Woman Behind Roe v. Wade: “I’m Dedicating My Life to Overturning It”

Jun 2012
41,958
15,178
Barsoom
#41
The Constitution of the United States established America’s national government....
It is telling that someone who uses the phrase "national governent" would want to engage in a topic regarding the Constitution. The word "national" was presented once and was soundly rejected at the Philadelphia Convention because it is not descriptive of the federal govenment. A federal government was created, which means federalism, a compact between the states, and a non-unitary government. The exact opposite of liberalism's need for a national government and a unitary government.
 
Dec 2018
1,719
996
Unionville Indiana
#42
It is telling that someone who uses the phrase "national governent" would want to engage in a topic regarding the Constitution. The word "national" was presented once and was soundly rejected at the Philadelphia Convention because it is not descriptive of the federal govenment. A federal government was created, which means federalism, a compact between the states, and a non-unitary government. The exact opposite of liberalism's need for a national government and a unitary government.
Is there a source that meets with your approval which explains the actual significance of Mcculloch v. Maryland (1819)? (It's another one of those landmark cases that the Federalist Society desperately wants to overturn or at least reinterpret.)
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,178
Barsoom
#44
From a source that meets my approval.

The only relevent significance of Mcculloch v. Maryland is the judicial activism by the Federalist John Marshall. Marshall's opinion was not supported by the Constitution or by any of the debates at the Philadelphia Convention. Marshall based his opinion on an open-ended grant of power via the necessary and proper clause. The problem is that James Wilson authored the necessary and proper clause and his definition of its intent and scope are the opposite of Marshall's opinion. Based on the Constitution and the intent of the necessary and proper clause, McCulloch should be overturned.
 
Jun 2012
41,958
15,178
Barsoom
#45
Here is what we know:

McCorvry, in the OP, makes note of her court case.

The case was before the Supreme Court.

The case involved the constitutionality of the Texas abortion law.

The OP is about several things, and the constitutional basis of Roe is one of the topics.
 
Dec 2018
1,719
996
Unionville Indiana
#46
From a source that meets my approval.

The only relevent significance of Mcculloch v. Maryland is the judicial activism by the Federalist John Marshall. Marshall's opinion was not supported by the Constitution or by any of the debates at the Philadelphia Convention. Marshall based his opinion on an open-ended grant of power via the necessary and proper clause. The problem is that James Wilson authored the necessary and proper clause and his definition of its intent and scope are the opposite of Marshall's opinion. Based on the Constitution and the intent of the necessary and proper clause, McCulloch should be overturned.
Tough, eh?
 
May 2018
3,979
2,945
USA
#47
Violating the Constitution and federalism to take away a state's plenary powers and rights is what liberals advocate. The US would be a much better place if violating the Constitution was part of the treason clause.
I thought you wingers LOVED violating the Constitution?
 
May 2018
3,979
2,945
USA
#49
Yes, absolutely. Restrictions on free speech , hate ( thought) crimes, mandating which light bulbs to buy, and on and on and on...
And as usual...the Trumpanzee falls back on lies/agitprop. Typical. Tell me, Trumpanzee, which "thought crimes" are you talking about?

Strange all those non-problems offend you so much, but forcing a woman to give birth to a rape baby just brings a warm glow to your heart....
 
Likes: catus felis