President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 14, 2007 04:00 PM UTC

Wednesday Open Thread

  • 150 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

“The biggest conspiracy has always been the fact that there is no conspiracy. Nobody’s out to get you. Nobody gives a shit whether you live or die. There, you feel better now?”

–Dennis Miller

Comments

150 thoughts on “Wednesday Open Thread

  1. You’re moving JFG down and saying it’s now WS who’s looking best. I know SAFER passed but that doesn’t mean you should toke up before setting the odds…

    This race is still JFG’s to lose and dropping out of the Senate arguably helps more than it hurts.

    – dave

    1. Jim Spencer hit all the right notes again. Fitz-Geralds legacy under the Golden Dome will be one of a fighter, and for all the right reasones.

      Fitz-Gerald didn’t do gentle. She did what it took to get the job done.

      Job No. 1 was taking control of the Senate from Republicans, something Fitz-Gerald helped to engineer during her seven years in the legislature. But not before she made a few enemies as the general of the loyal opposition.

      Not only did she fight for the majority, but she did by sticking to her word and principles.

      “She was the minority leader. Her job was to be a pain in the backside.”

      Mission accomplished.

      Meanwhile, what Fitz-Gerald lacked in gentility, she more than made up for in pragmatism.

      “She was true to her word,” said Republican state Rep. Cory Gardner. Often, Gardner and his GOP brothers and sisters didn’t like that word. But what Fitz-Gerald said was usually what she did.

      That’s the type of woman I want representing Colorado.

      1. But I find it kind of sad that “job No. 1 was taking control of the Senate from Republicans” and “to be a pain in [their] backside.”

        I like the idea of a fighter, but not one that is going to bicker just because she feels she has to. That accomplishes nothing.

        1. She was a pain in their back by pointing out their extreme agenda, midnight gerry-mandering, which went against the best interests of Coloradans; and it worked. She took back the Senate in the face of all that, to accomplish everything since; health care reform with a prescription drug pool, building a renewable energy and finally taking action to prevent our education from going complete private.

          She’s exactly the type of fighter I want in Congress.

          1. She’s done a great job as a State senator and if she wins in CD2 I’m sure she’ll do a fine job in DC.

            But shouldn’t her “#1 Job” have been representing the people of her district, not being a thorn in the side of Repubs?  No doubt they were both her jobs, but only one could come first…  She wasnt just the State Sen. for Dems of the 16th, she was the Sen for all of the 16th.  She wasnt just the Prez of the Dems in the Senate.  She was the president of the whole Senate.

            1. She was both. When the D’s were the minority, they were silenced, unlike today where the R’s actually have a seat at the table. So, she best represented her district by making light of the R’s dirty tricks (under then Senate President and former Nixon aide John Andrews), and pushed the Dems agenda of better education, better health care, and better business in Colorado.

              You can’t expect the Majority to ask you what bills you’d like to pass and for them to gently agree. It takes a fight.

    2. For once, I’ve gotta agree with DavidT.  No way the Big Line odds should be the same for Joan and Will.  Joan’s got the experience, the name recognition, the endorsements, etc. 

      Nothing against Will, but he could run a great race and still finish a distant 2nd in the 2nd…

  2. This strategy from the right means that for the first time since before the civil war, the individual states will define who is a person and who is not.  And that definition can vary from state to state. A fetus would be a person in Colorado and a blob in Kansas.  The fundamental rights of an individual derive from the federal constitution. So as long as Roe is not overturned, this Colorado constitutional amendment, should it pass, would have no impact. The federal constitution guaranteeing a woman’s right to privacy would prevail.

    If however, Roe is overturned, then the matter would revert to the individual states and each state could decide who is a person and who is not.  Such a situation does not protect the rights of the unborn, it strenghtens states rights at the expense of the individual. It also undermines the federal judiciary.

    Absolutely brilliant.  I bet Rosen is not the only one that has Brown v. Board of Education, Topkea in their sites.

    1. Dems sweep next November?  Sign the petition to get this on the ballot—young, single women, one of the largest voting blocks for dems, will turn out in droves to kill it….along the way they will vote for Hillary, Mark, and every other dem up and down the ballot.

      Where do I sign?

        1. also Hillary’s best demographic, are in the basement as far as voting rate goes.  Still, I don’t think this will pass because married career women (they have a much higher voting rate than young single women), who often choose to put off children until later in the game, must know it would mean the end of fertility clinics.

    2. First, Rosen is pro-choice so I doubt that he will have much to say on this subject.

      Second, if the pro-choice community had any balls, they would recognize this initiative as the God-send that it is.  It is their chance to expose the complete nonsense that the the vast majority of the anti-choice community represents.

      Imagine this commercial.

      If Initiative ___ passes, a fertilized egg is a person with all the rights of your five year old child or you. Imagine the consequences.  An abortion automatically and without further law change becomes first-degree murder under existing Colorado law.  Both the doctor and the woman must  be sentenced to either life in prison or death.  If a fertilized egg is a person, every woman who has a miscarriage could be subject to legal investigation for possible murder/manslaughter charges.  If a fertilized egg is a person, women could be subjected to child abuse charges and have their new-born baby ripped from their arms for eating the wrong thing for breakfast or having a single glass of wine during their pregnancy.  If a fertilized egg is a person, most forms of birth control, including the pill which can sometimes cause a fertilized egg not to implant, are already illegal without any further action.

      The point is, that there is a difference between a fertilized egg and a 5 year old child.  No one would argue that someone with malice aforethought killing a five year old child should get life or the death penalty.  Should a woman who aborts her pregnancy get the same thing?  If there is no difference in the life, there should be no difference in the penalty for the taking that life.  Do you really believe that this is the case?  Ever seen the deer in the headlights look when you ask the anti-choicers what the penalty should be for abortion when it becomes illegal?  Funny, the can’t seem to bring themselves to tell you what it is.  Know why, because the honest ones will tell you that it should be no different.  And they know when they do, the have lost their battle for good.  Most so-called “pro-lifers” don’t believe the life of a fertilized egg is the same as the life of a five-year old.  Ask your friends if they think abortion providers and women who have abortions should go to jail for life or get the death penalty.  I bet only 1% of the population truly believes this, and I have repsect for them.  The rest are just posturing or not thinking.  This is a golden opportunity to call them out.

      And if the pro-choice community has the guts to tell it like it is, this is a gold mine for it to get people thinking about whether they truly are anti-choice.  Most will come to the conclusion that this decision is better left to the woman.

