Ohio voters overwhelmingly approve constitutional amendment to protect abortion rights

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

The United States of America is a republic that governs under a representative democracy and uses a combination of socialism and capitalism as is economic model.

Wikipedia couldn't have said it better lol

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyersFan

They don't teach Civics in schools anymore.

Didn't you say we can't have referendums because we don't want the mob to rule?

Then you changed it to, we can't have referendums because we are a republic.

In real terms we can can have referendums anytime we want just the one they had in Ohio.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: dust2023

We are always hearing from the left about the sanctity of democracy, and here you have a human issue kicked out of the ivory tower and down to the masses to VOTE on, which is DEMOCRACY, and for some reason they can't stand it being that way.

First, we don't vote on constitutional rights. In the DOBBS case, for the first time in US history, SCOTUS chose to revoke a constitutional right, that the people previous retained, from the people.

Secondly, every time, since the DOBBS decision, that the issue has gone to the ballot, and the people do vote, they vote to preserve the rights that SCOTUS removed as written in ROE. So, there is no reason for leftists to be angry when the issue does go to the people.

Anyway, the person that posted the Alito references, I will probably get to that after my work week ends because I am sure it is vastly more complicated than that. I am sure that was just one reference out of many that were sited for precidence, which is something you see in nearly every legal decision that ever occurs coming from the judiciary.

Okay, you do that. However, I assure you it's not every day that a SCOTUS decision cites a medieval judge, who had 2 women executed for witchcraft, as an historic precedent to back up his reasoning to revoke a constitutional right from the people.

Help me out here.
So these 2 medieval women who were witches.
Did these so called witches perform abortions?
I ask because I personally believe abortions are sacrifices to moloch.
Did these witches(so called) abort children?

Is this case based upon Blackstones Law Dictionary?
Is it precedence?
Because if it was ever proven abortion is top down moloch worship the witchcraft thing seems relevant to me.
Even though witchcraft is now an accepted religion it does mean they are practicing witchcraft at the same time.
Blood sacrifices are necessary for some spells, right?

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

The United States of America is a republic that governs under a representative democracy and uses a combination of socialism and capitalism as is economic model.

Wikipedia couldn't have said it better lol

We are a representative democracy.

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

They want mob rule.

The loudest voice wins.

If that's ever the case, California, New York and Chicago will get to decide what the rest of the country wants or needs.

a reply to: network dude

he SC ruled that the COTUS didn't have anything in it referring to abortion

No they didn't. They looked at the 14th Amendment and the right to privacy. That's the logic that Roe used, and that's the logic they rejected.

Alito, in his opinion went further to explain, what he called, the historical precedent of anti-abortion laws in the European Common Wealth to revoke the constitutional rights that Roe affirmed.

Alito also wrote in his opinion, that since abortion is no longer a constitutional issue, it is, by default, a state issue.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

They want mob rule.

The loudest voice wins.

If that's ever the case, California, New York and Chicago will get to decide what the rest of the country wants or needs.

If democracy is the rule of the mob then someone can say exactly the same thing when Biden or Trump or whoever else is getting elected.

But referendums are allowed in the US at a State level and its a form of direct democracy.

a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You shouldn't be concerned when states give the vote to people.

Abortion is a hot topic for debate but it's a right too in most of the western world.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

They want mob rule.

The loudest voice wins.

If that's ever the case, California, New York and Chicago will get to decide what the rest of the country wants or needs.

Who wouldn't like to dine on a restaurant patio with a free sideshow of a homeless transwoman pooing on the sidewalk?

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

The United States of America is a republic that governs under a representative democracy and uses a combination of socialism and capitalism as is economic model.

Wikipedia couldn't have said it better lol

We are a representative democracy.

Or you I suppose.

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: FlyersFan

A democracy is a form of government where every person has a voice. This could be by representation or directly.

The United States of America is a republic that governs under a representative democracy and uses a combination of socialism and capitalism as is economic model.

Wikipedia couldn't have said it better lol

We are a representative democracy.

Or you I suppose.

I didn't get your opinion on the topic.
Agree or disagree with what Ohio did.

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

They want mob rule.

The loudest voice wins.

If that's ever the case, California, New York and Chicago will get to decide what the rest of the country wants or needs.

If democracy is the rule of the mob then someone can say exactly the same thing when Biden or Trump or whoever else is getting elected.

But referendums are allowed in the US at a State level and its a form of direct democracy.

In America we have an Electoral College that decides the presidential outcome.

I'm guessing you aren't American.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

he SC ruled that the COTUS didn't have anything in it referring to abortion

No they didn't. They looked at the 14th Amendment and the right to privacy. That's the logic that Roe used, and that's the logic they rejected.

Alito, in his opinion went further to explain, what he called, the historical precedent of anti-abortion laws in the European Common Wealth to revoke the constitutional rights that Roe affirmed.

Alito also wrote in his opinion, that since abortion is no longer a constitutional issue, it is, by default, a state issue.

