[johnforbes]

ated: June 21st, 2022

Be it resolved by the Executive Board of the Maricopa County Republican Committee:

WHEREAS In solidarity with the Republican Party of Texas and their recent Resolution on the 2020 Election;

WHEREAS We believe the 2020 Election violated Article 1 and 2 of the US Constitution, that various secretaries of state illegally circumvented their state legislatures in conducting their elections in multiple incorrect ways, including allowing ballots to be received after November 3, 2020;

WHEREAS The 2000 Mules Documentary irrefutably proves election fraud occurred in Maricopa County during the 2020 Election in the form of ballot trafficking through drop boxes;

WHEREAS We believe that substantial election fraud in key metropolitan areas significantly affected the results in five key states in favor of Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.;

WHEREAS The Arizona Senate audit of the 2020 Election found significant inconsistencies and discrepancies;

NOW, THEREFORE, We reject the certified results of the 2020 Presidential election, and we hold that acting President Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was not legitimately elected by the people of the United States. We strongly urge all Republicans to work to ensure election integrity and correct all fraud and weaknesses identified in

[Clownkicker]

johnny, you really need to take a course in law sometime.

A bunch of clowns taking part in a circle jerk is irrelevant to law in America.

[johnforbes]

Clown, please conform to the serious nature of this fine forum.

Today, the question of ‘substantive due process is on the minds of all.

For rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, it has been interpreted in many cases to apply to matters relating to cases such as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

Roberts wimped out as expected, but the majority noted that substantive due process is not in the Constitution, and Thomas concluded that almost all other precedents that relied on the doctrine should also be overturned.

He said "... the purported right to abortion is not a form of ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause. Such a right is neither 'deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition' nor ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,’

No matter where a person stands on civil union versus gay marriage, it is difficult to argue that the Framers contemplated rights to abortion or gay marriage as any form of liberty protected by the Due Process Clause.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, advocating that people be allowed to carry guns on airplanes is just stupid.

I mean REALLY stupid.

There was nothing in the Constitution or laws of the time historically limiting people from carrying guns on airplanes, so you and Thomas have just advocated for removing all laws limiting carry on planes since the only reason that applies is safety, which Thomas just said is not enough to limit someone's Constitutional rights.

That both you and Thomas live only in the past and refuse to concede that times have changed and that the founding fathers couldn't have possibly anticipated every situation that would arise does not mean that the interpretation of the Constitution shouldn't evolve to accommodate the real world.

If it doesn't, it is a dead document. We might as well scrap it now.

[elklindo69]

According to Alito....

rights need to be deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

Contraceptives and other reproductive medical technologies have been developed in more recent times. So according to the right wing extremist conservatives on the Supreme Court, IUDs, hormone treatments, in vivo and in vitro fertilization procedures would not be considered to be deeply rooted in this nations history and tradition. And it doesn't say anywhere in the constitution that we have a right to access these technologies.

So then access to these technologies would be left up to the whims of politicians instead of the medical opinions doctors....where it should be.

[johnforbes]

I agree none of those are historic or deeply embedded in our traditions.

Neither are abortion or gay marriage, and thus they should be left to the states, along with the others cited supra.

If some state garners a garish gang greedy for games of gross gayness, then states could enact what they wish.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, the right to carry guns on planes CANNOT be left to the states. The federal government regulates interstate transport.

You can't have it both ways. Either the federal government relies on the idiotic anachronistic rulings of the conservative majority and allows carry on planes since there is no historical limitation on gun carry on any means of transport. Not on horses, not on stagecoaches, not on trains, not on riverboats, not on sailing ships. Using the foolish conservative take on the Constitution, the right to carry on airplanes must be left to the states. But the states don't have jurisdiction over interstate transport. Once again we are fucked by short sighted conservatives. One state cannot make a law that forces another state to comply with it.

Once again conservatives have got us into an absurd world of legal impossibilities and a less safe world without ANY benefits at all to offset all the violence and deaths their beliefs will cause.

[elklindo69]

Conservatives are nothing more than than the American Taliban. They are more interested in regulating women's bodies than they are of firearms. It's mindboggling to see how they want to force women to have babies....even of rapists and to top it all off they want to use taxpayer dollars to fund religion???

[johnforbes]

Elkin, do you realize abortion was NOT made illegal?

Any state can do whatever.

The Sup Ct just quit playing the silly game of pretending the Constitution said anything about abortion, gay marriage, contraceptives, etc.

[elklindo69]

The constitution was not written in a way to be an exhaustive list of what we can and can't do.

When it comes to contraceptives, these are drug products and medical devices that are approved and regulated by the federal government. So along the wackadoodle reasoning of the right wing justices are they going to say that the use of contraceptives is not a right in the constitution and allow for states to regulate the use of contraceptives? So now now there will be a discrepancy. Legal on the federal level and illegal on the state level? So when someone goes to the pharmacy looking for drug X which was approved by the FDA but banned by the state because some politician says so? This is absurd.

That is what happens when you have a bunch of radical right wing activist judges who are more interested in pushing an ideological agenda instead of upholding the constitution.