Roe v. Wade abandoned by Supreme Court

[Ado Annie]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-eliminates-constitutional-right-to-abortion-11656080124

I guess even if some people end up going to jail over Trump's shenanigans the conservatives have won their long-sought prize and they will consider it worth the cost. 

[heron, ASN, RN]

4 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

What I mean is this, the current intentions of too many members of the republican political mechanism do not appear restrained by laws, precedent or convention.  Too many are lying about election security or allowing lies about election security to go unchallenged because it helps then to retain power while they establish mechanisms to change election results.  Their intentions cannot be trusted.  At this point if they convene a convention of like minded people what's going to stop them from essentially re-writing our constitution?

It's interesting, indeed.  Maybe we should just see if we can trust them with our constitution and take them at their word. 

 

Well, they get to propose anything they want. As Chare pointed out, those proposals still have to pass referendums in the states.

Yes, the manipulation of the electorate by way of misinformation, misleading advertising and interference with voting are all inevitable if such proposals go to the electorate. Victory is not a foregone conclusion on either side of the debate.

[chare]

55 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

...  Their intentions cannot be trusted.  At this point if they convene a convention of like minded people what's going to stop them from essentially re-writing our constitution?

It's interesting, indeed.  Maybe we should just see if we can trust them with our constitution and take them at their word. 

As this discussion related to a “Convention of States Project” or Constitutional Convention, as allowed by Article V, how exactly do you see this happening?

[toomuchbaloney]

18 minutes ago, chare said:

As this discussion related to a “Convention of States Project” or Constitutional Convention, as allowed by Article V, how exactly do you see this happening?

Because current members of the GOP seem undaunted by laws or precedent. Once a thing is done its difficult to undo it... despots and authoritarians count upon that.  

1 hour ago, heron said:

Well, they get to propose anything they want. As Chare pointed out, those proposals still have to pass referendums in the states.

Yes, the manipulation of the electorate by way of misinformation, misleading advertising and interference with voting are all inevitable if such proposals go to the electorate. Victory is not a foregone conclusion on either side of the debate.

Correct.  We can be hopeful that they won't succeed.  

[chare]

1 minute ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Because current members of the GOP seem undaunted by laws or precedent. Once a thing is done its difficult to undo it... despots and authoritarians count upon that.  

In other words, other than your extreme distrust of Republicans you have no idea how the might "rewrite" or amend the Constitution?

Have you read Article V?  

[toomuchbaloney]

13 minutes ago, chare said:

In other words, other than your extreme distrust of Republicans you have no idea how the might "rewrite" or amend the Constitution?

Have you read Article V?  

Yeah I've read Article V. What's your point? Is the point that they aren't allowed to do this thing or that thing? That didn’t seem to deter quite a number of Republicans in 2020 from pursuing ideas and agendas. 

Of course I don't know for certain...but some of the thinking has been communicated pretty clearly

[heron, ASN, RN]

20 minutes ago, chare said:

In other words, other than your extreme distrust of Republicans you have no idea how the might "rewrite" or amend the Constitution?

Have you read Article V?  

TMB can speak for himself, but I’d like to address this, too. Here are some possible amendments that would remove constitutional blocks on known Republican an/or far right agendas:

- repeal of the establishment clause

- revised definition of citizenship

- elimination of the phrase “a well-regulated militia” from the second amendment, creating an unrestricted right to possess any weapon of any kind by anyone who wants one.

- authorization for the state to override citizens’ choices of healthcare affecting reproduction.

- removal of the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment so that states can put people like me to death.

That’s to start.

 

[chare]

8 minutes ago, heron said:

TMB can speak for himself, but I’d like to address this, too. Here are some possible amendments that would remove constitutional blocks on known Republican an/or far right agendas:

- repeal of the establishment clause

- revised definition of citizenship

- elimination of the phrase “a well-regulated militia” from the second amendment, creating an unrestricted right to possess any weapon of any kind by anyone who wants one.

That’s to start.

If it were as easy as the state Republican committees in 34 states doing this, and whatever they came up with becoming an amendment, I understand.  But, it isn't that simple.  Even if you found 34 state legislatures that would do this, whatever they convention came up with still has to be ratified by 38 states.

If you've found some other proposal, please post a link.

[chare]

13 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Yeah I've read Article V. What's your point? Is the point that they aren't allowed to do this thing or that thing? That didn’t seem to deter quite a number of Republicans in 2020 from pursuing ideas and agendas. 

Of course I don't know for certain...but some of the thinking has been communicated pretty clearly

Then quit talking about this as if a bunch of Republicans are going to get together some dark and stormy night and replace the constitution.

[Beerman, BSN]

2 hours ago, subee said:

  Other countries have much simpler ways to revise their constitutions to account for modern realities.  We seem to want to endorse the thinking of the 18th century and some fools, at least, are prepared to believe that people of those times could predict the future with precision.

It's actually liberals who generally want to ignore or get rid of the constitution.

The above is a nice example of that type of thinking.

[heron, ASN, RN]

17 minutes ago, chare said:

If it were as easy as the state Republican committees in 34 states doing this, and whatever they came up with becoming an amendment, I understand.  But, it isn't that simple.  Even if you found 34 state legislatures that would do this, whatever they convention came up with still has to be ratified by 38 states.

If you've found some other proposal, please post a link.

Actually, from my reading, the project already has the 34 state resolutions needed to call on congress to convene such a meeting.

As to specific proposals, what I listed are possible constitutional revisions that would support the far-right agenda. It is based upon statements from actual extremists like Taylor-Green, Boebert, et. al.

While I agree with you that the need for ratification presents a significant brake on crazy becoming constitutional law, the fact is that, like lawsuits, the initial proposals are not required to be rational.

Your main point of contention seems to be that constitutional revision is unlikely to actually happen because of the processes outlined in Article V. You may be right, but I’m not betting my life or my grandsons’ lives on it.

When people tell you who they are, believe them.

12 minutes ago, Beerman said:

It's actually liberals who generally want to ignore or get rid of the constitution.

The above is a nice example of that type of thinking.

Ummm … please be specific …

[toomuchbaloney]

3 hours ago, chare said:

Then quit talking about this as if a bunch of Republicans are going to get together some dark and stormy night and replace the constitution.

Why? They just recently got together and tried to overthrow the government in an attempted coup. Their intentions are suspect and their strategy has, to date, involved illegal and unconstitutional methods. I'm not that interested in allowing them benefit of the doubt after their activist court just upset settled legal precedent after reassurance that they had no such intentions. 

Maybe you should stop talking about them as if they are run of the mill politicians when they've demonstrated that they aren't. 

[toomuchbaloney]

3 hours ago, Beerman said:

It's actually liberals who generally want to ignore or get rid of the constitution.

The above is a nice example of that type of thinking.

Sure.

Except for the time when Republicans tried to over turn election results and install an unconstitutional leader... and then called the violent attempt "legitimate political discourse. That's the kind of thinking given a pass among Republicans and conservatives right now. But sure, project that onto liberals.