He asked a question regarding who can bring suit (standing). "Anyone can bring suit" even if not literally anyone, gives a wrong answer to his question
LOL, lawyers!!!BMX Bandit said:
He asked a question regarding who can bring suit (standing). "Anyone can bring suit" even if not literally anyone, gives a wrong answer to his question
ChoppinDs40 said:
It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.
Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
Science Denier said:ChoppinDs40 said:
It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.
Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
Lol, there is the concept out there thats kind of new, so you may not be aware.
It's called adoption.
Might want to google it.
18 years? Try 13 years. Inner cities gonna be like Central America. Ghettos are gonna start cranking out them babies.ChoppinDs40 said:
It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.
Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
Oh and also people will point out some that became business moguls, athletes or famous musicians. But that's like 1 outta 10. 6 outta 10 of 'em gonna be gangbangers/crime.ChoppinDs40 said:
It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.
Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
How many of the babies killed are crack and meth babies? Curious as I've not seen that count.ChoppinDs40 said:Science Denier said:ChoppinDs40 said:
It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.
Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
Lol, there is the concept out there thats kind of new, so you may not be aware.
It's called adoption.
Might want to google it.
lol yeah because you're first in line right now to start adopting crack and meth babies.
www.valuethemboth.com.aggiehawg said:Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.agracer said:Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.aggiehawg said:10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government._mpaul said:What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
5 star athletes with guns.GeorgiAg said:
NY, CA, OR, WA, C0 - abortions still legal
Basically SEC states - abortion will be illegal.
It's all a fiendish plot by SEC schools to create more 5* athletes.
I was looking for another gif, but his will do.B-1 83 said:5 star athletes with guns.GeorgiAg said:
NY, CA, OR, WA, C0 - abortions still legal
Basically SEC states - abortion will be illegal.
It's all a fiendish plot by SEC schools to create more 5* athletes.
agracer said:www.valuethemboth.com.aggiehawg said:Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.agracer said:Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.aggiehawg said:10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government._mpaul said:What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
In 2019 the KS Supreme court ruled that an unlimited right to abortion was written into the 1869 State of Kansas Constitution which basically means any and all laws currently in effect limiting abortion in KS could potentially be ruled null and void.
From Hawg..BTHOB said:agracer said:www.valuethemboth.com.aggiehawg said:Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.agracer said:Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.aggiehawg said:10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government._mpaul said:What part of Dobbs makes you think that?aggiehawg said:I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.javajaws said:Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.Urban Ag said:
It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
In 2019 the KS Supreme court ruled that an unlimited right to abortion was written into the 1869 State of Kansas Constitution which basically means any and all laws currently in effect limiting abortion in KS could potentially be ruled null and void.
I think hawg was referring to federal laws and US Constitution…. Not state law and/or state constitution. In fact, that's what the latest SCOTUS ruling does: it gives states the ability to regulate it themselves, through legislation (including state constitutions).
Quote:
Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
The thing about thin air as a support for a legal ruling, it can go away with a puff.Quote:
I was referring to the KS Supreme court basically inventing a right to abortion in the State of KS out of thin air in their 2019 ruling.
no, KS has to pass a constitutional amendment to allow all current laws limiting abortion in KS legal again.aggiehawg said:The thing about thin air as a support for a legal ruling, it can go away with a puff.Quote:
I was referring to the KS Supreme court basically inventing a right to abortion in the State of KS out of thin air in their 2019 ruling.