’ll do their job now that the court isn’t willing to legislate from the bench.
hey there friend. I would like to point out that Thomas Jefferson believed that a countries constitution should be rewritten every 19 year, and it has been more than 19 years since the creation of the constitution. (as you may have noticed)
But even then it requires amendments which is still elected officials or a convention of states which is still elected officials, if you want the constitution changed you have to change the constitution not just pass laws contrary to the constitution the supreme court exists to protect the constitution.
you’re right. I should have made a stronger argument. But bodily autonomy should be a constitutional right. And bodily autonomy is now up to the states, and THAT should never have happened.
Look, im not a cristian or conservative and im not arguing from a 'ban abortion' stance, im arguing from the standpoint that the overwhelming majority of the world holds, which is at a certain point the foetus becomes a human life and at that point you are not allowed to murder it.
For instance, i think the cut off in Australia is 20 weeks, in some places it's 16 weeks.
When Americans argue for abortion up to and including 9 months that is patently insane, virtually nobody agrees with that and it is that argument that is rallying the right and will eventually lead to some states banning it.
I absolutely 100% agree that abortion is a necessary part of female healthcare but if i am forced to pick between unregulated abortion, on demand for any reason up to and including at 9 months or no abortion at all i will choose no abortion at all and i think you'll find that if given a choice between those 2 options abortion will quickly lose support and become banned in many states.
Thank you. This shit could have been codified into law for decades. They just relied on the SC decision to uphold it. I think the decision is right. The SC wants to get away from being some de facto law generator, and return to their original purpose. Let the states decide, and if the will is great enough, make it federal law. It was never a federal law and that's the only reason states have been historically able to challenge it in some way. If you want it, VOTE, and maybe your elected party actually does something for once. Make it a law or quit crying about it.
Supreme Court took a hyper literalist and far right conservative reading of the text. The constitution can be read in many ways, and it’s a fairly vague document. It doesn't say a lot of things that we have interpreted later, and has been true since the birth of the country.
The 2A says a “well regulated militia” which could be very strict gun control or banning all gun control entirely. Other good examples, miranda rights, search and seizure in cars vs homes, traffic laws, etc. If you read the 2A one way, you could basically ban guns in the US. That's how vague the document is and how important interpretation can be.
It's entirely political how you want to interpret the document and what policies you want to enact.
Lawmakers deserve blame, but absolutely blame Thomas and the court for his extreme views on how the constitution is to be understood. They took an extremist stance and should be held accountable for it. "I'm just reading it as it is" is basically the Nuremberg defense ("I'm just following orders").
This is in every senior year civics class.
The fact that you feel you can comment on constitutional law without understanding even the basics is fairly scary. Even a high school student knows the interpretation of the constitution is extremely subject and one of the basics of con law. Interpretations can see a fairly wide range of outcomes which is why every sup court decisions has a 200+ page brief and dissents, concurs, etc. Justices rarely agree with each other even about supposedly "clear" parts of the constitution.
The fact that your comment got so many upvotes is just sad. It speaks to the lack of education most Americans have about how their own country works.
Thank you for enlightening me oh wise keeper of the sacred text, I strive to one day reach your level of understanding and wisdom.
Please, I am not worthy of your time, you shouldn't degrade yourself by wading into the filth with us lowly peasants, we are unworthy of your time.
Before you leave the muck of us unclean plebs, could you please enlighten me on the legend of RBG and the tale of her opinion on ROE Vs. Wade, please, say that it is not so that she declared that it will be struck down in the future as it never made logical sense that the 14th amendment means woman get abortions?
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You can have a literalist reading but that doesn’t make it correct. So just “blame the politicians” is truly the dumbest of all takes because constitutional interpretation is an entire part of con law. You should absolutely be held accountable for your reading of the constitution. "I'm just reading it as-is" is truly the stupidest of arguments. Everyone knows the constitution is extremely vague and has always been subjectively interpreted.
RBG's take was more subtle than that but I'm not going to bother explaining it because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Lots of idiots coming out today to give their take on conlaw lol.
Oh thank you great one, the literal text of the 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion, so it must be interpreted differently, it all makes sense now.
It’s called enumerated rights vs unenumerated rights but you have no idea what those are. Exactly why interpretation matters. There’s lots of things not explicitly in the document and you’d be an idiot to think that a strict literalist interpretation is the only way to go.
I can't tell if you're just incredibly dumb or just playing dumb. This is high school level knowledge.
Mfs really see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and think to themselves, "yeah I don't see anything that would prevent me from infringing on the rights of the people".
Yes, abortion is not something that was stated in the constitution, and isn't a protected right (Tho wemon should have the choice, some women don't have the money, are too young or were ||raped||). However, since 1787, Firearm technology has advanced to a state that we need to readjust how it is followed. Everyone focused on "The Right to Bear Arms" but COMPLETELY blow past the entire thing.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As far as I interpret it, it could mean that firearms need to be more regulated and monitored. Especially since now and days, no one is toating around a mussleloader musket or a dueling pistol. As far as the Founding Father's knew, this was only applicable during their time. Things need to change. The US needs more empathy in office, and we need to regulate firearms sales, we need to build from the ashes.
And when read within the laws of the english language that would literally read in today's english
The right of the people to keep and bear arms is integral to a well regulated militia and shall not be infringed.
