Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Why Do Libertarians, Conservatives Want FEWER Rights?: Briahna Joy Gray" video.

Was the Constitution amended to include contraception? Interracial marriage? Miranda warnings? Does it say executing a minor is cruel and unusual? Is artistic expression mentioned anywhere? The exclusionary rule? The right to privacy in your car or your cell phone? Maybe study the Fourteenth Amendment. Slavery ended in the Union long before the Constitution was amended. You must not have listened to this radar. Common law English-speaking jurisdictions don't have Napoleonic Codes.
5
We do have some slavery back, in the prison system.
3
@tnshanobighost6749 WHO feeds you these talking points? If abortion is neither a right under the Constitution nor prohibited under the Constitution, then Congress and state legislatures can legislate on it as they see fit, anywhere from a complete ban in all cases to legalizing it in all cases -- and federal law preempts state law. Any challenge to a specific law based on the Constitution would have to work its way up through the courts.
3
@aone2476 Guns for Fetuses! Nowhere does the Constitution say no.
2
@BOZ_11 Actually, Congress could invoke the Fourteenth Amendment to pass a law outlawing all abortions, or legalizing some abortions, for that matter, and it would preempt all state laws to the contrary. That course is not excluded -- now that a constitutional privacy right has been struck down.
2
@davidjftooley You don't understand that case.
2
@jacobzindel987 The case leaves it up to the legislative branch. Nowhere does it say Congress has no power to legislate. Who told you it did?
2
@johnnybooker Of COURSE there is a path to a national ban. GOOD GRIEF.
2
@ffffnnnnul2125 Huh? Did you read it, or copy pastey? That section limits state powers.
2
@ffffnnnnul2125 Can people tell you absolutely anything, and you don't check?
2
Barnes is so poor he didn't even know noncitizens have the same Bill of Rights as citizens.
1
@TacRifle That's incorrect. Who told you that? Congress can most certainly vote to ban abortion in the United States, or to codify some version of the Roe/Casey scheme, and federal law preempts state law to the contrary. WHO is suddenly spreading this talking point that Congress is powerless to legislate? More charlatans by the minute.
1
@TacRifle Wait, did BARNES say this? I knew he was poor, but this wouldn't pass a bar exam anywhere in the country. This is practically demented. Why do you follow that clown? That wasn't even an issue in the case. The issue was not whether Congress can pass a law codifying Roe, or banning abortion for that matter. The only issue before the Court was whether a state legislature could pass a law inconsistent with Roe. Roe overturned means the answer is yes it can. The Supreme Court cannot decide issues not brought before it. I knew Barnes was ignorant, but this breaks his previous record.
1
@TacRifle I explained the law to you. I have heard Barnes misstate the most basic constitutional law myself. It would come as no complete surprise if he said exactly what you cited here, though this is worse than anything I ever heard from him before. He is not an authority on the Constitution.
1
@TacRifle This was correct: "Congress can most certainly vote to ban abortion in the United States, or to codify some version of the Roe/Casey scheme, and federal law preempts state law to the contrary. WHO is suddenly spreading this talking point that Congress is powerless to legislate?"
1
@TacRifle This is also correct: " That wasn't even an issue in the case. The issue was not whether Congress can pass a law codifying Roe, or banning abortion for that matter. The only issue before the Court was whether a state legislature could pass a law inconsistent with Roe. Roe overturned means the answer is yes it can. The Supreme Court cannot decide issues not brought before it."
1
@TacRifle If anyone said that, they don't grasp the Fourteenth Amendment is part of the Constitution.
1
@TacRifle Then read these documents for yourself, including the case itself. Everything I stated was accurate.
1
@TacRifle Nothing I've posted has been removed. Congress can act to ban abortion, or legalize it. Embryos and fetuses were not just recognized by the Supreme Court as having personhood or rights.
1
@TacRifle I'm not concerned. You, however, are incorrect about the law and ineffectual here. I'm saying Pence is right as well when he asserts Congress could legislate to ban abortions -- and it could also make them legal. It could do either, or neither. Federal law preempts state law to the contrary. That's in the, er, CONSTITUTION.
1
@TacRifle Barnes is not a civil rights lawyer. I am.
1
@TacRifle If you knew any law, you'd be able to tell. Don't let people lie to you. Nolo has websites for lay people as well as lawyers. Cornell does, too. I'm serious. We've been losing rights since 9/11, and it has speeded up since COVID, in a big way.
1
@TacRifle Agree 💯%
1
@TacRifle Remember Angela Marsden of the Pineapple Hill Saloon and Grill? The small business owner who got shut down for OUTDOOR dining and had to lay people off who were already sleeping on couches? The original video went viral, and the interviews after that were amazing. Fox Business had one. Just watched again. We forget too soon.
1
@Nitroscion Um, no. I have seen Christmas cards with them.
1
@SuperDoNotWant A father cannot be forced to give a pregnant mother a pint of blood to save her and his future child. He can't even be forced to give a pint of blood to his five-year-old. We would all agree it is hideous morally (not scientifically, not logically) on his part to refuse. Yet there is no law to force him. And good that there isn't.
1
@googleisevil8958 I'm a civil rights lawyer. I thought about it since people in my high school were arrested for demonstrating. I thought about it during the COVID fiasco. I thought about it when George Floyd was murdered. I thought about it when Angela Marsden's bar and grill was shut down. Etc.
1
@googleisevil8958 I knew Depp v. Heard had serious First Amendment implications that were lost in the righteous outrage and not-so-noble titillation. I know Gabby Petito's family is calling into question the Laundrie's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Did you catch all that? "I bet you never once thought about" the First and Fifth Amendments in those cases, when they are staring you in the face . . .
1
@googleisevil8958 I lived in a country where, at the time, elective abortion was impossible after 12 weeks (embryonic stage, plus two weeks in case the conception date was incorrect), and abortion had to be preceded by a written declaration of "mother in distress" and counseling -- it was never offered that day, on demand. Pregnancy expenses were paid 100%, including a clothing allowance; abortion at only 70%. After 12 weeks, a three-person panel had to approve, but it was humane. No seriously mentally ill woman at 15 weeks would be denied, for example, nor a woman beaten by the father of the baby well before viability. No one thought a woman should be put through a pregnancy like that. No one. It was the best abortion law I know of. I wonder if they changed it. I suspect they did.
1
@jstreets1983 🤣 You're right. I missed that part.
1
@SclountDraxxer Maybe because a man can't be forced to donate a pint of blood to save a pregnant woman and his future child. We would all agree it is reprehensible on his part to refuse. But it's within his rights. We can't force him. We have to persuade him. Women used to be treated that way. Just a short time ago, in fact.
1
@marcschneider2052 Astute!
1
@johnnybooker It's simply a fact that there is now no protection in constitutional law for abortion rights at any stage, and that means legislatures can now pass laws without being limited by Roe v. Wade or Casey. Yes Pence can campaign for a ban at the federal level. If a ban passes and is challenged as unconstitutional, as written or applied, the question has to go back through the federal courts.
1
@Tymeb0mb Except that freedom of expression and artistic merit are not in any amendment. Neither are time, place, manner restrictions or traditional First Amendment fora, etc.
1
@Tymeb0mb I basically agree with you, though -- only the difference is not all that massive.
1