      1. Forgive the perjorative…the tag line is from the Clinton campaign…It is the Economy, Stupid…

        This is NOT about abortion, it is about States’ Rights. If the amendment passes in Colorado, the assumption is it would be immediately challenged in federal court and as long as ROE is the law of the land, it would rule and the state amendment could not be enforced.

        IF and WHEN, Roe is overturned. then the amendment would be the law in Colorado.  Why Rosen comes into play, is that he is a constant critic of what he calls “activitist  judges.”  That is the argument that republicans are currently using against Roe. 

        If Roe is overturned because of Supreme Court judges who are “strict constructionist” (whatever the hell that means) and the judges say this is matter left to the states to decide, then, the next GREAT decision which could be called into question is the school desegregation decision on 1954 when the Supreme Court said that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional and there were areas in which civil rights overrode the right of an individual state to legislate.  Rosen is on record that he thought Brown was wrongly decided and should be overturned.  That is why: ISTCS….nothing about abortion.

        My observation is that when the abortion question  is raised, men spend hours, days, debating “when life begins.”  Women do not. I will come back…I give you guys 100 postings to decide when life begins…then, maybe you will be ready to talk about the constitution of the united states.

        1. It’s just not an issue. The point is that if this amendment is brought forward it gives the pro-choice community a chance to educate already overwhelmingly pro-choice Coloradoans as well as those who aren’t why the logical outcome of anti-choicer’s rhetoric is so stupid.

          In addition, who says the Supreme Court just overrules Roe v. Wade??  Who says they just don’t declare that a fertilized egg is a person and that therefore Roe v. Wade can’t stand.  If that happens, it takes a Constitutional Amendment to allow abortion.  That’ll be the end of the Republican Party as we know it.

          The “state’s rights” and “activist judges” mantra is just a matter of whose ox is being gored.  Remember when Republicans used to talk about state’s rights?  Well that has gone the way of the Model T.  Can you say Terry Schaivo?  And activist judges?  Come on, any judge no matter what their philosophy all judges are activist judges when they get to the Supreme Court, period.

          1. It would be the definition of legislating from the bench, but it would be interesting.  Not only would they have to accept that a fetus has an inalienable right to life, but it would place the right to life directly in opposition with the right of privacy.

            And as you can’t have two “rights” be in opposition with each other (a rock-paper-scissors of rights), one could argue that the Right to Privacy – if it can’t be coequal with or supercede the Right to Life – doesn’t exist at all.

            And with that judicial nuke, John Roberts would be the Left’s Earl Warren.

            1. They don’t believe that the right to privacy exists.  Have you read the constitution??? It’s not there.  It was recognized in the “penumbra” of the Constitution in the Griswold v. Ct. case where the Supreme Court ruled that states couldn’t bar couples from getting contraception.  What they have in mind isn’t legislating from the bench at all (though they are not beyond this) but stating that a fertilized egg is a person.  The question is who is a person?  I’m quite certain that they can find some quotes to support them from some of the founding fathers.  That’s all they need under their original intent BS.  That’s why original intent is such BS and its why this legislating from the bench or activist judges is such a sham.  Both sides do it, its just which side you’re on.  Kind of like politics, isn’t it?  Imagine that, Supreme Court Justices that are political.  I’m shocked I tell you, shocked.

            2. That is why we have a Supreme Court.  Yep, you cite Earl Warren, you people are going after  Brown v. Topeka….you don’t give a rat’s behind for fetal life or women……

          2. Listen to the Republican Presidential candidates..to a man, they all say that Roe should be overturned so that the states can decide. That is the Republican argument.  They call this a “court problem,” they speak of “activitist judges.”  The Republicans attack the courts relentlessly. The Schaivo case was all about attacking the independent judiciary.  The repubs made their bones in the sixties…screaming about states rights and this builds on that foundation.

            You are right.  It is possible that the Court could review Roe and decide that a person exists from conception.  The conventional wisdom is that the court would rule that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to rule and that would return the issue to the individual states.  The desenting opinion in Roe (authored by Colorado’s own Byron White) was that the Court had no jurisdiction, not that life began at conception.

            If the Supreme Court were to rule that a person exists from conception, it would turn this country on its ear. I would think that a Constitutional Amendment granting a right to abortion would pass, quickly.  I don’t think the repubs give a damm about fetal life; I think they care a lot about power. So I do not think they would back a Human Life Amendment….since they have had twelve years to do so, when they were in control of Congress, and did not.

            Let me be clear. I don’t buy the republican argument. I do think there is a strategy to use the abortion issue, by the repubs, to continue to attack the courts.  I believe in a living constitution and activitist judges.  I believe the only response to a really bad decision is a constitutional amendment.

    3.   This initiative could be great for the Dems.  It will boost turnout.  the anti-war people who are lukewarm over H.R.C. will turn out if only because most of them are pro-choice and will want to defeat this thing. 
        More importantly, it’s probably going to precipitate another stampede of RINOs to unaffiliated or Dem status.
        God forbid it should pass, it will never hold up because it clearly conflicts with Roe, and there are still five solid votes against overruling Roe.

    4. It’s about time we stop making up Constitutional “rights” and start paying attention to ones that are actually IN the Constitution

      There’s no Right to Privacy.  There’s not even a Right to Vote.  A Right for States to be sovereign entities in their own, well, right?  Well, there *is* one, but we just ignore that one.

      1. about the Constitution is, that it’s a Constitution which means it’s evolutionary and it changes with the times. It doesn’t mean we throw the laws out and start over, nor does it mean that we can’t change them. Hence, an Amendable Constitution.

        If it were left to people like you, we’d still have slaves and women wouldn’t be able to vote.

        1. I don’t recall an Amendment guaranteeing the “right” to terminate a pregnancy.  I don’t even recall an Amendment guaranteeing a “right” to privacy or to vote.  What’s your point?

          “Constitution” doesn’t mean “amorphous.”  It means “structure” or “foundation.”  Your house doesn’t bend to fit the changing whims of your changing life.  (Or if it does make sure you call your insurance agent)  To do that, you have to *add* or *alter* the structure of the house, rather than simply wish a wall out of the way or presume a new addition will keep you in from the cold.

          Like you said – Amendment.  Not “Random Judicial Ruling based on presumed changes in culture with regard to the Constitution.”

        2. I would really like to know where you get that from.

          I have no problem amending the Constitution, but reading things into the Constitution that are not there is wrong.

          By the way, it was the Republican Party (which was started by free soilers and abolitionists) who supported freeing the slaves and Republicans supported woman’s suffrage as early as 1896.  In fact the first woman elected to Congress was a Republican. 

