Rest iN peace, Mr. Jobs

[krw]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Just Wondering]

Here's a very few, just to get you started. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)

[Just Wondering]

You very question shows you don't understand the structure of the U.S. Constitution. The articles of the Constitution don't deal with individual rights; they outline powers the states granted to the federal government. The Bill of Rights does enumerate certain rights, but it does not grant them; fundamental individual rights exist independent of any government grant, and cannot be either created or destroyed by government. The Supreme Court has stated this repeatedly in dozens of cases. Just a few dealing specifically with the right to procreate include: Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678 (1977)

[Larry Blanchard]

I looked those up. They all were primarily about the right to contraception.

[Just Wondering]

From Eisenstadt, at pg. 453:

"If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."

From Carey, at pg. 687:

"The teaching of Griswold is that the Constitution protects individual decisions in matters of childbearing from unjustified intrusion by the state."

[Steve]

In the end, what you make is the lowest amount your employer figures he can get away with paying.

[J. Clarke]

Neither of those is a ruling by the court, those are statements made in explaining their reasoning.

[krw]

If you work in a sweat shop, sure.

[Larry Blanchard]

Sigh. I know it's a waste of time, but none of your out of context quotes were a ruling on an issue, but comments indicating the process by which the judge(s) reached a decision. As such they do not establish a right or even a law.

Another poster pointed out the same thing to you, but you refuse to accept it.

[Just Wondering]

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions in matters of procreation?

[Larry Blanchard]

I think training, testing, and licensing for prospective parents could well be an improvement - but it'll never happen.

[krw]

Think about who would be doing the licensing.

[Just Wondering]

That wasn't my question.

Do you seriously think no one has a right to make individual decisions in matters of procreation?

[J. Clarke]

When you get me appointed to the Supreme Court then my opinion in the matter will have some bearing on the law. Until then it is irrelevant. The courts have not denied the government the power to prevent an individual from procreating, but the courts have required the government to allow individuals to obtain the means to prevent procreation.

If you don't like it then get yourself forcibly sterilized by the government and sue them and maybe this time the courst will rule that they can't do that anymore. I suggest you do it in DC--they seem to have a particularly bonehead DA.

[J. Clarke]

No, the government was castrating, hysterectomizing, vasectomizing, or tubally ligating them.

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that one has a right to decide not to procreate under most circumstances, but it has not consistently ruled that one has a right to procreate.

If it applied equally to everyone then based on the cases you cited, yes, it very likely would.

[J. Clarke]

The Supreme Court seems to think that individuals can decide to not procreate, and the government can in certain circumstances decide for individuals that they may not procreate. So one is clearly entitled to make individual decisions in the matter of not procreating. There is no reason to believe that one is equally entitled the other way.

[Just Wondering]

Please provide an example.

[Just Wondering]

You plainly do not understand constitutional law regarding individual rights vs. government powers.

[Leon]

I believe that was when the government was introducing a birth control under the surface of the skin. I do not recall the circumstances but IIRC it was for incarcerated women.

[Just Wondering]

1. Is there any evidence of this, or are you just repeating gossip?
2. If it happened, it would be completely irrelevant to the proposition that people have a right to make decisions about procreation. At most, it would show that someone in some prison system violated someone's constitutional right.