Should we allow states to choose weather or not contraception should be legal in the state?

[Stoner710]

So I’m a constitutional originalist which means we look at the text of the constitution and interpret when it meant at the time it was written. We are not against amendments to the constitution but if an amendment was passed in January 31 1865 (13th amendment that outlawed slavery ) that means we read and interpret the 13th amendment as it was written and what it meant in 1865. Anything that’s not explicity mentioned in the constitution is up for the states to decide whether they want it or not. Abortion gay marriage contraception, anal sex None of that is mentioned in the constitution. Therefore, it is not protected by the constitution. The federal government is not allowed to say anything about these issues only the states are allowed to make rules on these issues. So in Griswold versus Connecticut in 1965 the Supreme Court decide to read into the constitution. Something that is not there and federally legalize contraception on a national level. Which should not have been done given the fact there is nothing about contraception in the constitution. So Connecticut should be allowed to legalize contraception if it wants to. New Hampshire can have contraception legal if it wants to. It’s up to the states it’s not up to the federal government that’s my point.

For the record, I am not saying contraception should be outlawed or I support outlawing contraception. I’m saying it should be up to the states to decide whether contraception to be outlawed in their state and the federal government cannot say anything about it. This is not an argument on whether or not contraception should be legal or not. It’s just an argument on does the federal government have any say in the matter which I don’t think they do because if the constitution says nothing about it, the federal government cannot act on it.

[Anonymous]

For a state to outlaw contraception, SCOTUS would have to overturn Griswold v Connecticut, which makes contraception a right to privacy issue. Since that’s an implied right, a healthy dose of interpretation is required. I can almost see your state’s right stance there. You’re flat out wrong about gay marriage. The equal protection clause requires laws to be applied equally. As long as you have laws governing marriage, you cannot discriminate based on race, religion, political affiliation, sexual orientation or nationality. Once the government involved itself in religious unions and attached legal status to it, the constitution applied and gay marriage was an eventual certainty. The court ignored it for as long as they could with a wink and a nod but eventually they were forced to reckon with an obvious injustice. If they didn’t want to see all people have the right to marry, they should have left marriage to the churches.

[Stoner710]

As far as the gay marriage argument goes. The state could hypothetically make its illegal without making a religious argument. Marriage a controversial arrangements. with the interest of baring and raising children born to the couple without outside help. Considering homosexual marriage doesn’t not bare any children. The government has an interest in keeping its population up (especially now when we’re blowing out the debt and we’re not replacing ourselves). Gay marriage the government isn’t interested in because a man and a man or a women and a women can’t bare children naturally with each other. Also, all politics is inherently religious even secularism itself is a religion. The only true non religion is agnostic because they’re not making a definite claim on whether or not God exists or not. Under a system of agnosticism you would basically have no government.

[Opinion Owner]

You must have a fundamental misunderstanding of the equal protection clause. None of the arguments you made are constitutionally relevant. You aren’t much of an originalist if you’re arguing against the constitution.

[Stoner710]

Actually I’m not if you look at the tenth amendment

[Opinion Owner]

….. and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the 10th amendment as well. The equal protection clause is specifically applied to the states under the 14th amendment. States cannot apply laws unequally (discriminatory marriage laws?) regardless of the 10th amendment. I love when people quote the constitution to you who don’t understand what they’re quoting.

[Stoner710]

I understand the constitution perfectly fine I interpret the constitution was it was written when it was written this is the same interpretation judges like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas interpreted the constitution. The 14th amendment says nothing about gay marriage or straight marriage or interracial marriage. State governments before Obergfell was allowed to outlaw gay marriage if the state wants to. (Interracial marriage would be protected by the civil rights act but there an argument going on weather or not the civil right act is constitutional or not especially since it takes away the right for people to associate with whom they want. If bob’s burgers doesn’t want to associate with or serve black people that’s his right that’s called freedom of association protected by the first amendment). Abortion is another one that’s not protected by the constitution. Everything that’s not explicitly in the constitution devolves to the states

