You don't "find" implications. Just like the atoms I mentioned up above... they're there all along.
There either is or isn't an implication. You don't look for it in the closet. :/


You might not have understood, that it was there.... but it either is or isn't. It's not really up to interpretation.



Roe v Wade was based on the assumption that the Constitution gave women (and men) the right to privacy. It doesn't.
So... Roe v Wade was invalid because of that assumption... which wasn't true.

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 01:49pm

The fact you're finding things not explicitly delineated in the text means it's subjective to the person doing the reading. I appreciate your support for the constitutional right to privacy.

no one, afaik, is arguing that judicial review isn't required. the issue arises when the concepts of original text vs interpretation of those text come into play. an interpretation can still be correct and even fairly inarguable and still be an interpretation.

A cop's job is to uphold the law. To uphold the law one must be allowed to stop law breakers. Ergo, cops are allowed to stop law breakers.

and that's your interpretation.

This is literally the type of logic underlying the constitutional right to privacy.

This post was edited by Sioux on Jul 26 2022 02:13pm

If the cops can't stop the law breakers, then they can't do their job. I don't see any interpretation there.

And since the "need" to be able to stop law breakers existed before cops did....

This post was edited by Ghot on Jul 26 2022 02:19pm

sure, but there are also a bevy of reasonable restrictions for police to apprehend law breakers. fleeing felon laws, warrant requirements, use of force restrictions, etc.

the need to uphold your duty doesnt guarantee the path of least resistance to accomplish it.

judicial review is the path of least resistance, and is upheld because there are few if any alternatives. one however would be judges instead of striking down laws sending them back to congress to be redrafted in the specific areas the SCOTUS ruled are unconstitutional. but instead we've elected to have congress write and pass a new law, for a variety of reasons.

you still butthurt