          1. Interesting to note, while we’re talking about old-school feminism, that Anthony and Stanton were both anti-abortion.

            The infertility of the womb as an expression of the power of women is a fairly new concept.

                1. And have found them wanting. 

                  I have found no founding father, founding document, or founding era writing that supports a living constitution.

                  that is all the evidence I need.

                  1. When you asked for information about Living Constitution theory, you had no intention of ever following up and actually reading it. Therefore you’re a dishonest debater.

                    1. If you provide me with info I will read it.  It may not change my mind, but I will read it and offer my own conclusions and even over counter points, just like I have plenty of time in the past. 

                    2. I have no problem with amendments to the Constitution as directed by the founders.

                      I have problems with judges and Congress inventing new laws or inventing new interperations of the Constitution. 

                      Federalist 78 talks of a limited constitution.  What do you see in it that would allow a living constitution? 

                    3. Than Jefferson’s quote.  See that’s the point.  The Federalist Papers are contradictory in themselves and don’t represent the views of all of the founding fathers.  That’s just the exact problem with the “original intent” mantra.  That just means taking out of context, say a quote from Federalist #78, to prove your already held point of view.  It’s nonsense.

                    4. Article V speaks more to the living constitution concept.  If the constitution were meant to never change and adapt with the times they never would have put a process in it to allow amendments.  Federalist 78 talks of a limited constitution, but also the prerogative of the judiciary to review and interpret its intent.

                    5. I just re-read it and don’t see where you are coming from. I see justification for Constitutional amendments, but lets be honest, the courts and Congress both have expanded the “meaning” of the Constitution without use of the amendment process. 

                    6. “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this constitution” 

                      This is exactly what I am saying re: justification for Constitutional amendments. The needs of the country change and thus the amendment process is necessary to adapt the constitution to these changes.  Of course the courts and congress have both expanded the “meaning” of the constitution without the use of the amendment process – I never said that wasn’t the case. 

                    7. It is just that the courts and Congress have not bothered to use the admendment process to expand their powers.  that is what I have an issue with. 

                    8. but I don’t understand how you reconcile the fact that you think the amendment process is great but don’t believe the constitution is a living document.

                    9. If we want to have all of the social programs that the government wants, you need to have to have an amendment to allow you to do it.  You shouldn’t be able to create programs that are not expressly mentioned in the constitution.  If you can do that without an amendment, then nothing is really unconstitutional. 

                    10. Nor was it ever meant to be.  It was only a basic framework defining the basic structure of our country – our rights, governmental restrictions, et cetera.  While this is only explicitly spelled out in Amendments 9 and 10 – and only in terms of rights – it is assumed in the authority of the Congress to make laws for the common Defence and general Welfare of the people.

                      By your reasoning, we can’t have an Air Force without a Constitutional Amendment, because Congress was only authorized to fund land and naval forces.

                    11. The Constitution allows for an Army for defense, which the Air Force used to be part of.  It is a stretch to say that under s strict interpretation of the Constitution

                      The General Welfare Clause was never meant to be a catch all for social programming.  Madison, who wrote the Constitution, expressly stated the opposite:

                      “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.” – James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

                      The Constitution is a basic framework and Congress is allowed to pass laws, but they have to be within that framework.  And judges have no right to create law from the bench. 

                    12. Doesn’t mean it’s part of the land forces (and they are called specifically that in the Constitution at times…).  But that’s a niggling little detail.

                      Also, while Madison did state that the Congress cannot do “whatever […] can be done by money”, he does not specifically limit Congress to an explicit list of programs by that statement.  The limits imposed upon Congress are also enumerated, and FDR bumped up against some of those limits back during his CCC and WPA days.

                      The Courts, while they cannot pass law, can and are indeed supposed to adjudicate disputes of the law, including most specifically the Constitutionality of the law.  Among those disputes are the finding of rights not specifically enumerated by the Constitution – the part of SCOTUS jurisdiction I’m sure you’re most upset with…

                    13. “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” – James Madison, Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

                      So to me, he held a distinct view of what money could be spent on. 

                      I have no problem with the courts adjudicating disputes of the law, but when they create new law, for instance by saying what public money should and should not be spent on, that is unconstitutional.

                    14. that the constitution is purposely vague in order to allow for interpretation ?  I think we are talking about the difference between what is express and what is implied.

                    15. the tenth amendment specifically states that powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states. 

                      As I see it, much of what the federal government is doing usurps the power of the states. 

                  2. the power of judicial review granted in Marbury v. Madison and other sources that there is support in the founders for a “living” or “interpretable” Constitution, but even if those didn’t exist why does all our wisdom need to come from the founding fathers? They designed a good Constitution for their time, but that was a different time, they didn’t know everything, and just because something made sense in 1807 why should it still make sense and be applicable in 2007? Ideas change, countries change, the world changes, and our Constitution needs to change with them. I think the founders knew this, and left the Constitution open to change, through both Amendment and interpretation accordingly.

                    1. Why isn’t there a groundswell to rewrite the constitution?  If it is an old document, why not start over with something more suited to the times? 

                    2. it was Jefferson who wanted to mandate a Constitutional convention every 2, or was it 4? years (I can’t remember the exact number there) in order to keep up with the times. But that’s a bit extreme in my view, and if the Constitution were malleable enough (not to public opinion mind you, I’m distrustful of that as a generality), but to conform with current political, philosophical, and law theory as determined by Congress, the President, and the courts, then the Constitution could remain an effective and just legal foundation without the trouble of an entire re-drafting convention.

                    3. Marbury v. Madison is a critical part of the Supreme Law of the land.  Thank you, c_d. for citing and explaining this important decision….which went right over the heads of foghorn, yokel, etc.

                      The constitution is NOT just the written document ratified in 1787, it is the body of law defined by ALL the supreme court decisions since.  Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court has the RIGHT to review all laws, local, state and federal to determine if they are in compliance with the US Constitution, including all those supreme court decisions.  Judicial review is the principal established in case of Marbury v. Madison.  The constitution becomes what the Supreme Court says it is….that is the law of the land.

                      Pat Robertson, Guiliani’s new best friend, argued that Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided and should be overturned……so the attack on the power of the Third Branch of government by some members of the RIGHT is not a figment of the imagination…

                      FOGHORN< YOKEL< ET>…..your gurus have done you wrong…they have not given you the whole story…..they have played to your egos and not your intelligence…read Marbury v. Madison.  I think you will appreciate the logic of it.

