Do people realize a right, as in a "constitution" right, cannot be suddenly taken away by Trump?

[Anonymous]

What rights are you lunatics so afraid of losing? Talk about being brainwashed.

[abc3643]

It's not that simple which is why there's this adage:
"Justice delayed is justice denied."

So, someone CAN violate your Constitutional rights, but then you have to 1) spend your own money to 2) go to court which 3) may take years to resolve and 4) you may lose anyway because what you thought was a Constitutional right that had was suddenly taken away by the US Supreme Court.

Ask any fertile woman about that since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

=========
I want to be clear about something else. Constitutional rights are not obvious and subject to interpretation. That's what happened in Roe v. Wade. It all boils down to the 10th Amendment:

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.

The current conservative Supreme Court - or any court made up of "strict constructionists" interprets this amendment as actually:

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, ̶o̶r̶ t̶o̶ t̶h̶e ̶p̶e̶o̶pl̶e̶̶̶̶̶̶̶ ̶ .

Unfortunately, the 10th Amendment has that ambiguity: states or people. It doesn't enumerate which rights belong to the states and which belong to the people. Strict constructionist think "Well, if it's not enumerated to the people, then it goes to the states." and they use that in deciding cases. Since there was no enumerated right for a person to privacy (Roe v. Wade asserted that there IS a right to privacy) or to an abortion and the Federal Government doesn't have an enumerated right over these things, they let it go to the states. That's why Dobbs fucked over Roe.

And they can fuck over anybody else too with that thinking. THAT'S why a Constitutional right can go * POOF! *

[NamerOfStars]

You mean like the right to free expression, that government collusion with social media platforms took away? Or the right to due process under the sixth Amendment, that Biden banned on college campuses, under threat of having federal funding revoked? Maybe the freedom of assembly forbidden in several states during the lockdowns? How about the right to bear arms, battered down for decades, or to a speedy trial, that's been ignored for centuries?

Rights can, have, and will continue to be taken away by any government official who's allowed to. It's not brainwashing; it's basic pattern recognition.

[Asker]

Let's take these one by one. Social media is a private company, they are not bound by the first amendment. The question is, did the go against the rules and become editor's by some of their actions. Congress actually held hearings on the issue. The sixth amendment can be violated against individuals but that's mainly at a local level and can be argued under an appeals process. That right has not been stripped for all Americans. The freedom of assembly also fell at the local level. The second amendment is still alive and well. Gun control is at the state level but they can't "ban" your right.

[NamerOfStars]

That would be a "yes", then. Well, fair enough, I guess it IS a mental illness by your reckoning. Still disgusting, but I guess you're consistent.

[Asker]

Are you retarded? What you mentioned are "interpretations" of the constitution, not amending the right! For example, a woman never had a constitutional right to an abortion but the supreme court interpreted certain amendments as protecting a woman's right to have one. The new supreme court reversed their interpretation but the amendments are still in place. Before you talk about mental illness, get a fucking clue as to what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Of course it can "when a rebellion or invasion occurs and public safety requires it". Any declaration of martial law also suspends the constitution. Two immigrants cross the border? Trump declares they are invading. Two people protest him? It's a rebellion against him. People stopped him during his first term from pulling crap like this and like delaying the election that he floated numerous times. He won't hire anyone with the guts to stand up to him this time.

[Asker]

Martial law DOES NOT suspend the US Constitution.

[Red_Arrow]

Mitch McConnell prevented a vote on Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice. Then when Trump came in he was allowed to fill in his choice, and he has chosen others since then. Those Supreme Court "Justices" have backed Trump and reinterpreted laws that stood for many years, letting him change the laws. And Trump is poised to do it again and limp McConnell will back him on it. And so constitutional laws and right disappear.

[Asker]

Were they constitutional rights? No, they were not. A woman never had a constitutional "right" to an abortion.

[DryGermanGuy]

McConnell will step down as leader in January 25. But the next leader will probably be an equally weak puppet.

[Red_Arrow]

I stated that the president can nominate Supreme Court Justices. I said nothing about abortions.