[Opinion Owner]

Once again, you don’t understand what you’re talking about. The equal protection clause applies to any issue that is a matter of law. Gay marriage does not need to be mentioned specifically. I don’t know where you’re getting that misconception from. ANY law passed by a state must be applied equally under the 14th amendment. The only reason interracial and gay marriage took so long to legalize was due to the bigotry of the court itself, who did not want to apply the law equally due to moral judgement of those ideas, which is not the role of the court. The bans were never constitutional. Abortion is more of a grey area. It was based on the implied right to privacy. It was actually one of the pillar cases that defined privacy rights. Now that it’s gone, privacy overall is weakened and our remaining privacy rights could fall in the years to come.

[Stoner710]

You’re taking a Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan interpretation which reads into the constitution that’s not there nor was it what they meant in 1865. She isn’t an originalist like Clarance Thomas or anyone who studies under Antonin Scalia like Amy Coney Barrett Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. They way originalist interpret the constitution is we look at the words and what it meant the year it was written in 1865 when the 14th amendment was passed if you asked anyone who voted for the 14th amendment in 1865 no one would have said this gives homosexuals have the right to get married to other homosexuals. In 2012 yes the judges interpreted the 14th amendment that way but that’s the wrong way of interpreting the constitution. If they had known it would have been interpreted that way they would have outlawed gay marriage in the 16th amendment

[Opinion Owner]

The modern reading of the 14th is the plain text interpretation. It’s you who is taking liberties with the text by asserting exclusions to the equal protection clause, which do not exist anywhere in the constitution. The court has a long history of flawed rulings that justified the bigotry of the day. It was never a matter of if gay marriage would be legalized but when. Conservatives were long comfortable with the hypocrisy of their arguments because it justified their moral judgments, again not the role of the court. You’re citing flawed reasoning that the country will never go back to because it doesn’t jive with text or the spirit of the 14th amendment. The brilliance of that amendment is that it is written to apply to any future legislation that might arise. You can’t stick with painfully flawed legal arguments just because you’ve wrapped yourself in the cloak of originalism and those flawed interpretations came first. Those arguments created exceptions that do not exist. Do yourself a favor and take a college level constitutional law class.

[Stoner710]

I’ve studied under Scalia and Clarence Thomas both are originalist which denounces what you just said. Trust me the libs like to say Clarance Thomas is a white supremacist who want to out law international marriage, which is weird given he is a black man married to a white women. Even he agrees that Alabama if they so chooses to outlaw interracial marriages even though he’s a black man married to a white women he would still reflect the state to make that law

[Opinion Owner]

You haven’t studied under any Supreme Court justice. You’re just repeating their flawed opinions of the past that do not follow the plain text meaning of the 14th amendment. When justices stray from the text like that, it’s due to a personal or political agenda and you can’t call yourself an originalist. Thomas especially likes to take activist positions. He’s only an “originalist” when it suits his agenda. The court has a long history of decisions that don’t follow the plain text of the constitution, such as deciding that African-Americans could not be citizens, which made the states freeing slaves all but impossible or upholding the internment of Japanese Americans in WW2 without due process. You’re citing opinions that stray from the constitution and then want to call it originalism. That is not originalism, it’s judicial activism to achieve a partisan goal. The equal protection clause is pretty clear. If justices are trying to muddy its meaning to make exceptions, then you have to question the motives.

[Stoner710]

I have not directly studied under a SCOTUS judge I have read Clarance Thomas books and studied his life same with Thomas Sowell. If anything Sonia, Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are judicial activists. Justice Thomas fallowed Scalia idea on how the constitution is suppose to be interpreted. By reading, contraception, gay marriage, and abortion into the constitution that that is judicial activism, because of the constitution says absolutely nothing about any of those subjects so it has to be left to the states. The biggest activist on the court right now is Ketanji Brown Jackson, who can’t even define what a woman is because apparently she’s not a biologist. I don’t think you need to be a biologist to define what is a woman.

