Tyranny

[wayneL]

Canada jumps the tyranical shark.

 

[moXJO]

Push for third vax or you can't enter school grounds in Victoria. Despite the fact that kids are not a 'at risk' group.

 

[Humid]

Push for third vax or you can't enter school grounds in Victoria. Despite the fact that kids are not a 'at risk' group.

Do you hang around schools?

 

[moXJO]

Do you hang around schools?

Yes.
I have kids at school.

 

[Humid]

Yes.
I have kids at school.

And your vaxed and don't live in Victoria

 

[moXJO]

And your vaxed and don't live in Victoria

Doesn’t mean I'm going to shut up about it. A dumb idea is a dumb idea. And I'll point it out.

No 3rd dose for me and not getting it till/if it's needed. Dan andrews had a change of heart anyway.

 

[Humid]

Doesn’t mean I'm going to shut up about it. A dumb idea is a dumb idea. And I'll point it out.

No 3rd dose for me and not getting it till/if it's needed. Dan andrews had a change of heart anyway.

 

[Knobby22]

About Putin:

"He goes to bed at night thinking of Peter the Great and he wakes up thinking of Stalin,"

former US intelligence committee chair Mike Rogers observed in 2014

 

[Knobby22]

Here we go again. History repeating.

Government getting into peoples lives. Repression.

Roe vs Wade to be overturned allowing the Government to ban abortions.

Obviously the next step is to ban/limit birth control such as the pill and revisit Griswold v. Connecticut.

And keep banning books such which has really taken off in Republican States.

Efforts to ban books jumped an 'unprecedented' four-fold in 2021, ALA report says

The American Library Association says libraries faced the highest number of book challenges since they started tracking in 2000. Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer topped their list of most challenged books.

www.npr.org

The USA is really losing the meaning of freedom. Lucky to live here. Live and let live guys!

 

[wayneL]

Here we go again. History repeating.

Government getting into peoples lives. Repression.

Roe vs Wade to be overturned allowing the Government to ban abortions.

Obviously the next step is to ban/limit birth control such as the pill and revisit Griswold v. Connecticut.

And keep banning books such which has really taken off in Republican States.

Efforts to ban books jumped an 'unprecedented' four-fold in 2021, ALA report says

The American Library Association says libraries faced the highest number of book challenges since they started tracking in 2000. Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer topped their list of most challenged books.

www.npr.org

The USA is really losing the meaning of freedom. Lucky to live here. Live and let live guys!

That's not actually what it does Knobby. The overturning of Roe v Wade rests on constitutional grounds and puts the decision-making back to the states as was the case previously.

Now some states may indeed ban abortion, but it should be noted that there's nothing to stop a woman crossing state lines if abortion is legal in another state, to have it done there.

In reality there would be very few states that would actually ban abortion although they may be limited up to a certain stage, and other certain conditions such as Florida has recently done.

The hysteria is reminiscent of the recent "don't say gay" nonsense, which the bill in question never even intimated at whatsoever.

The decision is correct and in accordance with constitutional law as mentioned.

 

[Knobby22]

That's not actually what it does Knobby. The overturning of Roe v Wade rests on constitutional grounds and puts the decision-making back to the states as was the case previously.

Now some states may indeed ban abortion, but it should be noted that there's nothing to stop a woman crossing state lines if abortion is legal in another state, to have it done there.

In reality there would be very few states that would actually ban abortion although they may be limited up to a certain stage, and other certain conditions such as Florida has recently done.

The hysteria is reminiscent of the recent "don't say gay" nonsense, which the bill in question never even intimated at whatsoever.

The decision is correct and in accordance with constitutional law as mentioned.

Its about the government wanting to control people.
But you are right, you can cross state lines. If you are wealthy this won't matter. Just catch a plane to Los Angeles.
If you are poor or very young and taken advantage of, well bad luck, single motherhood for you.
I find it oppressive.

 

[wayneL]

Its about the government wanting to control people.
But you are right, you can cross state lines. If you are wealthy this won't matter. Just catch a plane to Los Angeles.
If you are poor or very young and taken advantage of, well bad luck, single motherhood for you.
I find it oppressive.

You realise there is a separation of powers, viz legislative, executive, and judicial.

In this case the federal judicial overrules the wishes of the federal legislative in favour of the state level of legislative power.

There is absolutely no compulsion in this decision to ban abortion whatsoever... None .. Nada... Zilch, therefore the assertion that this is the government wanting to control people is nonsense.

Interestingly the same people who are screaming pro-choice over this issue are the same people who were screaming in favour of covid "vaccine" mandates. What was that about oppression again?

For the record I don't have an opinion either way on abortion, I don't have any skin in the game so my interest is just in what is constitutionally correct.

 

[The Triangle]

You realise there is a separation of powers, viz legislative, executive, and judicial.

In this case the federal judicial overrules the wishes of the federal legislative in favour of the state level of legislative power.

There is absolutely no compulsion in this decision to ban abortion whatsoever... None .. Nada... Zilch, there for us ocean that this is the government want to control people is nonsense.

Interestingly the same people who are screaming pro-choice over this issue are the same people who were screaming in favour of covid "vaccine" mandates. What was that about oppression again?