                    4. The Supreme Court has the right to review laws to determine if they are in compliance with the US Constitution. 

                      They have no right to create new law out of thin air. 

                      I have no gurus, just Jesus, He is enough for me. 

                    5. This is a legtimate point, foghorn.  We are bringing you along. Now, the Supreme Court is the only Constitutional branch of government which can decide what the law is. So you may say that they are making new law, but if they claim it is judicial review, then they win. It is their decision.  The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.

                      Next step. Now, if you do not agree with that interpretation, your recourse is the amendment process. If you can get the necessary majorities in Congress and the state legislature to agree with you, then you win.

                      But, your endless  assertion that the Constitution says this and the Supreme Court can’t do this, takes us nowhere, and is the prattle from the gurus of the right.

                      Now, tell me this, do you know why the religious right and republicans did not vote a Human Life Amendment, which would outlaw abortion, out of the Judiciary committees during the ten years they had control of Congress?
                      My question is sincere.

                    6. Judicial Review is when the court says that a law passed is unconstitutional.  Legislating from the bench is when a judge creates new law via his/her decision. 

                      Legislative powers are invested in Congress, not the Judicial branch. 

                    7. It is not my assertation that the Constitution says this and the Supreme Court can’t do this, it is spelled out right in the Constitution what they can and cannot do.  No prattle needed. 

                      As for a Human Life Amendment, I have no idea why they didn’t.  I would guess that they think it would be easier to get a Supreme Court decision oveturned than to pass an amendment, but that is just a guess.  Remember, the 30th amendment was proposed in 1789, but was not ratified until 1992 when Michigan voted for it. 

                    8. I think that  we are a meeting point and then you repeat what is not true.  The Constitition of the United States includes all the decisions of the Supreme Court. That is the way our country is set up.

                      Now, when a issue comes before the Supreme Court, each side presents arguments on the constitionality of the law in dispute.  One side may well argue that the Constitution limits the right of the courts to judicate or adjudicate in the matter. They may argue that the Constitution limits the power of the courts.  The Supreme Court may or may not agree. If they do agree, then the law is declared unconstitutional.  If the don’t agree, then the
                      challenged law stands as the law of the land. 

                      When a citizen, outside of this process, says the constitution says the courts can do this or that,  it is just prattle.

                      1n 1992, Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvannia, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion.  It was seen as the last chance to overturn Roe in the century, as indeed it was.  So, when the repubs got control of Congress two years later, it was reasonable to expect they would start the Human Life Amendment process, which they did not.  You ought to find out why.

                    9. If I missed that somewhere I apologize.  If you can let me know where to find it, I sould appriciate it. 

                      As I said before on the human life issue, I have no idea why no one has tried an amendment. 

                    10. That is why we are all  citing it and telling you to read it.  The Supreme Court declared in the famous decision and I think it was 1804, that the Supreme Court has the absolute final authority to determine if a law is compliant with the Constitution or not.  That was the decision of the Supreme Court.  The logic in the decision is really a good read.

                      Now, if the people of the several states disagreed with that decision, they have had since the early 19th Century the option of passing a Constitutional Amendment overturning that decision and limiting the power of the Supreme Court.  It has not happened.  Therefore, Marbury v. Madison stands. It is a Supreme Court decision and because of that becomes part and particle of constitutional law. It is the supreme law of the land. It becomes part of the Constitution.  Now, if you are going to argue that Supreme Court decisions do not become part of Constitituional law, then I can’t help you.  That is an assertion without basis.

                      Now, I think the quickest way to read the decision is to google: Marbury v. Madison. Am I making any sense to you?

                    11. …but you won’t see them there.

                      Decided Supreme Court cases are there similarly, sort of a meta-Constitution.

                    12. …but you won’t see them there.

                      Decided Supreme Court cases are there similarly, sort of a meta-Constitution.

              1. First, do what Ari said.

                Second, read this.  It’s not a “scholarly source” but it is interesting.

                http://www.slate.com

                Then there is Rehnquist’s somewhat self-defeating critique of the “living constitution.”  I know Ive read it before but don’t recall every salient point.

                http://www.law.harva

                And, just so I don’t have to post it in 2 places, in response to why I care about the lack of state support in the CU system even though I’m not directly funded by it:  I care b/c I don’t want CU to be a bastion of the wealthy, a school that only the rich can attend.  When I look at the roster for my class, something like 14 of the 27 kids are from out of state.  That’s not exactly the norm for the University, but it speaks volumes about the fact that the school must admit tons of out of state kids (like I was/am) to stay afloat and pay the bills.  I care b/c I have a conscience about public education…which, I assumed you had as well.  Questions like “why should I care” lead me to question that.

            1. Who believe the sun still revolves around the Earth can also be Googled.  That they are called “scholar” and have a web site doesn’t make them smart.

              Ah, hell, I won’t re-type what I already said – Copy-Paste here it comes…

              “‘Constitution’ doesn’t mean ‘amorphous.’  It means ‘structure’ or ‘foundation.’  Your house doesn’t bend to fit the changing whims of your changing life.  (Or if it does make sure you call your insurance agent)  To do that, you have to *add* or *alter* the structure of the house, rather than simply wish a wall out of the way or presume a new addition will keep you in from the cold.”

              Your job in disagreeing with those of us on the right isn’t to suggest there are “scholars” who disagree with that point.  I can say the same about strict constructionist scholars, and I’d be equally pointless.  Your job is to say “This is why the Constitution is ‘living’ in implied and literal meaning.”

              Otherwise we just spam each other with links that agree with our sides and which neither of us will read.  And, while that gets boring quickly, it’s pointless from the start.

              1. But I don’t believe Foghorn has the good faith necessary to do it.

                I can respond to your quote by pointing out that government is, and always will be, and abstract concept around which we organize society, so comparing it to actual physical structures is nonsensical. Some people want to be strict in constitutional interpretation, saying it allows only what it says, while others want to be flexible, saying that it doesn’t restrict what it doesn’t restrict.

                  1. You and I had amicable discussions in the past, too. I’m sure you’ll eventually get to Danny like you got to me, unless you’re making an extra effort with him that you won’t deign to do with myself and others.

                    1. If we stick to facts and argument and avoid name calling and sarcasm we can have a substantive discussion.

                      I think, Foghorn often starts with sarcasm to egg people on.