[Opinion Owner]

Liberals are not always activists and conservatives are not always originalists. That’s what you’re failing to grasp. They’re all humans with bias and tend to stick to or bend the constitution whichever suits them. Clarence Thomas is clearly no exception. He’s trying to ignore the 14th amendment because it suited his overall beliefs. That’s the very definition of judicial activism, whether that’s comfortable for you to admit or not. There are examples of this with all conservative justices, even if it might be less often than the liberal wing. You yourself are continuing to ignore the plain text meaning of the equal protection clause and supporting an activist opinion. It’s tough to call yourself an originalist when you take such a hypocritical stance. Please tell us where the constitution grants an exception to the stipulation that states apply laws equally. You keep repeating that gay marriage isn’t on the constitution, which is an irrelevant point. States have laws governing marriage. The 14th requires them to be applied equally to all citizens. Why are you not embracing the constitution? Activism, that’s why.

[Stoner710]

Yes not all conservatives are originalist, Chief justice, John Roberts is not an originalist RBJ and justice Breyer were not activists. Those who studied under Scalia and Thomas are original lists Elena Kagan, Sonia, Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson are activists. As an originalist since we interpret the constitution and the amendments in the year it was written. Is the way originalist interpret the constitution. I’m not denying there other views of interpreting the constitution. Guess what straight marriage isn’t protected by the constitution either. It was assumed in 1865 that no one would have said in 1865 that this protects gay marriage when straight marriage itself isn’t protected by the constitution. If Washington state said it no longer recognizes a marriage between a man and a women that is the right of Washington state. If something is not explicitly written in the constitution, it goes back to the states. 90% of the laws we have on the federal level should have gone back to the states. Murder rape espionage interstate crime that’s when the federal government steps in not if Washington wanted to ban straight marriage that is the right of Washington state that is not the right of the federal government

[Opinion Owner]

You just keep repeating the same nonsense and have nothing of substance to add to the debate. Marriage is a state issue but those laws must be applied equally to all citizens under the 14th Amendment. States do not have constitutional authority to discriminate. Your entire argument relies on ignoring the equal protection clause entirely. You still have not discussed what part of the constitution allows states to bypass that amendment. You haven’t done so because you don’t have an answer. There isn’t a logical answer. It’s specifically applied to the states. Ignoring that plain text isn’t originalism. At first I thought you were just ignorant of the constitution but now I think you’re deliberately being dishonest. You’re trying to justify your personal view on gay marriage by picking and choosing what part of the constitution you want to follow. That’s called activism.

[Stoner710]

My views on gay marriage is I don’t care if gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us I say fine. My aguement is gay marriage isn’t protected by the constitution and has to be lefts to the states. The equal protection clause has nothing to do with gay marriage. It was so the south after the civil war couldn’t target X slaves and give them life in prison for talking to a whites women. If a white person can talk to a white person without getting arrested so should a black person. The equal protection clause was meant for race issue not if you want to get married to the person of the same sex. That’s what it meant in 1865 you can’t take what the law meant in 1865 and apply it to what you would like it to mean in 2012

[Opinion Owner]

You’re almost there. So what makes you think it applies to race but not sexual orientation? The text says “all persons”. Where is the exception to “all persons” in the constitution? Is that expressed in the federalist papers somewhere? Did the writers express this opinion somewhere? Where did you get this opinion? It’s a blanket protection like the first or second amendments. Do homosexuals not have these rights either? They meant exactly what they wrote. You’re reading something that isn’t there.

