| Head of Security  Join Date: May 2005 Location: The Cradle of Liberty Gender:  Posts: 11,446 Country:  Points: 64,327, Level: 100 | Level up: 0%, 0 Points needed |  |  Quote: |
Originally Posted by hevusa Quote: |
Originally Posted by Tabris Quote: |
Originally Posted by aMFliberal Quote: |
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Quote: |
Originally Posted by aMFliberal Actually, you're completely wrong. Hev said Roe v. Wade has not been overturned, thus it is the will of the people that it remains that way. The precedents set forth by the Plessy and Dred Scott cases WERE overturned, thus they were overturned because that was the will of the people. Obviously the people didn't just will these decisions to happen, but at some point or another, the collective will of the people influenced Dred Scott and Plessy to be overturned, just as the collective will of the people is keeping Roe v. Wade from being overturned. | Once again, know your history. Brown v Board of Education (1954) which overturned Plessy was not welcomed with open arms, or have you forgotten that great Democratic Governor George Wallace's statement, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." Dred Scott took a Civil War and a Constitutional amendment. They were were far from the will of the people. The issue of abortion is just as divisive, except no longer is the division between North and South. The collective will of the people had nothing to do with the overturning of Plessy, read the Brown decision, the court relied upon psychological data. Plessy was overturned in spite of the fact that there was overwhelming pressure by the people to maintain the decision. THe court intrepretted the constitution and decided that under equality, the notion of seperate but equal could not exist. Plessy was overturned despite the will of the people. Hev's own statement was that it shouldn't be overturned because it is the will of the people, a very similiar argument used by southern racists in upholding the Plessy decision.
Know your history, know your facts, my statement is still accurate, and still correct. The notion that the will of the people is what is influencing the Court's decision is fallable. I used a historical demonstration of that argument, it happened to be regarding racism, but the parallels still apply and are accurate. Do I consider hev a racist, no, but I used that issue to show the fallacy of the argument used. Instead of realizing the accuracy of the argument, instead history is adjusted to fit the argument.
dmk | Until Roe v. Wade is overturned, you're still incorrect.
I don't need big fancy words and long explanations for a comeback, it's plain and simple in this case. | Eh, you don't necessarily need the majority of the people to do it. The whole idea being that their representatives *should* vote on their behalf, but often vote on their own behalf (both sides). A direct vote to every American that's eligible would be preferable, but extremely unlikely. Roberts striking down of Roe would free up the issue for each state to put the votes to their citizens. Let the will of the people of each state figure themselves out. While the majority very well may be pro-choice, the majority of a state like Texas would be pro-life. |
That would create the most stupid situation. Women travelling to different states to receive care? Or not having enough money to travel so they receive dangerous, unauthorized care. STUPID! | I agree incredibly stupid. There is a reason we have a Federal Government, and part of that is to create national standards. Fight the good fight, and die with the enemy's heart in your hand. http://www.armysailor.com http://www.tadpolenet.com/techblog
------------------------------------
Check out my latest addition to the blogosphere Quixotic Journey
|