19th amendment annulled

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by timmystool

this thread went downhill fast


oh supreme court is trying to take away more rights?


how expected


-contraceptives
-same sex marriage


all this because a president not elected by the majority of the people due to electoral collage
put in 3 lying justices who do what the GOP wants done


the SC is about politics, not about right vs wrong

I can see how this could be confusing for you. You see, the Constitution isn't about what's right and what's wrong. That is for our Legislatures to decide. You see, the Supreme Court has one job and one job only and I'll give you a hint, it is not there to decide right and wrong. It is there to see if laws passed by Congress and by States, are Constitutional not right or wrong.


Now here is where it gets even more confusing so hang in there and see if you can follow along. It is there to separate enumerated powers given to the federal government, like matters of war and peace and all the other powers not given and clearly spelled out in the Constitution as having federal authority, shall be left up to the people through their Representatives in each state and that is called "Federalism".


Once you understand this, listen to me, like you are ever going to understand this.


And you see the problem with deciding what is right and what is wrong belongs to the people, not a few people who think "they" get to decide what is right and what is wrong. Your vote carries no more weight than my vote and if you can't come to terms with that revolutionary idea, you are going to have a very uncomfortable time with this "law" stuff.


Oh, and the Supreme Court can not annul a Constitutional Amendment.

Can Amendments Be Repealed? Any existing constitutional amendment can be repealed but only by the ratification of another amendment. Because repealing amendments must be proposed and ratified by one of the same two methods of regular amendments, they are very rare.S

The United States Supreme Court has never invalidated a constitutional amendment

on the grounds that it was outside the amending power. It has, however, considered the content of an amendment as presenting a justiciable question.

[HedonistForever]

Timmy, got any other Constitutional forecasts you would like to share with us?

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by timmystool

IF women cant decide their own health choices, this is great reasoning to take away their right to vote!...

I can see you have no other choice but to rent them for money...

[timmystool]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Timmy, got any other Constitutional forecasts you would like to share with us?

looks like Im on point

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by timmystool

looks like Im on point

The SC can not toss an Amendment to the Constitution. That clear enough for you? Abortion was not an Amendment to the Constitution, it was passed by the SC and an Amendment can over turn a SC decision. Get 38 States to compromise on abortion, pass an Amendment and that will end any involvement by the SC.

[chefnerd]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

This is a good example of the train of thought that occurs when all semblance of common sense is abandoned.

What in the world does a woman’s right to vote have to do with abortion?

I believe it has to do with a woman's right to decide what is right for HER. I realize that this thought is probably an abomination to conservatives because what I have gathered imho is that they believe that women should be brood mares and kept barefoot and pregnant

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by chefnerd

I believe it has to do with a woman's right to decide what is right for HER. I realize that this thought is probably an abomination to conservatives because what I have gathered imho is that they believe that women should be brood mares and kept barefoot and pregnant

OK, does she legally have the right to sell her time and body? Does she legally have the right to marry her brother or father? Does she legally have the right to sell a kidney to the highest bidder? If she is pregnant, does she have the right to to do hard drugs? My point is, there are many things that women and men can not do by law even if they have decided it is for them. This is no different.


Do we allow women to decide if any of those things are "right for her"? We, as States and a Federal government make laws that some people don't like but when the majority of a State, through their elected representatives says legally, you can't do that, you must obey that law or move somewhere that has a different law and work to get the law changed in your state. Not all that hard a concept to understand and accept if one believes in this Republic of ours.


But we have strayed from the topic of annulling the 19th amendment, which in fact, please correct me if I'm wrong, the SC can not do. So the answer to the OP is that no, the SC can not decide to take away the right of a woman to vote because that was decided by Constitutional amendment not a simple vote of Congress but they can take away Roe and they could take away contraceptives, interracial and Gay marriage because none of those things were decided by an amendment and all those things were not given to the federal government to decide, hence the States get to decide.


Why is this so damn hard for people on the left to understand?


Tenth 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.

[timmystool]

rep dr karen Berg awesome response to all layMEN, passing laws for females


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Z9yacOvf4

[greenbook]

Irony?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by timmystool

rep dr karen Berg awesome response to all layMEN, passing laws for females


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Z9yacOvf4

Also not in the Constitution, that only women get to vote on matters that women feel solely belongs to them ( and not the father ). You may not discriminate on the basis of sex. You would think I wouldn't need to explain that to a Liberal who is constantly talking about discrimination.


I would argue that elected persons are not "laymen" but that's a debate for another time.


And every single Republican when asked, "do you support a federal ban on abortion" should answer NO, it is a State right, not the federal governments right to decided like the SC said. No federal legislation on abortion, either way, period.


If one is going to say they believe the SC is the final word unless and until the Congress Acts otherwise, then back this SC ruling

[the_real_Barleycorn]

Poor Stool, reality is too much. Yes, women got the right to vote in FEDERAL elections in 1921. They were voting in some states already. It was exclusively men who affirmed that right to vote. (wait for it) Republican men voted overwhelmingly for that right as democrat men, by and large, opposed the idea.

So, thank you Republican men for confirming that women should be voting in federal elections.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Poor Stool, reality is too much. Yes, women got the right to vote in FEDERAL elections in 1921. They were voting in some states already. It was exclusively men who affirmed that right to vote. (wait for it) Republican men voted overwhelmingly for that right as democrat men, by and large, opposed the idea.

So, thank you Republican men for confirming that women should be voting in federal elections.

Yes the GOP at the time was made up of Progressives!!!!!

How many times does one have to tell you?

That changed with Goldwater and the nutty John Birch Society!

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...ther-rcna47987


The delegates were strident anticommunists — many feared evil reds were subverting the government and the nation’s most revered institutions — and for them, Goldwater was the leader of a do-or-die crusade against leftism. They would eagerly back a resolution reviling commies. And though the Grand Old Party — founded a century earlier by antislavery politicians — was now actively moving to court racist Southern voters opposed to desegregation and civil rights, they might disavow the Klan. But including the John Birch Society in this lineup of extremists to be deplored was a not-subtle-at-all dig at Goldwater and his fanatic followers. Everyone in the room knew what — and who — this resolution was aimed at.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

And every single Republican when asked, "do you support a federal ban on abortion" should answer NO, it is a State right, not the federal governments right to decided like the SC said. No federal legislation on abortion, either way, period.

That is not wtf the SC said....in fact if Congress inacted a Federal Ban, they would up hold it.

That is why imho the Democrats should vote for Graham bill that anything under 15 weeks (I'd try and get it to 18) is legal in every state.

The SC would be OK with that.....what they've said is without Federal legislation, it is up to each individual state.

Or at least that is how I've understood it.

[timmystool]

Originally Posted by WTF

....l that anything under 15 weeks (I'd try and get it to 18) is legal in every state.

why 18?
why do you think you should get a say in what a women does with her body?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by timmystool

why 18?
why do you think you should get a say in what a women does with her body?

But it isn't "just her body", now is it? At some point, up for debate, it is another person and we all have a legitimate say in what happens to other humans.