[Stoner710]

Homosexual don’t have a right to get married under the constitution. What makes me think that the price to race and not sexual orientation that is it based on immutable characteristics. Your skin color has nothing to do with whom your are attached to. There is no evidence that homosexuality is genetic or a choice. We can know which type of relationships is more beneficial for the continuation of any society. You need men and women to get together to breed. (Give me the amount of debt. We have a cured on a federal level. Every woman should be forced to have six kids technically but that’s definitely unconstitutional and barbaric so yea no to that one) the government has an interest in men women relationships. The government has no interest in men men or women woman relationships. Either way neither is protected by the constitution straight or gay. This is why the government has an interest in a sense of aging straight marriage and not homosexual marriage because homosexuals can’t have kids even from an Evolutionaries standpoint. Now, since marriage,, a fundamental political institution which is inherently religious, all marriages, are inherently, religious, gay, straight whatever our federal government is an allowed to be involved in a secular government is not allowed to be involved in anything that is religious in nature

[Opinion Owner]

Nothing you just said is relevant to any constitutional argument. It’s all opinion and personal bias. No one has a constitutional right to marriage. It’s granted by state law. State laws are subject to the equal protection clause. That is the the simple, no spin, plain text, conservative reading of that clause. You dodged my questions because you don’t have coherent answers. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about here and you keep proving it over and over again.

[Stoner710]

I haven’t dodge your question at all. The equal protection clause protects race not sexuality or marriage. The only reason why we give out tax credits for married people is because it benefits the government. In a secular government we are cattle with the soul interest of continuing the economy. This isn’t dodging the question. This is telling you gay marriage isn’t protected by the equal protection clause because there is no government interest. Men are work horses women are mantt for breading that’s it. Government has interest in keeping the population up which can only happen between and man and a women. Since a man and man marriage can’t have kids the government has no interest in there marriage relationship or anything about them except they go to work so they can get taxed by the government

[Opinion Owner]

Repeating something untrue and then backing it up with opinions that have no constitutional relevance isn’t answering the question. It’s dodging it. As an originalist, if marriage laws and sexual orientation are exempt from the equal protection clause, then that has to be stated somewhere in the text of the constitution or strongly implied by the writers, such as in the federalist papers. So once again, where is the constitutional argument for your opinion? The 14th amendment gives no exceptions to the persons protected or the types of laws covered. It’s a blanket protection. Where are you reading an exception to that specifically? Please don’t dodge the question again.

[Opinion Owner]

Also, the constitution exists to protect the interests of the individual, not the government. That was one of the most asinine comments on constitutional theory I’ve ever heard. The constitution protects us from the government, such as the government telling us we can’t marry because they don’t like who we’re marrying.

[ChefPapiChulo]

You have a lot more patience than I do pink anon.

[Anonymous]

No! That’s a terrible idea. Some state somewhere might decide to do something stupid and make it illegal. We have to protect the people from stupid states.

[Stoner710]

In a democracy the people elect their representatives. So wouldn’t the people of that state be stupid as well? Every state has its own culture. Also this is why we have the ability to move from state. If you don’t like the policy of the state you live in move. The federal government shouldn’t be allowed to makes laws that aren’t written in the constitution it’s self

[Opinion Owner]

I totally disagree. The laws and the constitution need to evolve with the times. But I don’t wanna argue so ok.

[Stoner710]

Ah so the Jeffersonian argument. I’m a Hamiltonian Jefferson did argue the constitution should be charged every 20 year every (anti federalist) vs Hamilton which was federalist which believed the constitution was good forever. Along with Washington Adams Madison Lincoln. this is an old argument

[LiamJHayden]

I agree mostly, but I think the following part of the the 10th Amendment gets ignored:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Madison wrote the 10th Amendment to ensure states would retain their sovereignty and to prevent the government from denying the people their individual freedoms.

[Stoner710]

Exactly we often over look the tenth amendment

[Mansearching]

Why would any govt outlaw condoms or bc pills, iud's, diaframs, or the sponge? They're not just contraception. They'll help yhe passage of STDs. Now if they do no one should have sex unless you want be like The Duggers and others and have 1000 kids. Which is ridiculous... in my opinion.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

No, that's already been decided in law since 1965.