                    2. but he eventually started twisting my words around in responses and I decided that meant he wasn’t being serious or respectful. He says otherwise but if it’s true then he’s simply inept at showing that tone in his posts. I know that if I went around writing stuff like “So conservatives simply think that they shouldn’t pay any taxes” (to riff on a common theme in his posts) neither he nor the other cons on Pols would take kindly to it. It’s the reason why I don’t buy that he’s doing this with the pure intentions he claims.

                      I’m always waiting and watching to see if people develop in their posts. LIAS surprised me a few weeks ago by actually engaging in debate and thanking me for not insulting him like other posters were doing. While his debate wasn’t exactly respectful it wasn’t his usual “liberals suck” kind of thing either. If Foghorn can show that he really respects where his opponents come from – I certainly respect where mine do – then I’ll gladly discuss the issues with him, as you’ve enjoyed. But it’s incumbent upon him to do that.

                    3. Plenty of folks call me names day in and out, but I refuse to return the favor. 

                      I have not twisted your words, I have just held you to account for the words you use, there is nothing wrong with that.  While I am sarcastic at times, I have never belittled you.

                      You can question my intentions, I know what my true intentions are, and that is to learn why liberals think they way they do.  I just simply don’t understand why you think the way you do.  And to find that out I need to ask a lot of questions.  Sure I am a little snarky at times, but so are you. 

                1. I know that my “structure” metaphor is a metaphor, but you seem to point that out, then say that opinions differ.  Which has already been established rather clearly.

                  In my metaphor, the point is that the Constitution was written with the intent to say “This is what we believe a Federal Government should be, should defend, should do, and should be refrained from doing.  If at any point you people of the future find there is something important missing, here’s how we allow you to change it.” 

                  It’s a house you buy on a lot, with a permit and method to expand or renovate it as you see fit.  Need to add a new room?  Want to add a mini-bar or super-green heating and cooling system?  You have the methods to do so – they’re quite clear.  (and easy to the point of totally screwing it up at least once, and two other times in my opinion). 

                  But you can’t just say “This is what the government should do now, because we say so.”  That’s why the process is there, and, more importantly, that’s why it devolves power down from itself, to the states, or to the people. 

                  In fact, I think that we *could* come up with a sort of equal-rights amendment that supersedes the hodge-podge of judicial precedent we have now.  It would certainly make a hell of a lot more sense.

              2. To take your image of a foundation.  The foundation might not change, but the house above it does.  It’s still all part of the house.  The house has a foundation, sometimes that gets amended with additional foundation.  Sometimes the house above gets changed because a new family moves in or they invent things like bathrooms or air conditioning or they don’t like the color of the living room.  Doesn’t change the foundation, just expands on it.

                As to why the constitution is “living” (not my word) and was meant to be, that’s for exactly the reason that Jefferson said what he said,  remember the barbarian part?

                1. To change the house, you have to DO SOMETHING to the structure.

                  You can’t just wish it into existence.

                  You do something to the Constitutional structure by Amending the thing, not by just presuming some right or rule to exist because you think it might be nice if it did.

                  Of course the Constitution changes, in the sense that it can (and sometimes ought to) be amended.  I don’t know if anyone’s disagreeing with that fact.

                  It’s those who point to that as though it were some suggestion that their pet extra-Constitutional means of re-interpreting its language is okay, too. 

                  That’s just asinine.

          2. Really, you should study history before you make remarks like this.

            Jefferson said and I quote: “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions.  But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace wit the times.  We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boa as a civilized society to remain under th eregimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

            You barbarian.  Please quit with this specious and ridiculous argument.

            And please don’t start in with the original intent BS.  If you can tell me what any group of 45 men thought over two hundred years ago about the problems of today, then you should run the world.  Most of them didn’t write down what they thought at all. What an idiotic idea.  And that means I am calling at least two members of our current US Supreme Court idiots.

            1. “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” – to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

              And as I said before, I have no problem with amending the Constitution as the framers originally intended, and as Jefferson is referring to here.  If enough people support it, make the change, but reading things into the Constitution that are not there is completely different than what Jefferson says in this quote.  Jefferson is simply stating that with changing times, the Constitution can be amended (slavery), but he didn’t say that you can interpret the constitution differently and when the original document was written. 

              As for understanding what the group of 55 men from over 200 years ago were thinking, we can get a good impression from the documents they left behind. 

              Why do you feel the need to attack me personally because you don’t agree with me? 

              1. The quote I stated comes directly from the side of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington.  I know because that’s where I originally read it and it’s on a poster in just that form sold at the Memorial which I have in my office.  I will check your citation and if it is correct, I will start to use the full quote.  But your additional sentence in no way changes the import of the quote.  Jefferson, of all of the founding fathers, knew the import of their words.  He knew words had different meanings both at the time written and in later years.  He also clearly knew that words and concepts change over time.  That’s why his statement is so profound and so ignored by those of you who don’t think the Constitution is or was intended to be a living document.  Jefferson knew better.

                As for the minds of the founding fathers and what you know about them, I would suggest that you know what very few thought about the issues and some of them were quite contradictory.  To say that you can divine the intent of the founders, well that’s just nonsense.

                The need to attack you.  Its the same need that we all have to attack Rush Limbaugh.  What at least a few of us have learned is that if you don’t attack a silly statement or a flat out lie, they have a way of becoming true in some people’s minds.  Democrats (of which I am not one) have this liberal snootiness that allows them to just say that the comment is so ridiculous that no one will believe it.  Sutpid, but the mindset of Democrats.

                I am under no such illusions.  You folks must be challenged at every turn otherwise, the American people, as lazy as they are, may allow you to re-write history in your own vision.

                I for one won’t let you get away with it.  That’s why all those cute lies about Democrats that make their rounds on the Internet don’t go unanswered by me, especially when they are so demonstratively false.

                So buck up friend.  The free pass is over on this web site.

                1. http://www.monticell

                  Panel four
                  “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

                  Original Passage:
                  “I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

                  — to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1810

                  I find it ironic that you seem to understand so much about Jefferson’s mind, but state “To say that you can divine the intent of the founders, well that’s just nonsense.” 

                  Thanks for your honesty about the attacks, it explains a lot. 

                  Funny, I was just about to suggest that you were part of the Ministry of Truth, re-writing history at will.  But don’t worry, I won’t let you get away with it either.  🙂

          3. What a straw man.  Let me print this slowly, Foggy:  The ability to amend the constitution is within the constitution. 

            No founding father statements needed.

            God, you are so weird.

        1. And the 10th Amendment goes on to say that whereas rights that aren’t enumerated aren’t *necessarily* denied, that’s a question left not to the Constitution, nor to the federal government, but to the states or to the people.

