PleaseBlitz Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I know but as a native South Dakotan I couldn't let it go uncontested. I understand. I went to college in WV, so you can call me a redneck if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 And one is held up as federal law by the Supreme Court. So its alright to thumb your nose at the highest court in the land? And my point was that a majority of people in San Fran voted to have guns banned and there was an uproar that places shouldn't be allowed to make their own laws. A few points make it different. 1- The right to bear arms is specifically given in the Constitution. That's a world away from being case law. The only way to overturn an Amendment is with another Amendment. Case law is overturned all the time with more case law. 2- This is a State action, not the action of a town/city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I understand. I went to college in WV, so you can call me a redneck if it makes you feel better. Of course if you do, Major Harris is going to be awfully perturbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 A few points make it different.1- The right to bear arms is specifically given in the Constitution. That's a world away from being case law. The only way to overturn an Amendment is with another Amendment. Case law is overturned all the time with more case law. 2- This is a State action, not the action of a town/city. I understand - i and i know there is a difference between constitutional law and case law; but to me it still seems like some people are only backing the horse they agree with and dogging the one they don't. Just seems somewhat hypocritical to me - but i just mean the way the are supporting the measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Going to get overturned, eventually, IMO. No exceptions for rape or incest.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11699703/ PIERRE, S.D. - Gov. Mike Rounds signed legislation Monday banning nearly all abortions in South Dakota, setting up a court fight aimed at challenging the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. The bill would make it a crime for doctors to perform an abortion unless the procedure was necessary to save the woman’s life. It would make no exception for cases of rape or incest. Planned Parenthood, which operates the state’s only abortion clinic, in Sioux Falls, has pledged to challenge the measure in court I heard Mississippi is trying to pass a law too, but with the rape and incest clause included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 I understand - i and i know there is a difference between constitutional law and case law; but to me it still seems like some people are only backing the horse they agree with and dogging the one they don't. Just seems somewhat hypocritical to me - but i just mean the way the are supporting the measures. Morally, I think you are correct. However, my own opinion is the monkee in the wrench. I think all abortion should be legal. But I understand why Roe is such a horrible ruling that needs to be overturned. So it's not hypocritical for me to support one action, while not the other. I view both as Constituional questions, not moral ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Of course if you do, Major Harris is going to be awfully perturbed. Comments like this are the reason Rincewind isnt allowed in the NCAA forum. :security: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Comments like this are the reason Rincewind isnt allowed in the NCAA forum. :security: you know i meant the poster Major Harris, who hates WV jokes, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Morally, I think you are correct.However, my own opinion is the monkee in the wrench. I think all abortion should be legal. But I understand why Roe is such a horrible ruling that needs to be overturned. So it's not hypocritical for me to support one action, while not the other. I view both as Constituional questions, not moral ones. Admitedly i don't know that much about the issue (just how i feel) so could you please explain how you could be for ab0rtion but against the Roe ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 you know i meant the poster Major Harris, who hates WV jokes, right? Yes, I did. WVU fans own the NCAA forum on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 At first I read the title and thought why would San Diego ban most forms of abortion...then I remembered there was a state called South Dakota in the middle of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Yes, I did.WVU fans own the NCAA forum on this board. Oh, then i'm confused... Go 'Neers. Does that help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 Oh, then i'm confused...Go 'Neers. Does that help? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 First and Foremost, Roe V Wade does not make abortion legal. Nor will overturning it make abortion illegal. What the Roe ruling did (amongst other things like inventing privacy rights) was further erode the rights of states to govern themselves. Further, the idea that we can haphazardly set a date in which to determine viability strikes me as Nazilike. 3 Months isnt viable but 3 months and 1 day is? It's simply a bad decision made for the worst kind of reasons. It has no basis in the Constitution, but rather was dreamt up by a group of activist jurists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 i actually think it would be alright if they made abortion up to the states, because its not like its impossible to get one, and it might get the abortion debate off of the headlines. and that comment about guns does not relate, being that the 2nd amendment to the constitution (the constitution controls the whole country) guarentees the right to bear arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 At first I read the title and thought why would San Diego ban most forms of abortion...then I remembered there was a state called South Dakota in the middle of nowhere. You suck at geography. It's south and east of nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rebornempowered Posted March 6, 2006 Share Posted March 6, 2006 oops :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 ...and the defeat of liberalism in America is coming into clear focus....... Bartender, I'll have what he's having. Yep, an empty political gesture who's sole purpose was political fundraising obviously proves just how superior one political side is over another. I bet when whatever state it is passes that resolution declaring Christianity the official religion, then the entire state of California will simply fall into the sea. (Taking that pesky Constitution with it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 How dare a state attempt to make it's own state law.Where is Lincoln when you need him. So that's why Haliburton is getting no-bid contracts to build "detention centers" around the country "for use in the event of sudden unexpected need". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Are you really asking this?One is a Constituionally granted right. The other is not. Actually, according to the Supreme Court, they both are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I understand. I went to college in WV, so you can call me a redneck if it makes you feel better. :mad: :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 You suck at geography. It's south and east of nowhere. His geography class focused primarily on politics...oops, wrong thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Washington D.C. bans guns.. Guess its o.k. in DC but its not o.k. SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Of course if you do, Major Harris is going to be awfully perturbed. i read this after i responded to pleaseblitz in the post above. rince called me out. and i came through. consistency is key:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 i read this after i responded to pleaseblitz in the post above.rince called me out. and i came through. consistency is key:) Yeah and i was banned from the NCAA forum for predicting your reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.