[SaoirseS]

Nope.

[Stoner710]

Why? Don’t states have the right to self government

[SaoirseS]

To an extent, but not on issues that affect medical privacy. How deep do you want any government to get in your family planning and reproductive decisions? As far as I'm concerned, it's not up to the fed or state governments to make those choices for me, or to deprive me of access to contraception.

[Stoner710]

“How deep do you want any government to get in your family planning and reproductive decisions?“ Federal None states I think has more right to get involved in family planning and reproductive decisions. If I don’t lie the policy of the state I can move out of the state. The Federal government can’t deprive you of contraception. The State governments can. It’s like the issue of gay marriage or abortion. The federal government has no right to say gays can or can’t gay married the states have the right to say yes or no to gay marriage. The federal government has no right to codify abortion law, legal or not. If Texas wants to outlaw gay marriage abortion and contraception that’s Texas’s right as a state. If California wants abortion gay marriage and contraception legal that’s their right. The federal government isn’t allowed to have a say in any of these matters. (Again not an argument on whether or not gay marriage, or abortion, legal or illegal, has the power to make the decisions in a federalist system, like we have, we don’t have a centralized government like most European countries have)

[SaoirseS]

Are you a lawyer?

[Stoner710]

Working on it yes starting law school in September already got the history and political science degree which are prerequisites for law school

[Sevenpointfive]

if the fed doesn't have laws against it then it should be up to the states, but i think it would be overturned once it was made a big deal

[exitseven]

if there are enough people that vote against it maybe it should be made into a law.

[AngelLily]

I believe states should be allowed to make that choice. Personally would like if it was all illegal in the US

[megabamse]

What is the matter with the states? Why are you guys so keen on going back in time?

[Stoner710]

We are massively, huge country the whole idea on how we were founded was off of the federalist base system not a centralized government system so we in the United States try to do everything at the local level rather than at the federal level but that’s the way it was supposed to be the way the founders designed it. This is why we keep going back to the states and say fuck the federal government.

[megabamse]

No i mean your guys rather go back to a time before the 1950s and not stay with the modern world

[Stoner710]

As far as governance sure, There only 2 countries with larger population than the United States India and China. Both authoritarian. The United States isn’t authoritarian but that’s because we still like the idea of local governments over federal system. Especially with the state the United States in in right now. (No pun intended). We don’t speak the same English language (pregnant people in California vs just pregnant in Florida because Floridians believe only women can get pregnant) we don’t agree what constitutes child abuse (California not transitioning your kid is child abuse in Florida it’s child base to transition your child. We don’t even share a definition of racism Florida believes racism is declination base off of the color of one’s skin. California believes that racism any systems or actions that doesn’t result in equal outcome for all races is racist. This is why we need to go back to the time before the 1950s not with the slavery and Jim Crow obviously. Others wide we will have a revolution in this country you can’t have republicans telling California what to do and have it effect of a centralized government in it’s own state and democratic can’t tell Florida what do on the federal level or that will end in war especially with the extreme position the democrats have taken in 2023

[megabamse]

My god i bet you got a bunker and everything huh?

[Stoner710]

Not everything I know nothing about the medical realm. There a lawsuit in Texas about whether or not they should ban the pill. I know how to legally argue for it but I’m not sure if the pill should be banned or not. Hence why I think it should go back to the states to decide. When you look at the constitution we actually require this to happen. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“ tenth Amendment

[Cubus]

Yes.

[Juxtapose]

There should be an amendment to the Constitution making it explicitly clear that government is to not interfere with our personal lives like this.

[AimeeKyle]

That is the way the US government is setup. I cannot imagine contraception would be outlawed….
I could see that the method of distribution to minors would likely be on the table in the various states though..

[KrakenAttackin]

Short answer, YES.

[Tonyblony5150]

No no way

[Anonymous]

Yes, of course. Who is that idiot that said no? lol