The court has the jurisdiction as I stated in my post. I also gave the clear Constitutional answer there. The Constitution forbids it. It forbids it, because of the Bill of Rights. They ignored the Constitution in it's Roe v Wade decision and concocted a completely illogical story in support of it. The Court did the same in Plessy v Ferguson.
"The prevention of the slaughter of unborns must come from us through our ballots and own State laws, not 5 liberals in black robes. That is what he is arguing."
Right... "Why is Roe v. Wade not considered constitutional law?". The Bill of Rights and the 14th makes it Constitutional law. That's what he's arguing against and that's why he selectively quotes Bingham. The 14th gave the feds the power to legislate the 18USC24x civil rights statutes(which apply to all) and the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s. Note he didn't attack the application and substance of the liberal BS, he attacked application of the BoRs itself.
"the US Supreme Court was not given any jurisdiction to rule on anything like Roe v. Wade, and therefore, the ruling has no Constitutional basis for which obligates anyone to treat it with respect or dignity."
The BoRs is the Constitution. Article III Section 2 "The judicial power shall extend to ALL Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." So, the BoRs contained within the Constitution applies. Madison's attack is on the BoRs!
The Court took it upon itself to ignore the BoRs and legislate a perversion, justified by irraitonal rubbish. Instead of focusing on that, Madison did the same thing the liberals did and ignored the Constitution. He says it doesn't apply, but as I have shown, it does apply.
As I said in the prior post, the 10th gives the States the right to legislate on abortion. However, the Bill of Rights under the 14th gives the feds the right to make the rules stricter, not less!
The court has the jurisdiction as I stated in my post. I also gave the clear Constitutional answer there. The Constitution forbids it. It forbids it, because of the Bill of Rights. They ignored the Constitution in it's Roe v Wade decision and concocted a completely illogical story in support of it. The Court did the same in Plessy v Ferguson.
How does the Bill of Rights get into this since all the Bill of Rights addressees is due process of law before one can be deprived of their life, liberty or property for a violation of law? That was James Madison's purpose of the articles as well as the Steven's and Bingham's adoption of the BoR's in the 14th. See: A dummies guide to understand the 14th amendment
Quote from the above:
A presumed right to abortion won't make the burden under the Fourteenth primarily because it is neither an enumerated guarantee nor is it something that stands to be lost before a tribunal. Since the Supreme Court has no enumerated right under the Constitution to create new constitutional rights -- the right to abortion falls squarely under State jurisdiction and its citizens.
Good job. At every opportunity, we must draw a parallel between Roe and Plessy. In both cases, the Court ruled by fiat. Neither case had any Constitutional basis whatsoever.