What I am about to say should be easy to see and understand but it is not.

The reason why some feel we are a democracy and some say a Republic is thus.
Until 1876 we were a Constututional Republic with common law courts and very few admiralty(inter sea commerce) courts.
Then the organic act after the Civil War created THE UNTITED STATES OF AMERICA INC.
This corporation was a democratic republic giving top down control.
They do these in 99 year charters and 24 or 49 year extensions.
Our charter ended after the 24 year extension in 1999.
We have been floating since.
As of January 1, 2023 you are seeing SCOTUS now using Common Law rulings once again based upon our original Constitution and rejecting this top down corporate rule for States as sovereign mandates as per original intent.
All our courts have been admiralty courts replacing Common Law courts that once permeated the land pre civil war.
Common law courts will soon be back as the empire of the city states is over and done. Defeated.
The U.C.C. had replaced our Constitution and States Constitutions and everything the last 150 years has been about commerce as the law of the land.

All of SCOTUS rulings this last year affirm this to be true.
And we are engaging in the debates that this transition period entails.

Long live the New Republic

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyersFan

They don't teach Civics in schools anymore.

The modern "republic" is one that only terrible ideas that destroy the republic via executive and judicial rulings are "democracy". We have seen many times when states put up referendums how if they do not work in the "woke" favor they are sooner rather than later # down by some judge, governor, or president, all of whom "know better" than the masses.

Caveat here of course because they voted in favor of murdering babies for the sake of whatever excuse they can come up with. Regardless, it isn't as if we haven't already doing this for almost 50 years already you know? Man whatever demon or god needs human baby sacrifices might need to go on a diet after all this delicious feasting.

Anyways. because of this reality I do not see the United States as a functioning republic (I wish it were) but more of a dystopian fascistic corporate - feel good until we jail you - type of country.

a reply to: dust2023

Yeah, we're actually in a Banana Republic right now.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

They want mob rule.

The loudest voice wins.

If that's ever the case, California, New York and Chicago will get to decide what the rest of the country wants or needs.

If democracy is the rule of the mob then someone can say exactly the same thing when Biden or Trump or whoever else is getting elected.

But referendums are allowed in the US at a State level and its a form of direct democracy.

In America we have an Electoral College that decides the presidential outcome.

I'm guessing you aren't American.

I know what we have in America.
But who decides the electoral votes in each state? The people.

It's not the rule of the mob

a reply to: dust2023

I find it difficult to follow what is wrong with using the popular vote which is a direct form of democracy.

Same must be applied in the presidential elections, the electoral college system is outdated and unfair but that's another conversation.

originally posted by: Mengelon
a reply to: dust2023

I find it difficult to follow what is wrong with using the popular vote which is a direct form of democracy.

Same must be applied in the presidential elections, the electoral college system is outdated and unfair but that's another conversation.

There is nothing wrong with it. I am fine with Ohio wanting to let women murder their own children. It's what they voted for.

originally posted by: Mengelon
a reply to: FarmerSimulation

You shouldn't be concerned when states give the vote to people.

Abortion is a hot topic for debate but it's a right too in most of the western world.

I am not concerned in a fearful way.
I am responsibly concerned that facts are addressed and a fair debate seeking just rule for all concerns are presented.
You have no idea the can-o-worms this debate entails.
The moment mens rights to abortion and fiscal responsibility is fairly addressed abortion will be seen as racist and become rare.
The only thing allowing it now is because it served the corporate interests to break up families.
Sexbots will decide this issue easily putting personal accountability at the forefront instead of sex for fun.
Anyone want to bet sexbots become common if not lawful for 15 minute cities?
It will go right along with UBI in signup for joining 15 minute cities in the contract.

Breeder will go from a slang term as I have been slinging it around to an exceptional and elite right earned by being proven as a responsible citizen.
Everyone else gets to have a sexbot. And you get to choose its gender

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: NorthOS

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Mengelon

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is why states rights are so important.

Sure, in Ohio you can get an abortion.

In Oregon you can legally buy drugs.

States cannot dictate what other states want.

And that's the main point, federal government should be minimal, at best and not dictate to states what they want.

If there was a vote in each state you would hardly find any states not allowing abortion.

*shrugs*

That's up to individual states, so far many states have gone for near total bans.

The mob mentality does not work within the confines of the US Constitution.

It’s at the point now where three wolves are voting on how many babies to eat for dinner.

They want mob rule.

The loudest voice wins.

If that's ever the case, California, New York and Chicago will get to decide what the rest of the country wants or needs.

If democracy is the rule of the mob then someone can say exactly the same thing when Biden or Trump or whoever else is getting elected.

But referendums are allowed in the US at a State level and its a form of direct democracy.

In America we have an Electoral College that decides the presidential outcome.

I'm guessing you aren't American.

I know what we have in America.
But who decides the electoral votes in each state? The people.

It's not the rule of the mob

We assume the electoral body is doing their jobs based on numbers we assume are accurate based on talking heads we assume are telling the truth.