We’re extremely far apart and you don’t care about things I care about. I haven’t judged you to be correct in any meaningful way that challenges my views. You’re probably right about the legal stuff but I’m more interested in the political side of it, which is the driving force behind the legal stuff anyway. I can’t really argue against democracy being good because I believe the same thing. I’m confident in democracy, but the downside of democracy has always been that change takes a really long time. We knew slavery was wrong for many years before Lincoln took office. And then lastly all the mens rights stuff comes off silly to me. Coming to this thread to advocate for men to have the rights that women just lost. It’s comically out of touch. A joke I will tell my friends.
Your finding it funny doesn’t bother me, just like your finding something funny doesn’t change a religious person’s sincerely held beliefs.
You believe that a man should have no legal say in either the preservation or termination of a fetus that is created from a piece of him and for which he might have paternal feelings (or perhaps not), yet he should be on the hook for sharing parenting responsibilities in either case. I believe this aspect of the law is unfair to men even without Roe today, but Roe was further cementing it in stone.
of course that works both ways. (pro-life) men want to demand women carry babies to term yet have shown no corresponding interest (societally or individually) in "being on the hook". And UNFAIR!, gimme a break dude. The unfairness of being female is much greater than that. Whining because you might get trapped by a women is some 1950s BS.
If you are arguing that Life begins at conception, then so should child support.
1. Pace v Alabama was the ruling that confirmed that states were just to prohibit interracial relations and marriage and
2. The Court referenced the 14th Amendment in Pace v Alabama, confirming that those laws didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Constitution as it was written and adopted didn’t consider Black people to be citizens. This was confirmed by Dred Scot, when Taney surveyed the laws of the states in 1787 and found that the Constitution wasn’t written with the intent to consider Black people as full legal citizens. This is why the US changed the Constitution to fix this and to give all people born in the US, no matter their race, full legal citizenship.
Your response above to what I said makes no sense to me. Try crystallizing it harder if you think you have a point.
Is there are reason that you’re struggling with this?
Pace v Alabama cited the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The originalist view is “what was the understanding of the 14th Amendment when it was ratified in 1868.”
On the question of whites and non-whites getting married in 1868: it was illegal in 27 of the 34 states at the time. It’s impossible to argue that the 14th Amendment was ratified with the understanding that it was nullify those laws.
What changed between then and 1967 was understanding that it’s morally wrong to prevent two consenting adults from a relationship based on race? Nothing was added to the Constitution on that subject, it was simply a modern rather than an originalist reading of the amendment.
But you can’t possibly argue that someone who calls themselves an originalist today is pro-slavery. Or would you?
”Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” supports interracial marriage. This isn’t hard to understand.
Who is arguing that? The originalist would agree that the original intent of the 13th Amendment was to end slavery.
And it’s also clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment wasn’t to stop states from banning marriage between whites and non-whites, given that so many of the states that ratified the amendment had those laws in force at the time.
The original intent of the constitution was life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which allowed interracial marriage. The 14th amendment wasn’t necessary for that but was handy in retrospect (with Loving). Many of the amendments have stuff in them not because they were contradicting 1778’s principles, but rather to make it more explicit.
The 14th’s original intent was neither to permanently preserve miscegenation nor to explicitly allow interracial marriage. It stated principles open to interpretation in the future. Same for 1778’s original intent.
On the question of whites and non-whites getting married in 1868: it was illegal in 27 of the 34 states at the time. It’s impossible to argue that the 14th Amendment was ratified with the understanding that it was nullify those laws.
“The 14th’s original intent was neither to permanently preserve miscegenation nor to explicitly allow interracial marriage. It stated principles open to interpretation in the future. Same for 1778’s original intent.”
We’re extremely far apart and you don’t care about things I care about. I haven’t judged you to be correct in any meaningful way that challenges my views. You’re probably right about the legal stuff but I’m more interested in the political side of it, which is the driving force behind the legal stuff anyway. I can’t really argue against democracy being good because I believe the same thing. I’m confident in democracy, but the downside of democracy has always been that change takes a really long time. We knew slavery was wrong for many years before Lincoln took office. And then lastly all the mens rights stuff comes off silly to me. Coming to this thread to advocate for men to have the rights that women just lost. It’s comically out of touch. A joke I will tell my friends.