          The problem with using the 9th Amendment as the catch-all is that I can claim that I have a Right to Have WiFi, or a Right to Have Free Buffalo Wings on Mondays – arguing that so long as the Constitution doesn’t deny that right, I must have it.

          Obviously, that’s not the case. 

          Like was said above, if you *want* to have a Right like that, you’re free to seek it through your state.  You’re even free to Amend the Constitution to guarantee that right at a federal level (Like the Right to Not Be A Slave, or the Right to Not Drink Booze, or the Right to Drink Booze).  But you can’t just pull any alleged “right” you want out of thin air, whether you’re someone who likes Wings and WiFi, or whether you’re a Supreme Court Justice. 

          It Don’t Work That Way.

          1. … just because the right is not clearly denoted in the Constitution does NOT mean that it does not exist (in contrast to what seemed to be the gist of your earlier comment, but I might have been mistaken).

            I was NOT saying that any wild desire was thus automatically a “right.” I know that the recognition of rights is usually very hard won. However, that a right is not currently enumerated is not an argument against it being a right.

            (Perhaps, for sake of argument, we could call it an incipient right? Or, a fetal right?! Hmm, at what point does a right become a right? Only after it has been enumerated? Or as early as when it has been fertilized?) Just funnin!

          2. I think its purpose is to give shape to the rights that “lurk”, but are not clearly illuminated, in the constitution.

            Privacy is one of those rights.  I think the right to privacy is embeded conceptually in ammendment 3,4 and 5.  It wasn’t included, because the right to privacy was so obvious that there was no need to announce it.

            1. I think the point’s more to say “Just because we didn’t say it, doesn’t mean you can’t do it.  All we’re saying here is that this is what you absolutely can’t screw up, so don’t.”  Followed by “If you want to codify other stuff to not screw up, the states are by all means free and expected to do so, as are the people free to take that responsibility upon themselves.”

              1. Are you simply making an “ultimate soveriegnty lies in the states” argument?

                It seems like you are.  You devolve any powers not entrusted to the feds to the states and only ensure the limited individual rights specifically mentioned in the constitution.

                If so basically states would have powers limited only by the few powers that the feds are directly given and the few specific individual rights mentioned in the constitution.  Is that your position?

                1. My position is that the 9th Amendment simply clarifies that whatever they haven’t included isn’t legally *restricted,* but rather what they have included in the Constitution is simply all that’s important enough to be *protected.*  The 10th Amendment clarifies that if folks want to protect anything not previously restricted, or restrict anything previously protected, that the states and/or private individuals are free to do so.

                  So long as the States, or the people, follow the guidelines in bold above, they can do whatever they want, Constitutionally speaking. 

                  Which, in concept, is where I think democracy really ought to be.  After all, our very own self-promoter was on PBS (watched by all 11 generous donors) debating with a member of the state legislature, not the Congress.  From an accessibility standpoint, let alone from an accountability standpoint, it just makes sense.  And that’s what I think the whole point of this republican government is.

                  1. if soveriegnty is vested in the states and not in the individual you basically believe that individuals are second to the state and exist to serve the several states.

                    Doesn’t sound like what the founding fathers were fighting for.

                    1. With the expressed intention to secure the inalienable rights of mankind and the social contract which holds it together, I think the true top level of government the founders intended, with the exceptions that are clearly explained in the Constitution (see Art. I, Sec. 8), is indeed the state.

                      The reason I think this is and ought to be the case is that it’s the level at which stuff can get done, yet it’s also the level at which ordinary people can know and do influence their representatives. 

                      I said as much above.  Which, if you pay careful attention to what I say, not to what you think you want me to say, implies that the citizen is indeed the authority by which the government operates.

                      Which is kind of the whole point – governments are instituted among men to secure their (men’s) inalienable rights, deriving their powers from the just consent of the governed.

                      Anytime government goes beyond the point of securing those rights, the closer to the point of consent that overreaching government is, the better. 

                      The most important body of government is the state, which derives its authority from the people who vote for and continue to bug their representatives in that body.

                      Have I made myself clear yet?

                    2. You quote passages that vest power in the individual, but do not grant them any rights that would make that power real.

                      As to the substance that states are superior to the fed, we tried that it was called the articles of confederation and it was a failure.

                    3. Considering I clearly countered your mis-assessments of what I wrote in what I wrote, it’s clear you aren’t debating in good faith.  Thanks for playing, but my patience for your game has worn thin.

                      At least Foggy’s funny when he plays it.  You just sound like the guard in Quest for the Holy Grail, only without the ironic self-awareness.

                    4. When you write something that I find unclear I ask a question.

                      I am trying to understand the logic of your argument. 

                      The only good faith I offer is that I will not create facts.  If your logic is faulty I am under no obligation to refrain from pointing that out.

                      As to clearly countering my mis assessments.  I am not sure what you mean.  I ask you to clarify your position, you do and then I extend the logic or counter the supposition.  I can’t help it if your arguments don’t hold water when exposed to facts or logic.

                      BTW I don’t consider this a game.  I consider this a fundamental part of democracy.

      2. And I must admit that I am utterly confused. When you say there is “not even a right to vote,” are you saying that the 14th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments are void?

      3. You are just reading the original document; you have to read the original document and all the decisions since.  Legislations pass laws and executives issue orders at all levels of our government. If those actions are challenged as unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court hears arguments on both sides and rules. Those rulings or decisions of the Court become part of the constitution….it is kinda like the Super Bowl….

        Yokel, you are bright but you only have a piece of how this country works.
        You need to educate yourself.

    5. I think the jubilation and assumptions that Lefties will come out in droves is a bit premature.  Culturally speaking, abortion isn’t seen so much of as a Right anymore, but rather a dirty little secret – one that is veiled in euphemistic language and almost never seriously considered, let alone actually undertaken within film and television (to glance at what cultural mirrors we do have). 

      The radical, militant wing of the Left which succeeded in creating abortion as a “right” appears to have won the battle but lost the war.  The discussion is rarely about abortion as a “right,” but rather merely as a “decision.”  And I think in falling back on the old rhetoric against this measure, the Left could just as likely succeed in turning off a large number of voters, as it might bring them out in droves.

      A little premature in either case, of course, but “Let’s not go sucking…” well, you know the rest.

      At least *that* doesn’t lead to deep discussions that go no where like this one is about to.