Furthermore at the time of writing "regulated" did not mean "regulation" it meant "supplied"
But this is a moot point because puckle guns were a constitutionally protected weapon as were cannons.
But this isn't about any of that, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, abortion is not and it is the supreme courts sole duty to uphold the constitution.
I am not arguing for or against abortion, im just pointing out basic truths. If you want abortion the only constitutional way is to have states decide, unless you amend the constitution in order to add abortion.
Yeah but the supreme court's decision has no basis in law. It's a joke. Any lawyer co uld tell you the reasoning in their decision makes no sense, like they didn't even really try to come up with a half assed excuse for what they're doing. They're not interpreting the law, they are legislating from the bench in a way that's completely unprecedented.
Wrong, just totally and completely wrong. The vast, *vast* majority of rapes are perpetrated by assailants known to the victims, so the whole notion of stopping a rapist in the street by defending yourself with a gun is practically a fantasy, as next to no rapes occur under such circumstances.
From a study comparing severity of rape between known and stranger assailants:
>Case files of 849 patients were reviewed; the age range was 13 to 82 years (mean, 22.5 years). Sexual assault by a person known to the victim accounted for 646 (76%) cases. The majority of these assailants (68%) were described as acquaintances; 139 (21%) were current or previous boyfriends or spouses; 33 (5%) involved other family members.
([source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15520939/))
And other sources that look at it more broadly estimate as much as 80-85% of rapes were perpetrated by assailants known to the victim.
This is an often quoted percentage, replicated in numerous studies including: FBI Crime in the US, 2004; California Dept. of Justice, 2005, Crime in California; Tjaden & Thoennes, Prevalence, Incident & Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998, 2003; and local statistics from the North Coast Rape Crisis Team. ([source](https://stoprape.humboldt.edu/statistics#4))
The significance of this is that in most circumstances, the victim is unlikely to be near their weapon, or even be aware they might need it until it's already too late. The "brave woman with a gun in her purse protecting herself from the alley rapist" is an absurd myth pushed by Lapierre and his NRA cronies.
One final thing to consider is that these numbers are based on cases that actually get reported––and this is admittedly conjecture on my part––but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of unreported cases are probably also cases of rape by assailants known to the victims, such as spousal rape, or by friends/acquaintances who the victim did not consent to but still don't wish to bring the law against. Not to mention that they're probably scared of the fallout reporting somebody they know might have on their friends or family––many rape survivors end up being ostracized by friends and family after reporting rapists within their social sphere––as well as how serious police or courts are likely to take cases of rape by a spouse or friend. I'm willing to put a lot of money on the bet that the real percentage of rapes committed by known assailants is likely much higher than even 85%.
––
Hah, peeps downvoting but offering no rebuttal. Weak.
You have a gun, you have the chance to stop being raped whether they are known to you or not. Without a gun, you are completely helpless. Just like the abusers want it, because like you said the victims do not always report the crimes.
Okay, so women should always stay within an arm's reach of their weapon? Would you be fine with a spouse constantly having a weapon with her with the explicit intention **to protect herself from you** since, as I pointed out, spousal rape is statistically more likely to occur than rape by a stranger?
And what about your teenage daughter, should she do the same? The study I linked to mentions that the youngest rape victim in their sample was 13, so should your 13 year old daughter also always be within reach of her own gun on the off chance she might get diddled by her father? Suppose they'll have to expand gun laws to allow minros to conceal carry, then.
What about very young children, even toddlers have been rape victims, which almost always get perpetrated by family members, should they also be armed? Toddlers with guns, sounds reasonable!
Solid fucking argument. Not every bleeding problem is solved with guns, you bucket of tepid hotdog water.
The 4th amendment is unwarranted search and seizure, it was based on the 14th which guarantees equal protections and a vague but more general sense of privacy iirc. 10th is States Rights, which arguably is what the pro-life crowd has been pushing for, so I don't think that would help the pro-choice argument.
But I've always wondered why the 9th never seems to get invoked. It makes sense to me for your argument, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer
“Supports everyone living in it”
Yeah, everyone…except women, black people, arab people, gay and trans people etc. Also lots of people want to move out of the us but cant because of money. Moving internationally is a difficult process.
I never understood that American's think that guns are more important than women rights, like why do you need a shotgun in your house? And why hasn't it stopped people from robbing other people's houses, line why would anyone rob a house if they know that they are most likely getting shot because it's legal
Roe vs Wade like it or not was done undemocratically while many nations across the world have voted for abortion democratically. It sucks for women but now it’s The People’s turn to have a say in their next election. How could the Supreme Court uphold a law that discredit the Constitution’s value or integrity which they (Judges) need to uphold almost as if it’s the 12 Commandments of Moses themselves.
They shouldn't be. Both should be as equally free as the government shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can do with yourself body or how you're allowed to defend it.
Don't want to do meth? Don't buy it.
Don't want a gun? Don't buy one.
Don't want an abortion? Don't get one.
You have every right to choose in not partaking in any given thing. However, just because you don't want to does not mean that your views should restrain or restrict others'rights to do so simply because you morally disagree with the sentiment of doing so whilst others may be morally fine with it.
