Does Biden Have Positive Approval Rating Anywhere?

[BFritz21]

(07-23-2022, 12:23 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't know if you know what the amendment says, but I know that you don't know what it means.

So. the 9th amendment reads: 

"enumeration" just means "list of things." So the 9th amendment, in laymen's terms, means "Just because a right isn't explicitly mentioned in the constitution does not mean that it is not protected by the constitution."

This amendment is a direct response to your belief that if the Constitution doesn't specifically mention a right that it should be left to the states. Several founding fathers actually opposed writing the Bill of Rights because they feared that "Enumerating any rights, Wilson argued, might imply that all those not listed were surrendered. And, because it was impossible to enumerate all the rights of the people, a bill of rights might actually be construed to justify the government’s power to limit any liberties of the people that were not enumerated." You said:

and
and

See, the problem is constitutional fundamentalists, or "originalists" as they sometimes call themselves, have this belief that the Constitution is an all encompassing text that explicitly describes every right that is protected under it to such a degree that you can objectively interpret the Constitution so that there's only one answer to any given question on what rights are protected within it.

In reality, the Constitution is written extraordinarily vaguely with several gaps in its explicit text such as the 9th and 14th amendments. This allows people to interpret the Constitution as subjectively as they wish to protect, or refuse to protect, whichever rights they want based on their ideology or biases. And, in my biased opinion, that is what makes the Supreme Court and the Constitution very flawed, as you can interpret it however you want based on what your beliefs are.

You claimed that the conservative justices of the Supreme Court did their jobs by interpreting the Constitution in such a way that defies 50 years of precedent and ignores the vagueness within the 9th and 14th amendments that are meant to allow for additional rights and protections for the people (often times, rights to privacy and bodily autonomy) that just so happen to perfectly fall in line with their personal political beliefs. That's fine if that's your belief but you seem to not understand that that is a subjective reading of the constitution done in service of their political beliefs. The idea that the Supreme Court is an apolitical branch of government has always been a fantasy but these justices have laid bare the truth for all to see and yet, somehow, people like you still refuse to see that.

With all that said, this wasn't even the original point of the discussion. My original response in this thread were a list of things that I and people like me did not like about Donald Trump that had nothing to do with him "hurting our feelings" as you claimed in your original post. You either accidentally or willfully misinterpreted my post and took it off on a tangent from the very beginning and now we're talking about something completely unrelated that you also happen to not understand.

My "haha" was just laughing at the absurdity of the direction of this conversation because you seem so sure that you know everything about everything and anyone who disagrees with you is "failing." Politics does not seem to be about helping people or maximizing the utility of society to you. It seems like you talk politics because you want to "own" people and point out their "failures" and how little they understand (relative to you, who understands everything). So I'm sorry if I take a little satisfaction in knocking you down a peg or two like in this scenario where you didn't even bother looking up (or, perhaps, understanding) the 9th amendment, let alone how it may be applicable to the conversation that we were having. When someone centers their entire world view around "owning the libs" it's hard not to revel in "owning" them right back. Of course, you'll never agree that I "owned" you, which is half the fun!

You make this too easy.

Basically, the the ruling to overturn Roe v Wade symbolizes that the constitution is an original reading, and not a living reading.

That means, that, the gaps that you mention, like abortion, are limited to the states and not the federal government.

Quote:This is a revolutionary ruling. Not just for abortion, but for the ongoing debates over the nature of rights under the Constitution.

The ruling signals a massive change in how we read the Constitution, from a living reading to an original reading. The court has firmly rejected the theory of the living Constitution, which argues that the meaning of the document’s language changes as the beliefs and values of Americans change. 
The living view, which prevailed at the Supreme Court during the second half of the 20th century, means that additional rights can emerge over time, including abortion, privacy and same-sex marriage. The living Constitution is updated through the judgment of the justices of the Supreme Court, who determine when public values have changed, and hence new rights have emerged.

Originalism, which is the approach taken by the justices who overruled Roe, rejects the living Constitution. In the originalist view, the Constitution is static until officially altered by amendment. It does not evolve on its own without public approval. The role of the justices is to determine the original public meaning of the text, but to leave other decisions to democratic representation through elections.

Regarding abortion, the conclusion of Dobbs is clear: “The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”

Rights have evolved, but abortion is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution:

Quote:But the other evolved or implicit rights that have been recognized by the court over time – abortion and gay marriage, among others – are simply not constitutional rights in the view of the new majority. Enumerated rights – the ones specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights – will be accorded stronger protections, while the recently recognized rights of the living Constitution will not be protected.

Given that it is NOT guaranteed in the Constitution, the decision should be protected by the majority of the citizens in each state through their legislators:

Quote:Under Roe, the majority saw abortion as within the category of rights. Hence it received constitutional protection. But under the new abortion decision, it should be governed by majority rule, the kind of question that is to be determined by the citizens of each state through their legislatures.

The right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions, which is why it's now at the state level.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha