Laws are inherently restrictions on conduct for the purpose of curtailing what's wrong and/or promoting what's right. Concepts of right and wrong are moral in nature. Congress, civil authorities, or someone must make moral judgments in this regard. The debate is not about that moral judgments are made, but over the substance of the moral code invoked.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy; for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To instance in the case of murder; this is expressly forbidden by the divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae to abstain from it's perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or else we must offend both the natural and the divine.
SECTION THE SECOND.
OF THE NATURE OF LAWS IN GENERAL.
Blackstones Commentaries
a.k.a. the Lawyer's Bible
------
Scalia criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling in the 1973 Roe v. Wade case, which established the constitutional right to abortion. He said such decisions can't be made without a moral judgment, and should therefore be left to voters or the politicians they elect.
Justice Scalia is right. The federal court had no authority to decide that case because it's an issue of the civil law of the People, not the statutory law of the national government.
Their assumption of authority is what gave us Roe vs. Wade.
Can someone point out the part of the Constitution that gives elected officials, bureaucratic experts, or Judges the authority to make "Moral Judgments"?
fwdude comments:
Concepts of right and wrong are moral in nature. Congress, civil authorities, or someone must make moral judgments in this regard.
The debate is not about that moral judgments are made, but over the substance of the moral code invoked. -11-
The "moral code invoked" has been established for over two hundred years in our Constitution.
Congress, civil authorities, -- all officials, "-- both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath, or affirmation, to support this Constitution; --"
LPM is quite correct, -- there is nothing in the Constitution that gives elected officials, bureaucratic experts, or Judges the authority to make "Moral Judgments".
They are empowered to make reasonable decisions and to write & enforce reasonable regulations, using due process of law. -- Law that does not deprive any person of life, liberty or property; -- unconstitutionally.