U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[eriseis]

Sorry, I had to sneak back in for this one.

I believe that states have the right to ban contraception. I believe this because we see that they obviously have the right to ban marijuana.

I don't believe they should have the right, but that is up to the state's Constitution, and our Federal one.

That's like saying sex should be banned because rape is illegal.

---------- Post added 2012-03-16 at 03:41 AM ----------

I am glad we could educate you. And yes, a state could ban a drug that it felt was unreasonably dangerous (and would be almost guaranteed to be upheld)

Except this benevolent justification you're trying to pull off is not related to the theocratic reasoning behind legislation opposing birth control.


Moot point is moot.

---------- Post added 2012-03-16 at 03:43 AM ----------

I'm atheist, but today I said a prayer for Obama. Psalm 109:8 "May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership." Feel free to join me.

But seriously, I feel like Newt is putting his own selfish agenda over his party. He needs to drop out so Romney can focus his energy/budget on defeating Obama. Santorum may have won 2 states, but most people don't even know that Romney won more delegates that night. I like both Newt and Santorum, but Romney is the GOPs man. Independents like me won't show up to the polls very happy to vote for Santorum/Newt.

As an atheist I'm offended by your comment. You support someone from the theocratic party? What's wrong with you?

---------- Post added 2012-03-16 at 03:45 AM ----------

That is a not true. After only a few weeks, there are very very few differences between a fetus and a child. I know liberal propaganda wants people to believe that a fetus is just a clump of a woman's cells (that way they don't feel as bad when they murder one).

Go take a biology class.

[Diurdi]

That's like saying sex should be banned because rape is illegal.

They have the right to ban products other than drugs, and the drug laws are mostly on a federal level also.

Furthermore, no one here is arguing that contraceptives should be banned.

[Fiddycen]

So i see that Ron Paul supporters are now supporting Mitt Romney, WTF is going on?

[Diurdi]

So i see that Ron Paul supporters are now supporting Mitt Romney, WTF is going on?

Eh? Some want Romney to win the absence of a Paul win, some want Obama to win in the absence of a Paul win - some don't really care who wins if Paul doesn't win.

[Lane]

Hormonal birth control isn't only used as a contraceptive. It's also used to treat various other womanly issues such as irregular cycles and ovarian cysts.

I mention this because it seems to be a frequently ignored aspect of what is a multi-purpose medication.

[eriseis]

They have the right to ban products other than drugs, and the drug laws are mostly on a federal level also.

Furthermore, no one here is arguing that contraceptives should be banned.

The quote I responded to went that way. States do have the right to ban drugs, they just shouldn't do it based on theological grounds which is what's actually happening.

[bergmann620]

The problem with that hypothetical, of course, is that it doesn't even come close to meeting constitutional muster in terms of providing a sufficiently compelling interest to invade basic rights to privacy. In practice, these are enforced in such an incredibly uneven way that it's possible a state could get away with it, but it'd require a complete abomination from a legal standpoint.

Banning a drug doesn't invade anyone's privacy. If it did, they'd sell marijuana at CVS.

[eriseis]

Banning a drug doesn't invade anyone's privacy. If it did, they'd sell marijuana at CVS.

It invades privacy when Arizona wants to pass a law that would allow businesses to ask women if they are taking birth control. Its an invasion of privacy when legal drugs are already a protected aspect of one's life.

[Diurdi]

It invades privacy when Arizona wants to pass a law that would allow businesses to ask women if they are taking birth control. Its an invasion of privacy when legal drugs are already a protected aspect of one's life.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That's an employer - employee worker's rights issue. Not an issue of prohibition of drugs or other products.

[Spectral]

Banning a drug doesn't invade anyone's privacy. If it did, they'd sell marijuana at CVS.

Alternatively, it's simply not constitutional to make marijuana illegal and they do it anyway. Ever wonder why Congress felt the need to pass an Amendment to ban alcohol? That's a lot of trouble to go to if it's constitutional to simply ban a substance. The only logical reason I can come up with is that they thought it wasn't constitutional. It's really not a good argument for your point, legally, to say that if our government is currently doing it, then it must be constitutional.

[Diurdi]

Alternatively, it's simply not constitutional to make marijuana illegal and they do it anyway. Ever wonder why Congress felt the need to pass an Amendment to ban alcohol? That's a lot of trouble to go to if it's constitutional to simply ban a substance. The only logical reason I can come up with is that they thought it wasn't constitutional. It's really not a good argument for your point, legally, to say that if our government is currently doing it, then it must be constitutional.