      1. expert on the left are you? Tell me this my friend, why are republicans continually losing on social issues throughout the US? The only issues the R’s even hold up a fight with Dems anymore is on national security, and more people are tired fo the Cons hyperbole that if we don’t give up our rights we will dies.

        it’s in all actuality, the opposite of what you believe. D’s, I, and moderate R’s are turning against the social-lunatic fringe of the Cons (Gays, God, Guns that is) and voting for more responsible individuals who will protect our rights and push forward with issues that concern the great good.

        1. it is as simple as this quote:

          “If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you will always have Paul’s support”

          Liberals, to win office and advance their agenda of socialism, are willing to promise voters just about anything from “free” healthcare to subsidies for farmers.  that is why Democrats win. Unfortunately many Republicans have gloomed onto this tactic and have been using it for years. 

          In fact, Alexis de Tocqueville warned us that “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

          1. Democrats do no offer anything for “free” regardless of what you’ve been told by the Republicans. “Ask not what your country can do for…” comes to mind. It’s about sacrifice for the greater good.

            You talking points Con-men really give me a good laugh each and everyday.

            1. It is not free, after all you have to vote for the Democrat to get it. 

              As for, “sacrifice for the greater good”… the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

          2. “The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money.”

            I believe that this quote can best be applied to pork which is not unique to either party. Rs too are guilty.

            Still, thanks for a great quote Foggy.

      2. it is also contraception.  You would have a hard time convincing most women that their access to contraception is not a right.

        As far as abortion, you need to get your arguments consistent.  Is it a “dirty little secret” that doesn’t happen very often, or is it an “American holocaust” as Mike Huckabee claims?

        In any case, I’m glad this will make it to the ballot.  I’ll sign the petition to get it there.  This is good for pro-choice candidates as this ballot measure will go down in flames in the neighborhood of 70-30 and will help pro-choice candidates across the board.

        Y’all have picked the wrong wedge issue this time….

        1. Contraception’s a “Right?”  If most women think that, most women are complete raving morons.

          And I have a higher regard for women than that. 

          Though with the state of civics education in public schools…

          Culturally, it is a dirty little secret.  Count the cultural elements you’ve seen which veil it in euphemistic language like “keep the baby” or “there are options, you know.”  Now count those that say “**** the Man keeping me down, I’m aborting my fetus.”

          If you want a lopsided poll, I daresay that’s a little more than your 70/30 prediction.

          1. women don’t chose to terminate a preganancy simply because it is their right to do so.  Further, those that do chose to terminate a preganancy are not trying to make a political statement. 

            Challenge their rights to reproductive freedom, though, and the women of this state (and their male allies) will make a political statement that will be heard loudly and clearly.

            1. The rhetoric of “choice” and “decision” has taken the air out of the militancy of “right” and “entitlement.”

              Simply put, I think the Pro-Life “foot soldiers” react more vehemently and in greater unity than the Pro-Choicers, especially in a measure such as this – carefully worded so that the Pro-Life folks know exactly what this means – and particularly when considering the unity and voice the Pro-Choice movement *used* to have.

              1. that liberal bastion, South Dakota, defeated a “pro-life” measure just last year.  The pro-lifers were unified and reacted more vehemently than did the pro-choicers.  Right?

                Wrong.  The measure lost.

                I doubt the amendment as proposed would fly anywhere outside of Utah…and it would be a stretch there.

                The problem it has is the same as the one in South Dakota did…it over-reaches.  Even those who may oppose abortion do not oppose birth control pills. 

                  1. not to be confused with New Hampshire, where Republicans in 2002 jammed democratic phone line to suppress democratic votes; or Oregon or Nevada where in 2004 Republican voter registrars (Voters Outreach of America) disposed of Democratic voter registration forms while submitting Republican ones; or Florida where in 2000 where non-felons were barred from voting based on their names by the Republican Secretary of State.

          2. Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird establish the right of couples (married or unmarried) to posses and use contraception.  You might not agree with the decisions, but there they are, whether you agree or not.  Until and unless those decisions are changed, or the Constitution amended, everyone in the United States has a right to contraception.

            Sorry if that offends or upsets you.

            1. If that’s the case, I really SHOULD sue the DMV for not providing WiFi and tasty snacks.

              In other words, I think your summary that people have an Inalienable Right to wrap up is a *bit* of an over simplification.

              Not that the decisions are near the top of the list of all-time Supreme Court jackassery, regardless of what a balanced, non-spin summary would actually suggest of them.

              1. … but those two cases are universally cited as establishing the right of consenting adults to buy and use contraceptives.  Griswold is based on a right of privacy within marital relationships.  Eisenstadt extends Griswold to unmarried couples based on equal protection arguments.

                As I said, you may not agree with those decisions, but as a matter of law, it seems pretty well settled.

                As to whether there is some “inalienable right” to contraception, you’ll have to take that up in theology or philosophy class.

                1. Not hardly.  What a Right is also is the jurisdiction of the judicial system.  By definition (and a little bit of punnery).

                  The decisions do not so much define a Right to Contraception, but rather limit the government from restricting commerce in such a manner.  Do I also have a Right to Buy Snickers Bars simply because no judge has said I don’t?  Of course not.  But the default is that the government cannot limit that commerce.

                  The obvious exceptions, of course, are alcohol, tobacco, and firearms and drugs.  The arguments with regard to contraception are not that contraception is a Protected Class of commerce, but rather that it’s *not* a restricted class, for various reasons where contraception does not negatively affect the public good in a way that alcohol and drugs may.

                  Saying that we have a Right to Contraception is like saying we have a Right to Snickers Bars.  And I know you’re not *that* dense.

                  1. A right is a “just claim”.  Nothing more or less.  So, if it’s actionable in court, it’s a legal right, no matter how trivial.

                    I assert that if the state of Colorado, or the city of Denver, or any other jurisdiction in the USA, attempted to restrict my ability to buy or use contraceptives, I would be able to put forward a claim in court that any such restriction is null and void.  Under Griswold and Eisenstadt, this claim would be recognized and the restriction nullified, not on the basis of commerce, but on the basis of privacy and equal protection.  The Connecticut law challenged in Griswold apparently prohibited not just the sale, but also the use, of contraceptives.  The Supreme Court considered the right to use contraception as a significant component of the right to privacy.  That’s the basis of the opinion in Griswold, not a right to conduct commerce.

                    1. “A right is a “just claim”.  Nothing more or less.”