Your finding it funny doesn’t bother me, just like your finding something funny doesn’t change a religious person’s sincerely held beliefs.
You believe that a man should have no legal say in either the preservation or termination of a fetus that is created from a piece of him and for which he might have paternal feelings (or perhaps not), yet he should be on the hook for sharing parenting responsibilities in either case. I believe this aspect of the law is unfair to men even without Roe today, but Roe was further cementing it in stone.
The scotus majority opinion is consistent with this view to the extent, as it argues right in the first two pages, that Roe was never intended to be “a sex-based classification”, eg, precedents like Geduldig v Aiello held that denying work loss benefits on account of pregnancy was not sex discrimination because it is normal for a woman and can not happen for a man (in simple non-trans language).
Funny that you presume to know my stance on what kind of say men should have when I have not stated one. Ultimately one side has to have more control, right? Or do you think wanting to preserve the pregnancy supersedes any desire to end it?
On the question of whites and non-whites getting married in 1868: it was illegal in 27 of the 34 states at the time. It’s impossible to argue that the 14th Amendment was ratified with the understanding that it was nullify those laws.
“The 14th’s original intent was neither to permanently preserve miscegenation nor to explicitly allow interracial marriage. It stated principles open to interpretation in the future. Same for 1778’s original intent.”
To add, Pace was a bad interpretation, just like Roe.
Your finding it funny doesn’t bother me, just like your finding something funny doesn’t change a religious person’s sincerely held beliefs.
You believe that a man should have no legal say in either the preservation or termination of a fetus that is created from a piece of him and for which he might have paternal feelings (or perhaps not), yet he should be on the hook for sharing parenting responsibilities in either case. I believe this aspect of the law is unfair to men even without Roe today, but Roe was further cementing it in stone.
The scotus majority opinion is consistent with this view to the extent, as it argues right in the first two pages, that Roe was never intended to be “a sex-based classification”, eg, precedents like Geduldig v Aiello held that denying work loss benefits on account of pregnancy was not sex discrimination because it is normal for a woman and can not happen for a man (in simple non-trans language).
Funny that you presume to know my stance on what kind of say men should have when I have not stated one. Ultimately one side has to have more control, right? Or do you think wanting to preserve the pregnancy supersedes any desire to end it?
I stated your belief for you because that is exactly what disagreeing with mine (that you stated you did) meant.
+ If both of the couple want the baby, there is no problem.
+ If one of them wants it and the other doesn’t, life takes precedence.
+ If neither wants it, the people of the state decide what “life” means through representative democracy.
Does that sound that unreasonable? It’s all I’ve been saying the whole time, yet I’m apparently a reprehensible monster according to the shrill pro-choicers on here.
By Tom Peters New Zealand has seen an increase in racist attacks against Asian and Chinese people. Stuff reported on May 4 that in just five weeks the Human Rights Commission had received 86 reports of race-related incidents...
Where is "interracial marriage" mentioned in the Constitution? You're creating something in the Constitution that isn't there. In 1776, seven of thirteen states had laws prohibiting interracial relations. "Liberty and pursuit of happiness" was not for non-white people, or women. They weren't involved in its drafting, debate or ratification and weren't considered for the freedoms and rights it guaranteed. We had a war about this and then changed the Constitution to change this.
Where is "interracial marriage" mentioned in the Constitution? You're creating something in the Constitution that isn't there. In 1776, seven of thirteen states had laws prohibiting interracial relations. "Liberty and pursuit of happiness" was not for non-white people, or women. They weren't involved in its drafting, debate or ratification and weren't considered for the freedoms and rights it guaranteed. We had a war about this and then changed the Constitution to change this.
I never said it is mentioned (explicitly, assuming that is what you are asking).
Funny that you presume to know my stance on what kind of say men should have when I have not stated one. Ultimately one side has to have more control, right? Or do you think wanting to preserve the pregnancy supersedes any desire to end it?
I stated your belief for you because that is exactly what disagreeing with mine (that you stated you did) meant.
+ If both of the couple want the baby, there is no problem.
+ If one of them wants it and the other doesn’t, life takes precedence.
+ If neither wants it, the people of the state decide what “life” means through representative democracy.
