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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (84699)	11/7/2004 10:19:07 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793795

You're right, the issue of gay marriage should be left to the states, as well.

To: Rambi who wrote (84699)	11/10/2004 6:06:09 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 793795

So you feel that the SC opinions took interpretation of the 9th and 14th amendments too far? That it should be up to each state to determine how much control a woman can have of her own body? Does that mean you would not have ruled in favor of the women in the first cases? If the law can constitutionally tell you that you can't smoke marijuana, that you can't drink alcohol at 20, and that you can't sell or buy sex then it can and does tell you what you can do with your own body. I think such laws should be removed by the state legislatures but they aren't unconstitutional. Griswold v. Connecticut was a rather twisted decision constitutionally. The fact that it struck down a bad, even an unjust law doesn't make it a good decision, because the law didn't violate the constitution. Not evey very bad law is unconstitutional. So abortions would only be allowed in NY, Hawaii, and Ca until each legislature took it up? No. Other states had legal abortion at the time of Roe vs. Wade. And the laws in states where it was illegal would probably not be immediately enforced before either the legislature or the state courts had time to deal with the issue. Tim