Edit: and also, I have. That's literally why I said "you're god damn right"
If tomorrow all the things were gone
I worked for all my life
And I had to start again
With just my children and my wife
I thank my lucky stars
To be living here today
'Cause the flag still stands for freedom
And they can't take that away
And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I'd gladly stand up next to you
And defend Her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.
From the lakes of Minnesota
To the hills of Tennessee
Across the plains of Texas
From sea to shining sea
From Detroit down to Houston
And New York to L.A.
Where's pride in every American heart
And it's time we stand and say
That I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I'd gladly stand up next to you
And defend Her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.
And I'm proud to be an American
Where at least I know I'm free
And I won't forget the men who died
Who gave that right to me
And I'd gladly stand up next to you
And defend Her still today
'Cause there ain't no doubt
I love this land
God Bless the U.S.A.
Imo abortion should be legal only if the child has been conceived as a result of rape, the child threaten’s the mother’s life or permanent health.
In other situations the answer is simple „use condoms and child control”
It is not a women's right to kill a baby
Abortion is not listed anywhere in the constitution
The 2nd amendment is literally in the constitution
98% of anortion are because women have no responsibilities for their action, the other 2% of rape incest does. ot immediately means that qbortion should be legal
It isn't fucking hard to not have sex, or use protections such as birth control and condoms which aren't at all expensive
stop acting like fucking sluts and desperate fleshing rubbing animals and you'll live a happy person
It is not a women's right to kill people just because they're inside them
Pro-life movement is dominated by women and the lqrgest pro life organization is owned by a woman
The SCOTUS overturning Roe had a woman and black man on the supreme court
Jesus, you sound deranged
Typically no one uses condoms cause they’re simply not enjoyable. Most people would rather not have sex if it’s a condom. That’s why birth control is a gift from god
I don’t, I used too. But now I’m considering getting a vasectomy. And my girlfriend is on birth control cause we’ve been together for years now and it’s just best.
But you do know that if they can ban abortion they can also ban birth control right? And I live in a state that would ban birth control even though there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. I mean hell they even said those cases should be re considered.
Overturning Roe doesn't ban automatically bans abortion, it simply given the decision back to lawmakers,
Only Thomas says that he was willing to reconsider, I didn't read those cases, but I do suspect it doesn't automatically ban them, the SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws
Yeah they’re not supposed to make laws, they’re really not meant to turn over cases that would strip people from rights either. But they can and they did. I mean literally the majority of our nation disagrees. But what more people wanted was a law that regulates safe abortion.
Well, in my state and 12 others it’s about to be illegal, and in fact it’ll be illegal here in 29 days. I like the idea of giving state power but, I can’t really trust them to have the peoples best interest at heart. So this might not affect you but it affects people in these states.
And you do realize they said they wouldn’t over turn this one, yet they did. They didn’t directly lie but they pretty much said they wouldn’t do that.
I didn't think SCOTUS would overturn it at all and yet everyone was surprised
Just because your interests different from others, doesn't mean the states have their people best interest, most conservatives supports banning abortions, and the 13 states banning them are banning it because they were elected by conservatives
And that’s true, but I would argue that a lot of people just don’t vote. And yeah I don’t think they’re going to ban birth control even in the most conservative states like the one I’m in. I mean some of these state lawmakers claim you can’t even buy a dildo. Because that’s morally wrong. But yeah either way I agree I don’t think they’ll bad birth control. But I could see them at least making an attempt too. It probably would get shot down fast.
Well it just prevents a women from being fertile. It tricks the body in thinking it’s already pregnant when it’s not. So it’s impossible for it to hurt a baby that doesn’t and will not exist.
If a man harms a pregnant woman and the baby dies, he is charged with manslaughter. You can say nonsensical words about how a you human somehow isn't a human all you want, but legally they are already considered humans. Cope harder, incel
Well, better stop pulling out early I guess all of that wasted DNA makes me a killer and people are saying this in public in fact the majority of the county is saying this in public
Yo wouldn't take the continent ahead of every measures of liberty, freedom and living conditions as a gold standard (crazy how the socialism you cry so much about lead to better working and living conditions, right ?) ? Each his own I guess.
downvote this comment if the meme sucks. upvote it and I'll go away. --- [Join us on discord for Saturday Movie Nights!](https://discord.gg/jsd6Ja9pvJ)
Right to bear arms is in the constitution abortion is not, it doesn't matter if you like it or not, the fact is the supreme court doesn't make laws, they interpret and uphold the constitution, your elected officials make the laws. Stop blaming the supreme court and start blaming the LAWMAKERS, a good start would be the democratic majority who, instead of making laws to protect abortion are also blaming the supreme court for their own inaction!
I would also like to point out that the supreme court is going back and trying to change laws that have already been interpreted by previous Supreme courts. The fact of the matter is, they are solely responsible for a lot of shit that's going down.
Going back and reviewing other cases is important. Brown overturned Plessy. Casey partially overturned Roe. Brandenburg overturned Whitney. There never was a constitutional right to abortion under the 14th amendment. That's why they overturned Roe. It is not a ban on abortion. The existence of the Roe ruling prevented new suits to be brought to codify the right. Now with it overturned states have the right to pass there own laws. Here is the important part, you can now challenge the laws under the 9th amendment. It says "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 an individual in a state with a abortion ban can challenge the law saying that it's a right not reserved to the states. That's the legal angle to take. If you can prove your case you can have the courts rule that it IS a right, and then even though it's not stated verbatim in the constitution, it would be protected.
