Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

Why is women's right to vote a federal issue? Why not leave it to the states?

---

Cornpack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

Why is women's right to vote a federal issue? Why not leave it to the states?

---

Because it is an enumerated right codified by the 19th amendment. Further, I'd actually push back on the sentiment above regarding gay marriage. The Dobbs decision goes to great lengths to differentiate abortion from the unenumerated rights which are protected under the 14th amendment's liberty interest (things like gay marriage, interracial marriage, and contraception).

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Civilized said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

Why is women's right to vote a federal issue? Why not leave it to the states?

---

Because it is an enumerated right codified by the 19th amendment. Further, I'd actually push back on the sentiment above regarding gay marriage. The Dobbs decision goes to great lengths to differentiate abortion from the unenumerated rights which are protected under the 14th amendment's liberty interest (things like gay marriage, interracial marriage, and contraception).

---

I'm taking about going back to debating this before there was an amendment.

Put yourself in the shoes of an American public debating whether women should be able to vote.

Was an amendment the appropriate way to handle the issue at that time?

If so, why?

---

bigeric said:

---

A question.
Pelosi and Biden have stated today they want to codify a national abortion right through Congress in response to SCOTUS holding it is a states right issue.
Would not that be an exercise in futility?

---

Civilized said:

---

Cornpack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

GuerrillaPack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

Glasswolf said:

---

So since we changed a 50 year old ruling it should be ok to make changes to a 200+ year old document right?

---

There is a standard process to make changes. What the Court did 49 years ago was ignore our processes and create a law where none existed. That was wrong and has finally been corrected.

---

This is correct. It was a wrong ruling in 1973. It was not in the Constitution and should have been sent back to the States then.

I wonder if same sex marriage will get a redo also. Same thing. It should be left to the States.

---

Should women's right to vote be a state issue?

---

Analogy fail. That's completely different. There is an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution addressing women getting to vote.

There is no Amendment to the Constitution giving Sodomites the "right" to have their fake "marriages".

---

Why is women's right to vote a federal issue? Why not leave it to the states?

---

Because it is an enumerated right codified by the 19th amendment. Further, I'd actually push back on the sentiment above regarding gay marriage. The Dobbs decision goes to great lengths to differentiate abortion from the unenumerated rights which are protected under the 14th amendment's liberty interest (things like gay marriage, interracial marriage, and contraception).

---

I'm taking about going back to debating this before there was an amendment.

Put yourself in the shoes of an American public debating whether women should be able to vote.

Was an amendment the appropriate way to handle the issue at that time?

If so, why?

---

packofwolves said:

---

bigeric said:

---

A question.
Pelosi and Biden have stated today they want to codify a national abortion right through Congress in response to SCOTUS holding it is a states right issue.
Would not that be an exercise in futility?

---

Dems will push for up until birth and Pubs will push the opposite extreme, resulting in nothing passing. Sadly, I don't think either side will negotiate to something sensible.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

This is so wrong. Woman will eventually determine this is and can only be their decision.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

This is so wrong. Woman will eventually determine this is and can only be their decision.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

Glasswolf said:

---

Here's a simple 2 step process to "coping" with legality of abortion. 1. If you're against abortion, don't have one. 2. Mind your own damn business. Someone else's personal medical choice doesn't impact you in any way.

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

A woman has the right to choose to have unprotected sex or not. She also has the right to abstain.

Same for all males too.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

A woman has the right to choose to have unprotected sex or not. She also has the right to abstain.

Same for all males too.

---

Tell that a parent of a pregnant 16 year old in a state where it is illegal to have an abortion.

---

Wolfpack said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

A woman has the right to choose to have unprotected sex or not. She also has the right to abstain.

Same for all males too.

---

Tell that a parent of a pregnant 16 year old in a state where it is illegal to have an abortion.

---

These guys are flip flopping between quoting bible verses (I'm not Christian, so not relevant) and making a mountain out of a mole hill related to an amendment versus a court ruling. Are they devout Christians or are they truly rigid constitutionalists? I feel like the argument turns at whatever conveniences them, but it won't make sense to you and I.

I can accept constitutionalists. I cannot accept trying to turn this country into a Christian state. But that's just me, as a first generation immigrant.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

What happened to all the justices saying during confirmation that they believed Roe vs Wade was established law?

---

Judge Barrett on Roe & super-precedent definition: "to define cases that are so well-settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling. And I'm answering a lot of question about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn't fall in that category." pic.twitter.com/bmU3Xk4R8v

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 13, 2020

Wolfpack said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

A woman has the right to choose to have unprotected sex or not. She also has the right to abstain.

Same for all males too.

---

Tell that a parent of a pregnant 16 year old in a state where it is illegal to have an abortion.

---

These guys are flip flopping between quoting bible verses (I'm not Christian, so not relevant) and making a mountain out of a mole hill related to an amendment versus a court ruling. Are they devout Christians or are they truly rigid constitutionalists? I feel like the argument turns at whatever conveniences them, but it won't make sense to you and I.

I can accept constitutionalists. I cannot accept trying to turn this country into a Christian state. But that's just me, as a first generation immigrant.

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

I agree with what you say. They hide behind that the constitution does not mention abortion. It also does not mention high volume gun clips but does that make them illegal?

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

A woman has the right to choose to have unprotected sex or not. She also has the right to abstain.

Same for all males too.

---

Tell that a parent of a pregnant 16 year old in a state where it is illegal to have an abortion.

---

These guys are flip flopping between quoting bible verses (I'm not Christian, so not relevant) and making a mountain out of a mole hill related to an amendment versus a court ruling. Are they devout Christians or are they truly rigid constitutionalists? I feel like the argument turns at whatever conveniences them, but it won't make sense to you and I.

I can accept constitutionalists. I cannot accept trying to turn this country into a Christian state. But that's just me, as a first generation immigrant.

---

Then you know nothing about how this country was formed as a Nation under God. It's in all the founding documents. All you have to do is read them.

---

Wolfpack said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpack said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

DrummerboyWolf said:

---

Wolfpackrich1 said:

---

Because I believe that it infringes on the right of a woman to choose.

---

A woman has the right to choose to have unprotected sex or not. She also has the right to abstain.

Same for all males too.

---

Tell that a parent of a pregnant 16 year old in a state where it is illegal to have an abortion.

---

These guys are flip flopping between quoting bible verses (I'm not Christian, so not relevant) and making a mountain out of a mole hill related to an amendment versus a court ruling. Are they devout Christians or are they truly rigid constitutionalists? I feel like the argument turns at whatever conveniences them, but it won't make sense to you and I.

I can accept constitutionalists. I cannot accept trying to turn this country into a Christian state. But that's just me, as a first generation immigrant.

---

Then you know nothing about how this country was formed as a Nation under God. It's in all the founding documents. All you have to do is read them.

---

I have my God. Doesn't have to be yours. The constitution allows me to practice my religion freely. My religion doesn't include this abortion stipulation

---