Bigger Than Dobbs v. Jackson?!? SCOTUS UNANIMOUS Ruling In Shurtleff Vs. City Of Boston Has Far - Reaching Effects
(pjmedia.com)
- N C S W I C -
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (10)
sorted by:
There shouldn't be anything to 'restore'. This suggest the 'right' never existed.
I see your point and stand corrected.. I should have said acknowledged the right.
eh ... re-store means to put in store anew, leading to the logical conclusion that before the re-store it must have been in store but gone out of store.
However, the suggestion that rights need restoring is not correct. Laws do not give you your rights. Your rights never can be sold, alienated.
What can happen, is that men can be programmed to think otherwise, or bow to the prevailing wind under the guise of ruthless men with an agenda of power grabs.
or that it ceased to exist at a point in time. Rights are self-existent, they can only be denied, not eliminated.