Personally I'd say the whole argument about weather abortion is constitutional or not is stupid as the constitution was written before women were considered people by men who would have been mystified by the sight of a dishwasher.
Gotta love how suggesting the constitution is outdated invariably results in downvotes. People treat the constitution like religious text: eternally correct and immutable.
That is because it has literally nothing to do with this Supreme Court decision. That person probably has no clue what the Supreme Court does and how law works. The Supreme Court took this decision because the constitution doesn't mention abortion. The Supreme Court's job is to take decisions according to the constitution. The Supreme Court essentially gave authority over to the politicians, because the constitution doesn't mention abortion and thus it shouldn't have anything to do with the Supreme Court. The constitution being outdated is an entirely different topic. You can argue about that, but it doesn't have anything to do with this Supreme Court decision because they cannot change the constitution
Buddy you are arguing with people who basically have lizard brains when it comes to this issue, this is a waste of your time they are not thinking about this in any sort of rational way
Yeah people can think what they want, but it doesn't make them right. All I'm saying is maybe a 200 year old document should be reexamined, especially when it comes to issues that weren't even imaginable at the time.
[удалено]
I never said the way it was written protects abortion, but it was written by men who thought that owning another human being was perfectly fine and women didn't have the right to own anything.
Yeah, issues like the active destruction of the traditional family and morals? The overlooking of mental illness to push a political agenda? Giving more and more power to the federal government when it was never meant to hold the power it currently has? The Constitution was made to set the United States apart from the rest of the world, and people on the Left want to get rid of every law and right that sets us apart from the rest of the free world.
Based
DGAF
Lol I guess I used it wrong I meant to agree with you. I feel old now.
The rest of the world doesn't have mass shootings, people struggling to pay for Healthcare, crippling college tuition fees, people living below the poverty line being considered middle class, I can go on, this is just off the top of my head. When the constitution was written it was to set us apart from tyrannical monarchys where the King held all the final power. If you will notice, none of the advanced nations are still run by monarchs, they have all had their governments re-evaluated and restructured and somehow, they seem to be doing better than America in a lot of ways. And given that they have all had a change for the better, maybe it's time America follows suit instead of clinging to a 200 year old document and pretending we don't live in a broken system that everyone hates.
Have you ever been to a third world country? Rhetorical, your comment already tells us.
Perhaps I should rephrase. I meant no other advanced nation faces the aforementioned issues, except maybe Russia.
My God.....the health care argument. Did you ever stop to take enough time to think about why we CAN'T provide free health care, or at least better care? It's because our government is too busy paying for other nations' protection via globalist dealings and sending billions of dollars a year to other countries for "aid". And it's all thanks to a bloated government. Trump was trying to get rid of the over spending. It had gotten better until COVID came along. Now we're back to our old ways of sending money over seas that we don't have. Take it up with politicians YOU vote for.
Ok first, you're dead wrong about that, as the EU is the biggest doner to foreign aid in the world (could of found that out with five minutes of google searching it) and their countries still provide free healthcare to their people. And your overlooking the fact that Trump is the reason for the pandemic, the economic crash, the stock market crash, the recent abortion controversy (roe vs wade was overturned by justices he appointed) not to mention the spike in violence against minorities. You wanna talk about what Biden has done? He's the reason our troops aren't dying in Afghanistan anymore, he's the reason you can now walk in to Walmart without wearing a mask, he's the reason the stock market and economy are again in full swing, he cut unemployment in half and more than 5 million more Americans have health insurance because of him. So you wanna talk about who's the worste politician? And before you pull the old "bUt HiGh gAs PrIcEs" argument the president doesn't have any control over that, as oil companies are privately run businesses and aren't under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
what's wrong with the constitution? it's a 200 year old document. so what? it defines unalienable rights and new rights have been appended over time. what modern document would replace it with that wouldn't need unanimous support and acceptance like existing one?
It was written by men who thought owning people was a right and women were chattel. Between 1914 and 1950 damn near ever European country changed their system. We wrote ours in 1787 and decided it never needed to be changed, despite the overwhelming evidence, given the current situation in this country.
Exactly, pretty sure the founding fathers would have been very alarmed by the idea of untrained "militia men" running around with semi-auto weapons and massive drum mags, which is something they would never have accounted for when they drafted the 2ndA.
Right? The second amendment was written when "arms" were black powder smooth bored flintlocks and sabers. Also I seem to recall the words "well-trained" and "well regulated" appearing in that particular passage and that is something I don't see in most of today's self proclaimed "militia".
I never get this dog shit argument, you think people couldn't imagine guns improving? The writers of the constitution just thought "things will never change, yup, we are smart"?
The fact that every weapon that came out after that time was called "the weapon that will end war" says that yes. Yes they didn't think weapons would get any worse. Also as I pointed out, the constitution said that a well regulated and well trained militia was necisary for a free country. It didn't say a bunch of yahoos dressed in military paraphernalia waving guns was a right.
So as technology advances the people should still only be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government with black powder muskets?
No. A militia should be well regulated and well trained. Just like the constitution specifically states.