Does that sound that unreasonable? It’s all I’ve been saying the whole time, yet I’m apparently a reprehensible monster according to the shrill pro-choicers on here.
Logically consistent but I don’t agree. I think a woman should be able to opt out of pregnancy. I think the effects on their bodies are enough to warrant them this right. In the future where surrogates are more common or there’s a way to grow a baby without a woman, I would be comfortable granting men the right to keep the baby no matter what. It would just be an early pregnancy transfer instead of abortion.
Where is "interracial marriage" mentioned in the Constitution? You're creating something in the Constitution that isn't there. In 1776, seven of thirteen states had laws prohibiting interracial relations. "Liberty and pursuit of happiness" was not for non-white people, or women. They weren't involved in its drafting, debate or ratification and weren't considered for the freedoms and rights it guaranteed. We had a war about this and then changed the Constitution to change this.
Also, I disagree with the bold.
I would say it didn’t preclude liberty and pursuit of happiness even for blacks, only that slaves/blacks were three-fifths person for electoral purposes.
The decision of the person who would carry the pregnancy takes precedence.
Your state could pass a law declaring every sperm a living being worth of protection and you sound as if you would be happy to abide by it.
Why is this state to state? You don't want the Texas state government overruled by Washington, but it's okay for Texas to overrule the wishes of the city of Austin and its elected leaders?
I stated your belief for you because that is exactly what disagreeing with mine (that you stated you did) meant.
+ If both of the couple want the baby, there is no problem.
+ If one of them wants it and the other doesn’t, life takes precedence.
+ If neither wants it, the people of the state decide what “life” means through representative democracy.
Does that sound that unreasonable? It’s all I’ve been saying the whole time, yet I’m apparently a reprehensible monster according to the shrill pro-choicers on here.
Logically consistent but I don’t agree. I think a woman should be able to opt out of pregnancy. I think the effects on their bodies are enough to warrant them this right. In the future where surrogates are more common or there’s a way to grow a baby without a woman, I would be comfortable granting men the right to keep the baby no matter what. It would just be an early pregnancy transfer instead of abortion.
Sure, you don’t need to agree. But I would argue that pregnancy is entirely normal as the overwhelming majority of women choose to go through it in life. It has a definable cost, like to throw an admittedly somewhat arbitrary example, 4.5 months of income to the unwanting mother. The rest of the effects on the body are normal, not an oppression. If it were, practically every woman wouldn’t (normally) also delight in the prospect of going through that pain.
Where is "interracial marriage" mentioned in the Constitution? You're creating something in the Constitution that isn't there. In 1776, seven of thirteen states had laws prohibiting interracial relations. "Liberty and pursuit of happiness" was not for non-white people, or women. They weren't involved in its drafting, debate or ratification and weren't considered for the freedoms and rights it guaranteed. We had a war about this and then changed the Constitution to change this.
Also, I disagree with the bold.
I would say it didn’t preclude liberty and pursuit of happiness even for blacks, only that slaves/blacks were three-fifths person for electoral purposes.
This is from Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott:
4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.
9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.
Where did Taney make a mistake in his survey of the laws of the original 13 states in 1787?
I would say it didn’t preclude liberty and pursuit of happiness even for blacks, only that slaves/blacks were three-fifths person for electoral purposes.
This is from Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott:
4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.
6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.
9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.
Where did Taney make a mistake in his survey of the laws of the original 13 states in 1787?
That’s Taney, not the constitution. Taney was wrong in Dred Scott, a mistake since corrected. Just like Roe. Interpretations can be wrong.
This is BS. I challenge you to point to something I’ve written for that attribution to me. Practise honesty if you care for an honest debate.
You wrote:
the people of the state decide what “life” means through representative democracy.
Granted, if you are attributing that decision to the people, not to me personally. I don’t worry about crazy hypotheticals. I’ve previously stated that “I trust ‘most people’ more than any other principle in politics.
This is from Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott:
Where did Taney make a mistake in his survey of the laws of the original 13 states in 1787?
That’s Taney, not the constitution. Taney was wrong in Dred Scott, a mistake since corrected. Just like Roe. Interpretations can be wrong.
Slave owner James Madison wasn’t considering Black people beyond the three fifths compromise when he wrote the Constitution. You’re deluding yourself to think otherwise.
