Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (63367)	11/17/1999 7:57:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

The Supremes implied the right from other rights My interpretation of "Stop in the name of love" also....

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (63367)	11/17/1999 8:30:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

Rather than rehash the argument, which, as you know, all too often descends into the emotional and rabidly partisan, I am posting a list of reading suggestions. They include the entire Roe v. Wade decision as well dissenting opinions as well as thoughts from both sides of the argument with interesting links. My own thoughts I posted on this thread months ago. I think that I see both sides more clearly than most, for personal reasons. I cannot be scornful or dismissive of either; I have lived too long and too much to enjoy such a luxury. I am posting these links to you because I think that if you have the time, you are likely to read them. I hope that other posters will as well and consider their positions--both sides--again as they read. Regards.... members.aol.com members.aol.com law.about.com roevwade.org fairfieldweekly.com publishing.grolier.com kzpg.com ustaxpayers.org paprolife.org naral.org

To: Tom Clarke who wrote (63367)	11/17/1999 11:14:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Your cousin is right that Roe v. Wade flows directly from Griswold v. Connecticut, which I also think was correctly decided. The disdain held for the "penumbra" argument has always intrigued me. I am kind of a throw-back, myself, I belive that the Constitution specifically states all the powers that the federal government has, and that ALL other powers are retained by individuals, save only for those powers justly held by the states. The question is, what happens when states arrogate to themselves powers which rightly belong to individuals? Does the United States Supreme Court have the power, as the court of last resort, to declare acts of states unconstitutional, even though they do not violate anything specifically enumerated in the Constitution? If your answer is "no," who will protect us, if our state Supreme Court won't? If your answer is "yes," where is the authority? This is a very troubling question, and it's not one that should be treated lightly. It is inherent in our concept of liberty, justice, and due process of law, that the right of the individual to live an orderly life within his own home is sacred. It was a fundamental belief of our English ancestors that the King could not enter the hovel of a peasant without an invitation. Our Constitution limits the power of the federal government to "enter" the hovel of the common man, although we seem to have lost sight of that. Does the Constitution protect the ordinary man from the depredations of state government? I don't believe that the signers of the Constitution thought it did, but it's clear that the last century of Supreme Court justices think it does, and for that, I am grateful. Let me give you a hypothetical: suppose that the legislature of Massachusetts decides to criminalize witchcraft, and determines that the penalty for witchcraft is burning at the stake. Does that violate the Constitutional provisions about due process and cruel and unusual punishment?