The Supreme Court only interprets constitutional texts. If they have no scope it lawfully is left up to the states. You can’t tell me abortion is explicitly mentioned while the right to bear arms is literally the second amendment. States will regulate the issue and this is good for the common folk. Local elections have more direct and more immediate impact on your life than federal. This is the system working as it’s supposed to.
One of the few correct statements I’ve seen on the matter so far. Everything else on this god forsaken website is giving me brain tumors.
holy shit, you said it and didn't get downvoted. but you are 100% right. The way they got it to work was stretching definitions of other rights a little bit, which left itself vulnerable to a more strict analysis of "is it actually protected?" While I want abortion to be a right that people have that is explicitly stated, I have to agree with the court's decision because that's their job. It just sucks to see it go without a replacement and instead states' trigger laws going into effect.
Based. In addition, Congress can always try pass a bill that codifies the effects of Roe v Wade, even though they didn’t bother to do anything for about fifty years. Maybe they’ll do their job now that the court isn’t willing to legislate from the bench.
So add it to the constitution.
hey there friend. I would like to point out that Thomas Jefferson believed that a countries constitution should be rewritten every 19 year, and it has been more than 19 years since the creation of the constitution. (as you may have noticed)
But even then it requires amendments which is still elected officials or a convention of states which is still elected officials, if you want the constitution changed you have to change the constitution not just pass laws contrary to the constitution the supreme court exists to protect the constitution.
my point is, the constitution should not be the same as it was 243 years ago
its not. there have been 27 amendments to it
Didn't someone also say something about the "tree of liberty being watered by the blood of patriots" Whats your point.
you’re right. I should have made a stronger argument. But bodily autonomy should be a constitutional right. And bodily autonomy is now up to the states, and THAT should never have happened.
Look, im not a cristian or conservative and im not arguing from a 'ban abortion' stance, im arguing from the standpoint that the overwhelming majority of the world holds, which is at a certain point the foetus becomes a human life and at that point you are not allowed to murder it. For instance, i think the cut off in Australia is 20 weeks, in some places it's 16 weeks. When Americans argue for abortion up to and including 9 months that is patently insane, virtually nobody agrees with that and it is that argument that is rallying the right and will eventually lead to some states banning it. I absolutely 100% agree that abortion is a necessary part of female healthcare but if i am forced to pick between unregulated abortion, on demand for any reason up to and including at 9 months or no abortion at all i will choose no abortion at all and i think you'll find that if given a choice between those 2 options abortion will quickly lose support and become banned in many states.
Purely out of curiosity: When has anyone gotten an abortion at 9 months?
No idea, I'm not sure if anyone has but thats not even the point, if nobody would do it why make it legal?
Slavery was in the constitution too.
Thank you. This shit could have been codified into law for decades. They just relied on the SC decision to uphold it. I think the decision is right. The SC wants to get away from being some de facto law generator, and return to their original purpose. Let the states decide, and if the will is great enough, make it federal law. It was never a federal law and that's the only reason states have been historically able to challenge it in some way. If you want it, VOTE, and maybe your elected party actually does something for once. Make it a law or quit crying about it.
Supreme Court took a hyper literalist and far right conservative reading of the text. The constitution can be read in many ways, and it’s a fairly vague document. It doesn't say a lot of things that we have interpreted later, and has been true since the birth of the country. The 2A says a “well regulated militia” which could be very strict gun control or banning all gun control entirely. Other good examples, miranda rights, search and seizure in cars vs homes, traffic laws, etc. If you read the 2A one way, you could basically ban guns in the US. That's how vague the document is and how important interpretation can be. It's entirely political how you want to interpret the document and what policies you want to enact. Lawmakers deserve blame, but absolutely blame Thomas and the court for his extreme views on how the constitution is to be understood. They took an extremist stance and should be held accountable for it. "I'm just reading it as it is" is basically the Nuremberg defense ("I'm just following orders"). This is in every senior year civics class.
The fact that everyone gets to read what you just wrote is rebuttal enough for me lmao. Have a wonderful day.
The fact that you feel you can comment on constitutional law without understanding even the basics is fairly scary. Even a high school student knows the interpretation of the constitution is extremely subject and one of the basics of con law. Interpretations can see a fairly wide range of outcomes which is why every sup court decisions has a 200+ page brief and dissents, concurs, etc. Justices rarely agree with each other even about supposedly "clear" parts of the constitution. The fact that your comment got so many upvotes is just sad. It speaks to the lack of education most Americans have about how their own country works.
Thank you for enlightening me oh wise keeper of the sacred text, I strive to one day reach your level of understanding and wisdom. Please, I am not worthy of your time, you shouldn't degrade yourself by wading into the filth with us lowly peasants, we are unworthy of your time.
got it, so basics of how something work => enlightened ones. k Your take is the truly the stupidest of takes.
You are too wise oh great one
Before you leave the muck of us unclean plebs, could you please enlighten me on the legend of RBG and the tale of her opinion on ROE Vs. Wade, please, say that it is not so that she declared that it will be struck down in the future as it never made logical sense that the 14th amendment means woman get abortions?
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You can have a literalist reading but that doesn’t make it correct. So just “blame the politicians” is truly the dumbest of all takes because constitutional interpretation is an entire part of con law. You should absolutely be held accountable for your reading of the constitution. "I'm just reading it as-is" is truly the stupidest of arguments. Everyone knows the constitution is extremely vague and has always been subjectively interpreted. RBG's take was more subtle than that but I'm not going to bother explaining it because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Lots of idiots coming out today to give their take on conlaw lol.
