I am also constantly amazed at how thin a reed people will clutch to themselves when they are way over their heads.
The PREAMBLE of the Constitution has exactly NO Constitutional or jurisprudential signficance.
I will not get into a debate regarding your preposterous inversion of the word “posterity” excpet to say that it is not even a reed, but the image of one.
Also I will not get into a debate about whether an unborn child is a person, as you will, with the absolute certainty of the amateur, confound and commingle the legal meaning of the word person with the moral one, resulting in mental mush.
Except for the fact that it is the pretext for the entire document.
Nowhere in the Constitution itself can you find the idea that the preamble is not binding. In fact, nowhere in the document is it even called a preamble. We just call it that for the reasons of identification. It is the cornerstone for the Constitution, laid first, intrinsic to any decent understanding of it.
Hey, good post.
FR has become the home, bastion, fort of the prolife fanatics who would visit their definitions on all of us by law.
I have seen some morph into calling birth control abortion. I am expecting any day to read that no sexual act that doesn’t result in a baby is sinful.
This one issue, deeply felt by some, is not the burning issue of the day to others. Surely not the issue on which decent people should be damned.
Like Thompson. I think he did well. If he had said that the whole abortion issue was not an issue that he thought was worthy of comment, I would have still felt he did well.