Donnie appears to soften position on abortion tossing pro life evangelicals under the bus

[Five of swords]

10 hours ago, Rebound said:

Overturning Roe v Wade immediately outlawed abortion in over a dozen states.  

Well no, it just made it legal to. And generally states just decreased how long an abortion was legal. Even with roe vs wade 3rd trimester abortions were not federally protected, I dont think...and different states had different rules about 3rd trimester abortions.

 

Ironically, prior to roe vs wade, most of the southern states had the most tolerance for abortion. Because, of course, it was basically a way to combat the fertility of black people. Odd how that flipped after roe v Wade was removed.

Edited August 27, 2024 by Five of swords

[Five of swords]

20 hours ago, CdnFox said:

LOL  well sure, never let facts or common sense get in your way kiddo!

Really. Which federal law protects constitutional rights? Are you seriously suggesting there's such a thing as a law that if repealed would mean that constitutional rights WEREN'T protected  lololol

No kiddo, the point of the constitution is to sit ABOVE federal law so that no federal law can affect the rights guaranteed by the constitution. THAT is the point.  No federal law guarantees the constitituion  The CONSTITUTION guarantees the constitution and determines what laws the feds and states can pass. 

The constitution is the fed's boss, no federal law can allow or ban any part of the constitution. 

Yikes. Where were you educated?

It's funny because once again you are showing that you cannot handle the mathematical aciom of substitution. I remember you struggled with this before.

 

So yeah, the constitution is in fact a legal document, and it is in fact a violation of federal law for a state to violate constitutional rights.

 

Clearly this is confusing to you, and you imagine that the constitution is too magic or something to be a legal document. But you are just wrong. The Supreme Court, which is a federal entity, is responsible for interpreting what rights specifically are granted by the constitution, and the federal government then attempts to enforce that perspective. There actually is no other way of doing things...if constitutional rights never result in any laws, then they might as well not exist.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

It's funny because once again you are showing that you cannot handle the mathematical aciom of substitution. I remember you struggled with this before.

Kid you don't even know what that means.  Whenever you wind up looking stupid you double down on it by attempting to apply terms you learned from your word-of-the-day calendar and you mess it up. 

2 hours ago, Five of swords said:

So yeah, the constitution is in fact a legal document, and it is in fact a violation of federal law for a state to violate constitutional rights.

No it isn't. 

It's a violation  of the constitution to have a federal law in violation of the constitution   It doesn't get easier than this. 

Seriously - what federal law could they change that would make violating the constitution legal?  Federal law does not protect the constitution. 

Quote

Clearly this is confusing to you, and you imagine that the constitution is too magic or something to be a legal document.

Ahhh You're OTHER little trick when you know you've lost - trying to reframe the discussion  

You must really wow them on the elementary school debate team with that kind of thinking  

The problem is that it's not a federal legal document.  It's a constitutional document. 

The constitution sits above and separate from every other law and level of gov't. 

The constitution is the highest law in the land and overwrites ALL federal and state laws.   The federal law does NOT enable the constitution, the constitution enables federal and state law.  It is the Supreme law, all other laws are below it 

Most kids in elementary school get this. Guess you didn't make it that high.