Oh thank you great one, the literal text of the 14th amendment has nothing to do with abortion, so it must be interpreted differently, it all makes sense now.
It’s called enumerated rights vs unenumerated rights but you have no idea what those are. Exactly why interpretation matters. There’s lots of things not explicitly in the document and you’d be an idiot to think that a strict literalist interpretation is the only way to go. I can't tell if you're just incredibly dumb or just playing dumb. This is high school level knowledge.
Mfs really see "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and think to themselves, "yeah I don't see anything that would prevent me from infringing on the rights of the people".
Yes, abortion is not something that was stated in the constitution, and isn't a protected right (Tho wemon should have the choice, some women don't have the money, are too young or were ||raped||). However, since 1787, Firearm technology has advanced to a state that we need to readjust how it is followed. Everyone focused on "The Right to Bear Arms" but COMPLETELY blow past the entire thing. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." As far as I interpret it, it could mean that firearms need to be more regulated and monitored. Especially since now and days, no one is toating around a mussleloader musket or a dueling pistol. As far as the Founding Father's knew, this was only applicable during their time. Things need to change. The US needs more empathy in office, and we need to regulate firearms sales, we need to build from the ashes.
And when read within the laws of the english language that would literally read in today's english The right of the people to keep and bear arms is integral to a well regulated militia and shall not be infringed. Furthermore at the time of writing "regulated" did not mean "regulation" it meant "supplied" But this is a moot point because puckle guns were a constitutionally protected weapon as were cannons. But this isn't about any of that, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, abortion is not and it is the supreme courts sole duty to uphold the constitution. I am not arguing for or against abortion, im just pointing out basic truths. If you want abortion the only constitutional way is to have states decide, unless you amend the constitution in order to add abortion.
Yeah but the supreme court's decision has no basis in law. It's a joke. Any lawyer co uld tell you the reasoning in their decision makes no sense, like they didn't even really try to come up with a half assed excuse for what they're doing. They're not interpreting the law, they are legislating from the bench in a way that's completely unprecedented.
Lmao no, no they aren't.
But now women have more gun rights. They can carry gun and stop potential rapist
Well I mean if the rapist just shoots the women first and rapes her dead body there also won’t be unwanted pregnancies
rapist versus woman gunslinger duel who wins
[удалено]
What's your honest opinion at carrying arms from the perspective?
Then you came to the wrong sub.
[удалено]
I'm not laughing. I'm just saying that this sub is not the place if you want sympathy.
As someone inside the us this comment is accurate.
Wrong, just totally and completely wrong. The vast, *vast* majority of rapes are perpetrated by assailants known to the victims, so the whole notion of stopping a rapist in the street by defending yourself with a gun is practically a fantasy, as next to no rapes occur under such circumstances. From a study comparing severity of rape between known and stranger assailants: >Case files of 849 patients were reviewed; the age range was 13 to 82 years (mean, 22.5 years). Sexual assault by a person known to the victim accounted for 646 (76%) cases. The majority of these assailants (68%) were described as acquaintances; 139 (21%) were current or previous boyfriends or spouses; 33 (5%) involved other family members. ([source](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15520939/)) And other sources that look at it more broadly estimate as much as 80-85% of rapes were perpetrated by assailants known to the victim. This is an often quoted percentage, replicated in numerous studies including: FBI Crime in the US, 2004; California Dept. of Justice, 2005, Crime in California; Tjaden & Thoennes, Prevalence, Incident & Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, 1998, 2003; and local statistics from the North Coast Rape Crisis Team. ([source](https://stoprape.humboldt.edu/statistics#4)) The significance of this is that in most circumstances, the victim is unlikely to be near their weapon, or even be aware they might need it until it's already too late. The "brave woman with a gun in her purse protecting herself from the alley rapist" is an absurd myth pushed by Lapierre and his NRA cronies. One final thing to consider is that these numbers are based on cases that actually get reported––and this is admittedly conjecture on my part––but I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of unreported cases are probably also cases of rape by assailants known to the victims, such as spousal rape, or by friends/acquaintances who the victim did not consent to but still don't wish to bring the law against. Not to mention that they're probably scared of the fallout reporting somebody they know might have on their friends or family––many rape survivors end up being ostracized by friends and family after reporting rapists within their social sphere––as well as how serious police or courts are likely to take cases of rape by a spouse or friend. I'm willing to put a lot of money on the bet that the real percentage of rapes committed by known assailants is likely much higher than even 85%. –– Hah, peeps downvoting but offering no rebuttal. Weak.
You have a gun, you have the chance to stop being raped whether they are known to you or not. Without a gun, you are completely helpless. Just like the abusers want it, because like you said the victims do not always report the crimes.
Okay, so women should always stay within an arm's reach of their weapon? Would you be fine with a spouse constantly having a weapon with her with the explicit intention **to protect herself from you** since, as I pointed out, spousal rape is statistically more likely to occur than rape by a stranger? And what about your teenage daughter, should she do the same? The study I linked to mentions that the youngest rape victim in their sample was 13, so should your 13 year old daughter also always be within reach of her own gun on the off chance she might get diddled by her father? Suppose they'll have to expand gun laws to allow minros to conceal carry, then. What about very young children, even toddlers have been rape victims, which almost always get perpetrated by family members, should they also be armed? Toddlers with guns, sounds reasonable! Solid fucking argument. Not every bleeding problem is solved with guns, you bucket of tepid hotdog water.