For the record I don't have an opinion either way on abortion, I don't have any skin in the game so my interest is just in what is constitutionally correct.

Interestingly the same people who are screaming pro-life over this issue are the same people who were screaming against covid "vaccine" mandates. What was that about oppression again? ?

 

[wayneL]

Interestingly the same people who are screaming pro-life over this issue are the same people who were screaming against covid "vaccine" mandates. What was that about oppression again? ?

Fair point too.

Once again, for the record. If forced to give an opinion on abortion on a legal/legislative basis, fair enough in the first trimester or thereabouts. After that I think you'd would need a pretty good reason to justify it. </personalopinion>

 

[wayneL]

While we're on this subject, let's mention voluntary euthanasia, perhaps even compassionate euthanasia?

Same issue, opposite ends of life.

 

[The Triangle]

While we're on this subject, let's mention voluntary euthanasia, perhaps even compassionate euthanasia?

Same issue, opposite ends of life.

I'd say both standard 'left and right' sides are at least reasonably consistent there. But it all gets messy again with the death penalty.

Left - pro choice (go have an abortion if you like, then get some help taking your own life 60 years later if you like)
Right - pro life (no abortion for you, no getting help taking your own life, get a rope and do it yourself).

I propose a happy compromise for Americans on the left and right.... Allow abortion - but men (birthing seed persons) don't have to pay child support if they didn't want the baby. Would make things interesting.

But I think no matter what side you’re on that sound arguments can hardly be made on constitutional grounds for things a constitution cannot and did not foresee. No one considered things like bitcoin, twitter or abortion when writing the original or when writing any amendments. The US constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on as there are too many amendments and obscure terms making it impossible to manage or interpret in a way that is acceptable to the majority.

 

[wayneL]

I'd say both standard 'left and right' sides are at least reasonably consistent there. But it all gets messy again with the death penalty.

Left - pro choice (go have an abortion if you like, then get some help taking your own life 60 years later if you like)
Right - pro life (no abortion for you, no getting help taking your own life, get a rope and do it yourself).

I propose a happy compromise for Americans on the left and right.... Allow abortion - but men (birthing seed persons) don't have to pay child support if they didn't want the baby. Would make things interesting.

But I think no matter what side you’re on that sound arguments can hardly be made on constitutional grounds for things a constitution cannot and did not foresee. No one considered things like bitcoin, twitter or abortion when writing the original or when writing any amendments. The US constitution isn't worth the paper it's written on as there are too many amendments and obscure terms making it impossible to manage or interpret in a way that is acceptable to the majority.

This is the reason for amendments to the constitution. The factors in the Roe v Wade debate could actually be put to the American people in a constitutional referendum.

But a constitution is an absolute necessity in my opinion, as it is a crucial check in legislative power.

If a constitution is not working as intended for whatever reason, then that is the very reason amendments can be made, but must be made by the people and not the legislative branch.

For mine, I would like to actually see a referendum on this topic in the United states to resolve this issue. It does seem ridiculous that on such a topic it is ridiculous that each state would have its own laws even in a federal system, as it would seem to me to be a federal issue.

But I stress that a constitution is necessary as an ultimate check in federal power, otherwise tyranny reigns.

 

[Eager]

In reality there would be very few states that would actually ban abortion although they may be limited up to a certain stage, and other certain conditions such as Florida has recently done.

Nup. Somewhere between a dozen and a score of states would jump on the bandwagon in an instant. Bible belt/deep south/cowboy states would not hesitate. The governors of all red states would be tempted, TBH.

 

[IFocus]

Maybe the constitution calls for such things but the court is stacked for political purposes and currently its the religious right hence the law being changed.

Really confirms my belief the US is heading back to the dark ages.

 

[The Triangle]

This is the reason for amendments to the constitution. The factors in the Roe v Wade debate could actually be put to the American people in a constitutional referendum.

But a constitution is an absolute necessity in my opinion, as it is a crucial check in legislative power.

If a constitution is not working as intended for whatever reason, then that is the very reason amendments can be made, but must be made by the people and not the legislative branch.

For mine, I would like to actually see a referendum on this topic in the United states to resolve this issue. It does seem ridiculous that on such a topic it is ridiculous that each state would have its own laws even in a federal system, as it would seem to me to be a federal issue.

But I stress that a constitution is necessary as an ultimate check in federal power, otherwise tyranny reigns.

I think the founding fathers would have done things very differently if they knew there were going to be 50 states and blacks and women would be allowed to vote.

More things should be national votes but I don't think the US has any mechanism at the federal level (At the state level yes) for a legally binding vote by the people? So if you did get a national vote on abortion - whatever side lost would just file a lawsuit claiming tyranny of the government using unconstitutional votes. Then the other side would claim tyranny of the courts overruling the will of the people. And then if the government got involved with court cases - well they'd be tyrannical leaders for overruling either the people or the courts or both. The constitution is a good idea in theory, but just doesn't seem to work out very well. It should have an expiry date - every 25 years. Maybe that's what's best for 'merica. Let it dissolve into 50 countries and see what happens.