Maybe you should direct us to the specific portion of the Constitution which actually forbids the individual states to enact a law prohibiting abortion. I'm not referring to the mental contortions performed by the Warren court in order to make it's predetermined edict appear to at least vaguely resemble a decision based on Constitutional content. I mean literal, textual support for that prohibition.
I find it ironic that you equate the judicially invented "right" to abort a fetus, which was accorded protection through judicial fiat by a sympathetic court without any visible Constitutional support but is vigorously defended by the courts, to the right to keep and bear arms which was accorded specific and clear Constitutional protection by the authors themselves but is not even tepidly defended by the vast majority of the judiciary. Can't you see the the irony of that equation?
I'm saying the state must follow our constitution in the writing of law
You obviously pick and choose which laws you deem Constitutionally correct based not on the clear intent of the authors, but on your own prejudices and nonsensical extremist libertarian ideology. That may be your idea of following the Constitution, but it isn't mine. Have a good day, I'm done with this thread.
Maybe you should direct us to the specific portion of the Constitution which actually forbids the individual states to enact a law prohibiting abortion.
Fiat prohibitions [decrees] are forbidden by the provisions of the 14th, primarily. - Such rights need not be specifically enumerated of course, as seen by reading the 9th & 10th.
I'm not referring to the mental contortions performed by the Warren court in order to make it's predetermined edict appear to at least vaguely resemble a decision based on Constitutional content. I mean literal, textual support for that prohibition.
Maybe you should get help on reading the 9th.
I find it ironic that you equate the judicially invented "right" to abort a fetus, which was accorded protection through judicial fiat by a sympathetic court without any visible Constitutional support but is vigorously defended by the courts, to the right to keep and bear arms which was accorded specific and clear Constitutional protection by the authors themselves but is not even tepidly defended by the vast majority of the judiciary. Can't you see the the irony of that equation?
Yes I can, -- it seems everybody wants to ignore/violate certain specific parts of our constitution, according to their special zealotry.
I uphold all of it..[cept the 16th]
You obviously pick and choose which laws you deem Constitutionally correct based not on the clear intent of the authors, but on your own prejudices and nonsensical extremist libertarian ideology.
Your parting shot BS is obvious, but little else..
That may be your idea of following the Constitution, but it isn't mine. Have a good day, I'm done with this thread.
You call me an 'extremist' then bid me a mealy mouthed good day.. -- Bizarro.