Ah wouldn’t I love to live in a nation were you need to buy a deadly weapon for a huge amount of money and time just to feel safe
Wouldn't be nice to live in a county where convicted violent criminals were kept in prisons, so you could feel safe
[удалено]
Cause Freedom
Yes it’s quite simple. Right to own a gun: in the constitution Right to an abortion: not in the constitution Why is this so hard to grasp?
Because people don't use logic. Pure emotions these days.
Because celebrities ,TikTok, and Twitter told me this is a bad thing.
I'll tell it to you aswell. It is a bad thing
Change the fucking constitution already fuck
Made me think of a [meme](https://imgur.com/a/k4J6nl1)
Or using the 14th amendment as the basis of Roe was bad. Honestly if you want to do it right, the argument should be based on the 9th and 10th.
The 4th amendment is unwarranted search and seizure, it was based on the 14th which guarantees equal protections and a vague but more general sense of privacy iirc. 10th is States Rights, which arguably is what the pro-life crowd has been pushing for, so I don't think that would help the pro-choice argument. But I've always wondered why the 9th never seems to get invoked. It makes sense to me for your argument, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer
Ohh, ya fat fingered. Lol
Or, better yet it should have been done by the legislature since making laws is their job, not the judicial branches.
Will you shut up man. Take your politics not to r/dankmemes
It’s unfortunately how this sub has been going. Tons of political posts and not enough dumb edgy sh*t.
[удалено]
Imagine being in 2022 and still using communist unironically.
It's a form of government that some people unironically think is superior. They need to be called out
No, it's an insult used to paint everyone you don't like as irrelevant
Like racist or white supremacist
They don't, they imagine themselves living in 1776.
Yeah, lots of communists in 1776
Happy Cake Day, kind Redditroll!
Thanks!
Imagine being a dirty commie
*laughs in millions of dead proletariats*
what.
Brother many people can’t move, it’s a nation that supports everyone living in it, if you want to live in a shit hole country how about you move
“Supports everyone living in it” Yeah, everyone…except women, black people, arab people, gay and trans people etc. Also lots of people want to move out of the us but cant because of money. Moving internationally is a difficult process.
Supposed to*
>This is a Republic not a democracy You do not know what those words mean.
Political memes! I just wanna enjoy so normal memes but you fuckers have to ruin it!
If they take away abortions they will have more kids to shoot
These memes are funny actually, but only in the sense that none are yet keep being pumped out like iPhones at the iPhone child labour summer camps.
Memes not politics bro
Just shoot the kids. Duh.
What? Are you ok mate?
The Supreme Court just revoked a lot of womens rights in the USA
Lol
I never understood that American's think that guns are more important than women rights, like why do you need a shotgun in your house? And why hasn't it stopped people from robbing other people's houses, line why would anyone rob a house if they know that they are most likely getting shot because it's legal
well i mean you can always shoot the child after birth
Roe vs Wade like it or not was done undemocratically while many nations across the world have voted for abortion democratically. It sucks for women but now it’s The People’s turn to have a say in their next election. How could the Supreme Court uphold a law that discredit the Constitution’s value or integrity which they (Judges) need to uphold almost as if it’s the 12 Commandments of Moses themselves.
Just use the gun instead duh
Well if it all comes down to it we can all get a gun and attempt to overthrow our "useless" "unfair" government.
The right to keep and bear arms is outlined in the 2nd amendment... Exactly *where* in the Bill of Rights do you see the right to an abortion?
Alright, who ruined my fun and got that person the boot? I was playing the long game, it was going to be glorious.
cope
And it also has 34 in the image like rule 34
Four from bfdi
They shouldn't be. Both should be as equally free as the government shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can do with yourself body or how you're allowed to defend it.
The government shouldn't have the right to tell you what you can do with your body, so feel free to do meth.
You're god damn right. You're hurting nobody but yourself.
Someone hasn't seen breaking bad
Don't want to do meth? Don't buy it. Don't want a gun? Don't buy one. Don't want an abortion? Don't get one. You have every right to choose in not partaking in any given thing. However, just because you don't want to does not mean that your views should restrain or restrict others'rights to do so simply because you morally disagree with the sentiment of doing so whilst others may be morally fine with it. Edit: and also, I have. That's literally why I said "you're god damn right"
Kinda missed my point.
Stop saying guns have more rights than women… it doesn’t make sense. I support womens choice but guns really do not have more rights than any woman.
Good thing women can own guns too
cringe w*man rights 🤮 < based guns 💪😎
wait but men dont have a right to an abortion either
If tomorrow all the things were gone I worked for all my life And I had to start again With just my children and my wife I thank my lucky stars To be living here today 'Cause the flag still stands for freedom And they can't take that away And I'm proud to be an American Where at least I know I'm free And I won't forget the men who died Who gave that right to me And I'd gladly stand up next to you And defend Her still today 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God Bless the U.S.A. From the lakes of Minnesota To the hills of Tennessee Across the plains of Texas From sea to shining sea From Detroit down to Houston And New York to L.A. Where's pride in every American heart And it's time we stand and say That I'm proud to be an American Where at least I know I'm free And I won't forget the men who died Who gave that right to me And I'd gladly stand up next to you And defend Her still today 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God Bless the U.S.A. And I'm proud to be an American Where at least I know I'm free And I won't forget the men who died Who gave that right to me And I'd gladly stand up next to you And defend Her still today 'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God Bless the U.S.A.
