Roe v. Wade

[A18]

There's a Constitution board

[A18]

Define overturned.

Define define.

[A18]

We're talking about whether you think the Supreme Court should ignore the Constitution when making decisions.

[A18]

Let's see a poll asking about specific bans on abortion.

[A18]

Which tells you nothing about how pro-life or pro-choice the state is, in order to contrast it with the legislature.

[A18]

Asking about specific bans on abortion. You know, like I said five minutes ago.

[A18]

By this logic, legislatures, including the US House, shouldn't have control over anything.  It should all go to the Supreme Court, which clearly represents the will of the people better than a recently elected legislature.  Same would be true of the US Senate, since it doesn't have proportional representation.  That must be unconstitutional -- except for the fact that the constitution explicitly sets up the Senate.

Pretty much.

[A18]

Check out her PC score.

[A18]

That is irrelevant, Tory, the Right to Privacy is in the constitution.

No, it's not. You've admitted you're just making it up, so why do you keep posting it as if it's fact?

[A18]

You admitted that your 'interpretation' was just a political decision.

If the founding generation believed in a 'right to privacy,' they wouldn't have executed people for sodomy. Moreover, you are unable to cite any text that supports your conclusion that the Constitution contains a generic right to privacy.

[A18]

You said anyone who interprets something is just making a political decision.

No one thought there was a right to privacy then, even though state bills of rights had many of the same provisions as the U.S. Bill of Rights. Clearly, your interpretation is not the original understanding.

Quote the part of the Bill of Rights that establishes a right to privacy.

[A18]

So why do you keep claiming your interpretation as fact?

If you're going to interpret something in English, it makes the most sense to use the common dialect of the time. Otherwise, you are allowing for arbitrary amendment through change in language. An author can't predict what his words might mean in common usage 200 years down the road.

So you're just making it up then.