[Red_Arrow]

"The United States Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided..."

[Asker]

The supreme Court can't amend the constitution, so your opinion was irrelevant. I was just trying to make it relevant to my actual question.

[Red_Arrow]

The Supreme Court often INTERPRETS the constitution which in effect changes the laws. What was a right before no longer exists. For example, Roe V Wade set federal laws which were then changed because of Trump's interference. So your opinion is irrelevant.

[Asker]

Wrong, Roe v Wade never set federal LAWS, it only said states cannot prevent a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th amendment. It was recognized as a constitutional right but could be overturned at anytime, because the SCOTUS can't legislate from the bench. RBG and other justices at the time even said it. A constitutional right cannot be overturned! That's why reversing R v W didn't eliminate the 14th amendment. The current SCOTUS even said Congress should have legislated laws 50 years ago!

[Red_Arrow]

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected a right to have an abortion." So it was a constitutional right. You just said a Constitutional right cannot be overturned, but it was. You also said "it was recognized as a constitutional right but could be overturned at any time." Make up your mind. Can a constitutional right be overturned as you said, or "it cannot be overturned." Also as you said. One or the other. Not both. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and it sparked an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be.

[Asker]

Dumb fuck, it was a DECISION! It was never law or an actual constitutional right. That's why it was able to be overturned. Jesus Christ! Could the SCOTUS overturn the first amendment? Could they overturn the fifth amendment? You have been manipulated so bad. Congress legislates, not the supreme Court! When Roe vs Wade decision was made, the supreme Court actually said it would eventually be overturned because the constitution wasn't amended to specifically say about a "woman's right to abortion can't be infringed upon." Do you even know how an actual federal law becomes one?

[Asker]

And congress never legislated any laws governing it, so all the current SCOTUS did was kick it back to the states to decide.

[Red_Arrow]

Since you are not understanding basic constitutional procedures and what constitutional rights are I am done conversing with you. I prefer conversations with people who have brains.

[abc3643]

@Red_Arrow
Yeah, when that happened, I felt that Obama should have put in a case to the US Supreme Court on the emergency docket. He would have lost in the long-run - his pick of Garland would have been shot down - but it would have established an important Constitutional issue. Obama, being a Constitutional scholar probably suspect he would have lost in SCOTUS.

This is what I am thinking:

This is Article II Section 2 Clause 2:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

"[The President] ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."

So, the Senate must approve SCOTUS and other nominations. I have no problem with that per se. But the issue for me is that the clause states "Senate", not the Judicial Committee of the Senate or any other subgroup of the Senate. In principle, the clause could mean that the ENTIRE Senate must be involved in approving an appointment. Obama was denied that because Garland never got out of the Judicial Committee since the Senate had a GOP majority (thus, Garland was doomed anyway).

(MORE)

[abc3643]

Now, I must admit that the Constitution also says this:

Article I, Section 5, Clause 2:

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."

Thus, it could be interpreted that the Senate can do whatever it wants internally.

And that's exactly what happened... Garland didn't get out of committee and so could not be put to a vote.

I STILL think Obama should have fought that because that is a critical concept to resolve for future Presidents: Whether the entire Senate must be involved in the approval process when the President makes an appointment, regardless of the Senate's internal rules.

[In_Trance]

When you realize the people that control the narrative also control the counter narrative, you'll realize that anyone following politics is brainwashed

[exitseven]

Trump is very pro Constitution in his last term. There is no reason this will chsnge now.

[Anonymous]

People are morons. They think Trump can just walk into the White House on Day one and appoint himself 👑.

[Anonymous]

Yeah they can, they can just make an amendment to remove it.

[Asker]

Trump can just amend the constitution with the wave of a hand? Do you have any idea what that entails?

[Opinion Owner]

Trump can't but the House and Senate that he controls can

[Asker]

It takes 66 Senate votes plus 3/4 of the state legislators to amend the constitution. If it were as simple as you think, Obama would have rewriten the entire constitution when he was elected.

[Opinion Owner]

Yeah and Trump owns all of them

[FunkyMonkee]

Obviously, the lefties don't!