Even more so since the "due process" clause for "life, liberty, or property" that is used as the basis for the "privacy clause" that Parker is so vaguely referring to, also does not stand up to the scientific or even legal useage of that.
Depriving someone of life has the meaning of the state applying a death penalty. Doesn't apply, by Parker's own admission.
Depriving someone of "liberty" generally means incarceration.
Depriving people of "property" generally means seizure of goods.
you have to find a plaintiff who 1. has no alternative to public water, 2. who actually has damages, 3. which can be attributed and proven to directly result from fluoridation, and 3. who has the resources to carry the case forward, unless attys take it pro bono.
Please tell us how the "right to privacy" is commonly understood and applied in Cons utional law.
Using buzzwords like "right to privacy" or "privacy clause" will not stand judicial review. It has about has much validity as getting in front of a judge and expecting to win by shouting "cheesecake!".
You now have the "what" but not the how. Make your case.
So vaguely refers to? Are you still talking? Search SC cases dealing with the right to make private medical decisions. Inform yourself of your rights. Then maybe you'll understand your right to refuse meduical treatment, your right to make medical decisions for a child or immediate family member, your right to do so without having to inform others or be unduly burdened by procedures beforehand, etc.
You dont seem to have much handle here. Please stop.
Oh. .
Your Supreme Court has found for claimants based on the right to privacy alone. please quit. you are arguing about of which you have no clue whatsoever.
Buzzwords? Thats the ing law in this country. What a crackpot. Go back to tracking saddams missles why dont you.
"Now the right to life has come to mean the right to enjoy life, -- the right to be let alone."
-- Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, 1890.34
^^^melting down again. what a treat.
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
-- United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, 1973.37
As usual
Justice Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut:
“Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.”
“We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights — older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions
Who doesn't have an alternative to drinking fluoridated water?
And fyi, quoting other decisions without explaining how they apply to the issue at hand is failure.
poor /elderly without access to to ground water where they live (urban areas), those
They dont have to apply...RG is making statements about the right to privacy not being recognized under the bill of rights in a court of law. Then he was pwned.
I said my piece in the other thread. You're just rehashing in this one.
anything else before i go? quickly?
If they have access to a grocery store or market, they have access to unfluoridated water.
He did no such thing. I suggest you read his post again.
against rehashed bull conspiracy accusations. Thanks RG. Anything else?
you need the ideal plaintiff, who cant afford the water. which explains why no cases are successful as of yet. because these arent the types of folks that are suing over water quality.
Portland may break the impasse. There are enough environmentally minded folks/attys to create a backlash if the City mandates fluoridation. dont with a hippies water, as the saying goes.
Do people even need to drink water alone? Could they not get it in the other liquids they drink?
RG said no such thing. He did say he thought your argument wouldn't pass judicial muster.
Generalize from the particular, much?
Motif: premature touchdown celebration. It becomes you.
cooking, hygiene, household use, and if you had a plaintiff with kidney problems, who were high risk, you could probably show a need to have access to water
I never made an argument, so who is putting words in whos mouth?
fieldgoal.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
