Replies

While I want President Bush to pick strict Constructionalists anyway, would it matter in this case?

From Post #2 at this thread:

"Would this legislation actually overturn Roe v. Wade?
Yes, it would. Few people realize that Roe v. Wade shows us the way to its own downfall. The key passage, written by the author of the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, states in unequivocal terms: “If personhood is established, the case for legalized abortion collapses, for the fetus' right to life would be guaranteed by the 14th Amendment." (Roe v. Wade, Majority Decision, Section IX) The pro-life movement keeps trying to make believe that it can work within the framework of Roe v. Wade, gradually chipping away at abortion. At the same time, the number of victims of abortion keeps climbing and well-intentioned laws are struck down time after time by the monolith of Roe v. Wade. The Right to Life Act faces the reality that the wall of abortion is still intact. Roe v. Wade itself offers us the key to bring down abortion, that key is personhood, and the Congress has ample room under our Constitution to define it to include the unborn."

"While I want President Bush to pick strict Constructionalists anyway, would it matter in this case?"

Unfortunately, more than you can imagine. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to legislate for its enforcement because the Reconstruction Congress did not trust courts to enforce the rights conferred by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (i.e., Due Process, Privileges and Immunities and Equal Protection). This legislative power would thus include the authority to legislate regarding the scope of Section 1. However, the "modern" view of judicial power (also known as the "imperialist" view) claims that only the judicial branch of government may interpret any clause in the Constitution, so a Supreme Court in which an O'Connor is the swing vote would likely rule that Congress may not legislate to include unborn human beings within the coverage of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. We need a strict constructionist, not merely a pro-lifer, to replace O'Connor in the Supreme Court, and given that Kennedy has been wobblier than ever of late we may need an additional strict constructionist to replace Stevens (who may retire soon, although he may try to wait until after the next presidential election in the hopes that a fellow liberal is named to replace him).