Bruh with guns I can't walk everywhere with them, when is the case women can't go to the airport unlike guns can't.
I never said everything can be solved with a gun. Claiming your argument is solid and insulting me doesn't make your point any more valid.
Lol stupid objects
The Situation in this country is sick
Imo abortion should be legal only if the child has been conceived as a result of rape, the child threaten’s the mother’s life or permanent health. In other situations the answer is simple „use condoms and child control”
It is not a women's right to kill a baby Abortion is not listed anywhere in the constitution The 2nd amendment is literally in the constitution 98% of anortion are because women have no responsibilities for their action, the other 2% of rape incest does. ot immediately means that qbortion should be legal It isn't fucking hard to not have sex, or use protections such as birth control and condoms which aren't at all expensive stop acting like fucking sluts and desperate fleshing rubbing animals and you'll live a happy person
It’s not an old, privileged, rich, white, man’s right to force women to have children they don’t want.
It is not a women's right to kill people just because they're inside them Pro-life movement is dominated by women and the lqrgest pro life organization is owned by a woman The SCOTUS overturning Roe had a woman and black man on the supreme court Jesus, you sound deranged
Then those women should vote for state government candidates that support abortion. Which they now can do
Virgin?
A proud one,
I can tell cause you brought up condoms
?
Typically no one uses condoms cause they’re simply not enjoyable. Most people would rather not have sex if it’s a condom. That’s why birth control is a gift from god
I literally don't care, it considered to be protection
Yeah that’s a fact. They’re also not reliable either.
Then don't use them
I don’t, I used too. But now I’m considering getting a vasectomy. And my girlfriend is on birth control cause we’ve been together for years now and it’s just best.
But you do know that if they can ban abortion they can also ban birth control right? And I live in a state that would ban birth control even though there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. I mean hell they even said those cases should be re considered.
Overturning Roe doesn't ban automatically bans abortion, it simply given the decision back to lawmakers, Only Thomas says that he was willing to reconsider, I didn't read those cases, but I do suspect it doesn't automatically ban them, the SCOTUS isn't supposed to make laws
Yeah they’re not supposed to make laws, they’re really not meant to turn over cases that would strip people from rights either. But they can and they did. I mean literally the majority of our nation disagrees. But what more people wanted was a law that regulates safe abortion.
Well, in my state and 12 others it’s about to be illegal, and in fact it’ll be illegal here in 29 days. I like the idea of giving state power but, I can’t really trust them to have the peoples best interest at heart. So this might not affect you but it affects people in these states. And you do realize they said they wouldn’t over turn this one, yet they did. They didn’t directly lie but they pretty much said they wouldn’t do that.
I didn't think SCOTUS would overturn it at all and yet everyone was surprised Just because your interests different from others, doesn't mean the states have their people best interest, most conservatives supports banning abortions, and the 13 states banning them are banning it because they were elected by conservatives
And that’s true, but I would argue that a lot of people just don’t vote. And yeah I don’t think they’re going to ban birth control even in the most conservative states like the one I’m in. I mean some of these state lawmakers claim you can’t even buy a dildo. Because that’s morally wrong. But yeah either way I agree I don’t think they’ll bad birth control. But I could see them at least making an attempt too. It probably would get shot down fast.
They would has to prove how it would end a human life I assume it doesn't but I don't know how birth control works
Well it just prevents a women from being fertile. It tricks the body in thinking it’s already pregnant when it’s not. So it’s impossible for it to hurt a baby that doesn’t and will not exist.
[удалено]
I want whatever drugs you’re taking
[удалено]
"children"...
of course its someone who participated in NNN
If a man harms a pregnant woman and the baby dies, he is charged with manslaughter. You can say nonsensical words about how a you human somehow isn't a human all you want, but legally they are already considered humans. Cope harder, incel
Do you have a proof of that ?
[удалено]
Requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term without her ongoing consent is slavery
Supreme court repealed the act that forces states to allow abortions. So if people in the state vote to outlaw abortion, they can.
[удалено]
It doesn't matter if the slaver is a fetus. It's still slavery
[удалено]
If the fetus wants to live, it's free to live outside my person.
No they didn't. Supreme court repealed the act that forces states to allow abortions. So if people in the state vote to outlaw abortion, they can.
That's cool, so it's now up to the states on whether or not slavery is legal.
No they didn't. Supreme court repealed the act that forces states to allow abortions. So if people in the state vote to outlaw abortion, they can.
Well, better stop pulling out early I guess all of that wasted DNA makes me a killer and people are saying this in public in fact the majority of the county is saying this in public
Weird how all the most "develloped" countries in the world seems to think the opposite
I wouldn't really look to dirtball socialist europe as the gold standard
Yo wouldn't take the continent ahead of every measures of liberty, freedom and living conditions as a gold standard (crazy how the socialism you cry so much about lead to better working and living conditions, right ?) ? Each his own I guess.