                      That means rights don’t exist until someone claims that they do.  Which means that the “inalienable rights” those wacky liberals talked about in the Constitution (and before) aren’t inalienable at all.  Which means you have no right to life, or liberty – by what authority do you claim those rights?  What if someone else claims “rights” that directly counter your claims – say, a right to wiretap your phone, let alone to take your life all together?  Who wins?  The loudest claimant? 

                      No.  There is a Greater Power involved in the existence of the Rights of Man.  Jefferson alluded to a Creator endowing those rights, but whatever you believe our personhood comes from, you have to believe there are certain aspects of that personhood that are essential to existence and to protect.

                      Otherwise, you prescribe anarchy, or slavery, or both.

                  2. You have a novel legal theory.  One that I have never heard before. 

                    Your understanding of the commerce clause is flawed, but you are correct that it is not a right to contraception.  But the recognition of the right to privacy contained in the “penumbra” of the constitution in essence gives people the right to contraception, gay sex or to be a furry (don’t ask saw it on a CSI rerun).

                    To throw you a bone yokel, I actually think that Roe v. Wade can easily be overturned without threatening griswold and lawrence (the case that overturned bowers).  This ammendment is basically the way to do it: if it were federal.  However, I think defining a human being is a federal issue (think 13th and 14th) otherwise how could the feds ban slavery?

                    However, if you could ammend the federal constitution or have some of those conservative federal activist judges make the stretch and define a fetus as a human being.  Then the human would have rights without implicating privacy.

                    That is actually the way I see the debate evolving as medical science pushes viability back.  By the same token I see more widely available access to birth control for teens, more plan B and early pregency detection and termination.

                    1. A long time ago.  And the “Penumbra” struck me then, as it does now, as a fancy way of saying “The Constitution doesn’t say anything about this, but we think it should be okay, so we’re going to say it’s okay because we think it should be.”

                      It’s little more than judicial wishful thinking. 

                      But it made me realize something interesting – french fries and smoking are far more regulated now than contraception and even abortion.  And I don’t care who you are – that’s just messed up.

                    2. Is that Griswold and Roe are the same case, same reasoning same thing.  If Roe goes, so goes Griswold.  Good luck to those of you who have relatives anywhere in the south or in a lot of places in the midwest, because birth control (except for condoms which no self respecting Bubba would think of using) is gone.  See my post above.  This isn’t only about abortion.  It’s about outlawing most forms of birth control.  And its about punishing women and doctors.  It’s about what it’s all about, the need for certain men with little penises and very low self esteem to control women.  Plain and simple.

                    3. but there are ways to overturn roe without overturning griswold.

                      Some people may want to overturn both, but it is not necessary.

                    4. Without being intellectually dishonest (and I know that the gang of four is) you can’t overrule Roe without overruling Griswold.  Besides, I have never thought that was their goal anyway.  I think it is to have a constitution which states that a fertilized egg is a person, just like you and me.  Besides, the true believers, who are running this thing believe most contraception is abortion anyway and they want to stop it. 

                    5. Because I beleive they can be separated quite simply. 

                      I await your answer because it will color how I respond.

                    6. While you’re obsessed with the genitalia of those with whom you disagree, you miss their disagreement.  Which is ironic.

                      It’s not some vast conspiracy to control all of reproduction in one fell swoop. 

                      Now, it’s about birth control, to paraphrase Chesterton, inasmuch as they’re concerned that while people actually use the latter, they also occasionally let it result in the former. 

                      Which is a radical concept, I know.

                      No, I’m pretty sure it really *is* about what some believe is nothing more than mass infanticide.

                      You can keep fantasizing if it makes you feel better, though.

                    7. as I said the 3, 4, 5 are privacy issues. when supported by the 9 you have a clear protection of privacy.

                      And you are incorrect about the relative regulation.  Just plain  flat wrong.

                    8. Liberty and Property.  Rather, property and liberty, respectively, but you get the point.

                      It’s not that you’re free to do whatever you wish with your stuff or yourself.  It’s simply that you’re free from any undue imposition by the government upon your property or your liberty.

                      Which used to mean something, before “liberty” was co-opted by the libertine.  I’d suggest actually reading up on what “liberty” meant to the really smart guys who came up with our (formerly) Enlightened world today.

                    9. while that makes a great bumper sticker (as so often conservative talking points do) it is patently false (as so often conservative talking points are).

                      Medical facilities are very regulated as are pharmaceuticals.  While smoking and french fries are regulated, they do not have nearly the regulations placed on them as do medical clinics or pharmacies. Compare a fast food resturant kitchen to a surgical clinic and you will see the difference. 

      3. Don’t pinch yourself please.  The vast majority of people who don’t think it is a right, think it is something that is none of your business and none of government’s business, the libertarian pro-choicers like me.  This amendment is the one that most convinces them that the Republican Party is lost forever as long as these nuts are in charge.  Ask 10 republicans in my community and I would give odds 8 of them feel this way.

  3. http://news.yahoo.co

    Up until now, I’ve at least somewhat understood Pelosi and Reid’s “strategy” (if you can call it that) on Iraq.  But why oh why are we passing another bill for the Prez to Veto?

    This isn’t about getting out of the war.  God knows we need to do that.  But why pass another bill that Bush will reject on the same grounds as the last war funding bill when there’s still no chance of an override?  What point does this prove?!  Does it really pacify the far left?  I don’t think so.  Does it bring the troops home?  Of course not.  It’s purely symbolic…but who does the symbolism impress?

    Excuse me while I go bang my head against the nearest wall…

      1. good point.  But I have little faith in Harry “The Stormin’ Mormon” Reid and his political analysis of how this will play out…

        Like I responded to Go Blue, hopefully I’m completely wrong.

    1. price tag for the war, I think the leadership might finally get our point, that it’s time to end this madness

      Reid said Tuesday that if the bridge fund does not pass, the Pentagon can start paying for the war out of its regular appropriation. That $459 billion spending bill passed last week and was signed into law Tuesday. If that’s seen as not supporting the troops, voters should blame Republicans and President Bush, not congressional Democrats, he said

      1. But I have a hard time believeing that this won’t devolve into another, “you’re not supporting the troops” BS argument that Repubs are so good at making.  Couple that with the fact that we are actually (albeit painfully slowly) pulling out troops and the people that are still dumb enough to believe Repubs on…well…anything, will eat it up w/ a spoon. Thus, Bush’s cash register…I mean Congress…will drop to their knees like a ten-dollar…ok, nevermind…but you see my point.

        I have very little faith in the “voters…blam[ing] Republicans and President Bush, not congressional Democrats.”

        Hopefully I’m ass-backwards wrong about this…

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

58 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!