Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How about a Constitutional Amendment?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Norquist Nemesis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:34 AM
Original message
How about a Constitutional Amendment?
Let's see...the anti-Democrats have proposed limiting the right of free speech by pushing a Constitutional Amendment that burning the flag is desecration and should not be tolerated. They also are in the process of trying to gather steam to ban homosexual marriage by putting forth an Amendment that marriage is only between one man and one woman.

I propose a Constitutional Amendment to guarantee the right of making medical and reproductive choices to the individual.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Greybnk48 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
1. Brilliant!!
It well past time for an amendment of this sort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. I agree - let's just 'Constitutionalize' Roe v. Wade and basically
say that it is solely about privacy up to the 1st trimester and then a maternal health / state responsibility issue after that.

Roe seems extremely reasonable to me...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterLiberal Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Nope
If we do that then they would say we are admitting that it's not a Constitutional right NOW.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Not really. It is a constitutional right now by implication. It is not
expressly stated in the Constitution - this leaves the door open for debate and interpetation.

I believe the right is there but the best way to be sure it is never judged not to be is with an amendment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterLiberal Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 04:15 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Well, I disagree with you
I believe it is in the Constitution once the Supremes have recognized it.

Unless you're saying that the Court isn't the final word on the Constitution, there's nothing Shrubbie and his Congressional cronies can do!

Which is why it is SO IMPORTANT that we pull out ALL of the stops with Roberts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-21-05 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. I agree with you that the Court is the final word on the Constitution...
However, that Court changes. A new Court could rule the opposite way that the previous Court did, especially regarding aspects that are implied and not expressed in the Constitution.

An amendment would make it more difficult for a later (perhaps more Conservative) Court to erode the Right to Privacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. Necessary
I hope to see an ammendment along those lines. Sort of a Medical/Reproductive/Genetic privacy act.

Something that allows an invidivual to make all choices about their own body and keeps that material private and unable to be used in any situation for testemony, or access to services based on their medical situation/choices or genetics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurgherHoldtheLies Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Now that's a well-worded proposal
Medical/Reproductive/Genetic privacy act

It also relates to the Schiavo case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
endarkenment Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. A broader right to privacy would be better
That way it would encompass all medical decisions including schiavo and medical marijuana and could not be framed as the 'baby-killer ammendment'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-20-05 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Yes that would be good. It may be good practice in this country to start
amending the Constitution after implied rights have been firmly established in the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 12:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC