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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (10257)	1/29/2006 3:01:13 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541674

That's exactly what I've been arguing. Roe overturned laws making abortion illegal. It didn't assert the right to one. If the Court overturns blue laws, it doesn't mean that we have a right to shop on Sunday. It merely removes the legal barrier. If stores choose not to open, to name just one factor, we still can't shop. But this is the case with most rights. The right to vote for women, for African American males, etc. was an assertion that states or municipalities could not rule against. Neither mandated that one had to vote. The illustration trivializes the right. The presence of a right does not mandate its exercise. As I understand Roe, it asserts that the right of women to an abortion is protected under the constitution as against attempts of states to block it. As for your drug illustration, you are conflating the difference between legislative acts (making drugs legal) and constitutional interpretation (the SC). We definitely disagree on this one. I simply cannot see the grounds for your assertion. And I gather you cannot see mine. Looks as if this is one of those agree to disagree moments. Frankly, I thought the discussion would be about the meanings to be attached to various attempts to limit the exercise of the right and which persons were eligible to exercise it under what sorts of conditions rather than the right itself. Or, you might have argued that you simply disagreed with the SC interpretation of the Constitution that it was a right. Had it been the latter we could have argued that, though I suspect neither of us would care to rehearse that old ground. But to assert it's not a right? Very strange.