Alcohol was banned at Federal Levels, thus the required amendment. With drugs, well they sure screwed up there. We're talking about what the States can and cannot do. And I can't find anything in the constitution that would say that individual states cannot ban products.

[eriseis]

Alcohol was banned at Federal Levels, thus the required amendment. With drugs, well they sure screwed up there. We're talking about what the States can and cannot do. And I can't find anything in the constitution that would say that individual states cannot ban products.

Wouldn't a bill have been sufficient and an amendment only necessary if someone challenged the issue based on constitutionality?

[Spectral]

Alcohol was banned at Federal Levels, thus the required amendment. With drugs, well they sure screwed up there. We're talking about what the States can and cannot do. And I can't find anything in the constitution that would say that individual states cannot ban products.

I'd be inclined to say that a combination of the 9th and 14th Amendments, as ruled in Griswold is pretty convincing. Clearly, other people disagree, but I don't really see what they're predicating their idea on, legally.

---------- Post added 2012-03-16 at 09:27 AM ----------

Wouldn't a bill have been sufficient and an amendment only necessary if someone challenged the issue based on constitutionality?

Unless I'm misunderstanding, it would only have been sufficient if Congress and the President wanted to act in a deliberately illegal fashion. Of course, it wouldn't be the first time they've done so, but it's better that they don't.

[Chonogo]

Alcohol was banned at Federal Levels, thus the required amendment. With drugs, well they sure screwed up there. We're talking about what the States can and cannot do. And I can't find anything in the constitution that would say that individual states cannot ban products.

Congress cannot, nor ever will be able to, create an amendment without ratification by the states. Just thought I'd point this out.

Alcohol was banned at federal levels after more than 2/3 of the states ratified the amendment, not before.

[Diurdi]

I'd be inclined to say that a combination of the 9th and 14th Amendments, as ruled in Griswold is pretty convincing. Clearly, other people disagree, but I don't really see what they're predicating their idea on, legally.

Essentially what I'm saying is that if states do not have the right to ban contraceptives at state level, then you can't ban any other form of product at state level. And if they have the right to ban products at state level, then contraceptives can also be banned.

Now, ofcourse just because a state may have the right to allow banning of products, that doesn't mean that they will allow it in their own state constitution. And if they allow it in their state constitution, it doesn't mean they will actually ban anything.

[eriseis]

Essentially what I'm saying is that if states do not have the right to ban contraceptives at state level, then you can't ban any other form of product at state level. And if they have the right to ban products at state level, then contraceptives can also be banned.

Now, ofcourse just because a state may have the right to allow banning of products, that doesn't mean that they will allow it in their own state constitution. And if they allow it in their state constitution, it doesn't mean they will actually ban anything.

I'm kinda confused by this post.

[Spectral]

Essentially what I'm saying is that if states do not have the right to ban contraceptives at state level, then you can't ban any other form of product at state level. And if they have the right to ban products at state level, then contraceptives can also be banned.

Now, ofcourse just because a state may have the right to allow banning of products, that doesn't mean that they will allow it in their own state constitution. And if they allow it in their state constitution, it doesn't mean they will actually ban anything.

I guess I understand what you're saying, I'm just not clear on how it's actually in line with previous SCOTUS rulings. Obviously, in practice, you're correct, since states do ban a substantial number of substances. I would think the minimum criteria necessary for doing so is demonstrating a compelling interest of the state, and contraception probably is a special example since it's for medical use rather than recreation (as most drugs are), but it seems to me that the same logic could be turned on marijuana. It's hard to see how medical marijuana would be different in a legally compelling way, from a standpoint of what states are allowed to do.

It should, of course, be noted that IANAL and I could be very wrong.

[Diurdi]

I'm kinda confused by this post.

That's because there are so many layers of "rights".

For a state to ban a product it must obviously pass that state law. But that state law must also be in line with that particular State's constitution. It must also be in line with The constitution of the United States (and federal laws). When people speak of "state's rights" they're only conserned with how that particular "right" is in line with the Constitution of the United States.

[Spectral]

That's because there are so many layers of "rights".

That does tend to be the most legally sticky and discretionary spot - when there's competing rights, whose rights win out?

[Diurdi]

That does tend to be the most legally sticky and discretionary spot - when there's competing rights, whose rights win out?

Constitution (> Federal Laws) > State constitution > State laws