Skip to comments.Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: Abortion Isn't Found in the Constitution
Posted on 03/05/2008 4:25:29 PM PST by wagglebee
Warrensburg, MO (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to students at the University of Central Missouri on Tuesday night and told them that abortion isn't found in the Constitution. He also indicated he would be lucky to get 60 votes in today's political climate where abortion rules how senators vote on judicial confirmations.
"The reality is the Constitution doesn't address the subject at all," Scalia said of abortion. "It is one of the many subjects not in the Constitution which is therefore left to democracy."
"If you want the right to an abortion, persuade your fellow citizens its a good idea and pass a law. If you feel the other way, repeal the law," he said, according to a Columbia Tribune report.
According to the newspaper, Scalia rejected the pro-abortion notion that the founding document is a "living Constitution," that is supposed to change with the times rather than guarantee ironclad rules and legal principles.
He also rejected the idea that the Supreme Court is bound by precedent -- such as in the Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade cases.
"For me, perhaps most important of all, does the precedent allow me to function as a lawyer, which is what a judge is supposed to do?" he asked.
The Tribune indicated Scalia said he's frustrated by the over-politicized climate that surrounds the nomination and approval of judges.
"I couldn't get 60 votes today because the people, representatives in Congress, want to pick somebody who will write the constitution we want," he said.
I wish Scalia would speak more often!
Major Pro-Life Ping!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
Scalia - Man amongst boys!!!
Check the “penumbras and emanations” < sarcasm off >
God bless justice scalia and other americans like him.
President Reagan’s legacy lives on! hurah
Neither is marriage.
>> Scalia rejected the pro-abortion notion that the founding document is a “living Constitution,”
Isn’t it ironic how the pro-aborts refer to the Constitution as a “living” document.
Getting constitutionalists like Scalia on the court is the only reason I can find to go out and vote McCain in November. I’m not even 100% sure that he will make those kinds of nominations for the Court, but I am 10,000% positive what any of the Democrats would do. This completely wrong Roe ruling - “wrong” just on the basis of the violation of the constitution not even talking morality here - has disrupted our political process to its very roots for 35 years. 40 some million dead and a society divided - all because of them.
that’s a good tagline!
That’s right: what constitutes marriage, how or whether to register marriages, what constitutes murder, justifiable homocide, and the like, what constitutes theft, on and on, were left to the states. Which is as it should be.
This is what we have come to in our republic. The people either desire or already think we are an absolute Democracy where a determination of “the public good” is determined and any and all options are on the table for enacting it.
As for not being mentioned I guess Scalia takes the position that Abortion is covered by the 10th Amendment.
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The U.S.Constitution does mention being born twice.
from the 14th.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”
from Article II Section 2.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”
Marriage between man and woman has been accepted as FACT throughout history, abortion has not.
It STILL isn't in the constitution.
I got blasted on here about 6 months ago for saying abortion wasn’t a constitutional right.
Which RINO blasted you for that?
I forget, I’d have to google the post. I’ve seen a lot of that on supposedly pro-life FR.
>> thats a good tagline!
not a bad idea...
This post (<-click) tells how FDR's constitutionally unauthorized New Deal programs arguably let to the USSC's scandalous legalization of abortion. Note that the post first references two non-abortion cases in order to show Roe v. Wade in a different, troubling perspective.
“Getting constitutionalists like Scalia on the court is the only reason I can find to go out and vote McCain in November.”
1. Obama will raise taxes and spending.
2. Obama will cut and run from Iraq.
3. Obama will give us government controlled health care.
4. Obama will cow-tow to every sleaze-bit dictator.
5. Obama will renege on NAFTA
Trajan88 sez... Justice Scalia, you are the man ;-)
But that's federalism as it's supposed to be. In fact, before Roe V Wade, some states had already done that, NY IIRC. But the limitations were much more severe than anything allowed under subsequent lower court *expansions* of Roe V Wade.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
And it's not commerce either. Thus it's a matter for the several states. It would be interesting to know how many State Constitutions give their governments power over marriage, and how many did so at the time the federal Constitution was written. It used to be a privat/religious matter. The states didn't get involved, directly that is. At the time the Constitution was written, not even the states required a "license" to marry.
Laws did reflect marriage however, but it need not be a religious marriage, it could be a "common law" marriage. Inheritance laws for example would reflect the marriage status of the deceased. Births were not recorded by the states either at that time.
I love how clearly he speaks to complicated notions. I wonder if he wouldn’t mind running for President. If he won, he could appoint his successor.
The states that legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade should have been told they had two weeks to repeal those laws, or be expelled from the Union, for violating the Fourteenth Amendment.
I do not agree with the “federalist” approach to abortion. We don’t allow a “federalist” approach to slavery or cannibalism. We ARE allowing a “federalist” approach to murdering the elderly and handicapped.
That the Fourteenth Amendment DOESN’T mean the unborn by the word “person” is precisely the gratuitous assertion at the heart of Roe v. Wade. The immediate issue in 1866 was guaranteeing equality before the law of former slaves, but the word “person” meant, and has always meant, any member of the human race. There is no basis for Roe’s assertion that the unborn are not “persons” as that word is used in the Fourteenth Amendment.
You’re probably right about the current compostition of state legislatures, but at least they’re close enough to be held accountable and removed from office in the next election cycle. As it stands now, nothing we do has any chance of having an effect.
Even more important than the constitution and whether or not it is a living document, we need to check Scottish law to see what the appropriate answer is.
I do, too.
However, I disagree with Scalia on this. The constitution does speak, indirectly, about abortion.
The Due Process clause of the 5th and 14th amendment are very clear.
No person may be deprived of life without Due Process.
So, the unborn must first be charged with a crime, tried for that crime by a jury of their peers, and then found guilty of that crime, after which would follow sentencing.
Blackmun knew and acknowledged this.
That is why he went to such great lengths to claim the court could not determine whether or not the unborn were persons.
To do so was beyond their expertise....
Therefore, the court decided they would ignore the evidence, which even at that time was undeniable, and simply deny the unborn the title of persons.
This was done intentionally to deny them 14th amendment protection, which even Blackmun admitted the unborn would be entitled to IF it could be proven that they were indeed persons.
“The states that legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade should have been told they had two weeks to repeal those laws, or be expelled from the Union, for violating the Fourteenth Amendment.”
I totally agree, and the SCOTUS members who signed that death warrant should have been taken away in chains for violating their oaths to uphold the US Consitution.
“That the Fourteenth Amendment DOESNT mean the unborn by the word person is precisely the gratuitous assertion at the heart of Roe v. Wade. The immediate issue in 1866 was guaranteeing equality before the law of former slaves, but the word person meant, and has always meant, any member of the human race. “
And the country was experiencing a strong national prolife movement.
Even the AMA was lobbying state legislatures to get on board and legislate criminal penalties for abortion.
The language, in context, was intentionally broad to cover all human beings.
“scalia refuses to be a part of the liberal scam to use the judiciary as a superlegislature because the liberal agenda has never come close to succeeding legislatively.”
Except when he agrees with that use. See Gonzales v. Raich. He’s as bad as the left is when it comes to using the federal judiciary as a club against states in ways he supports, no matter the federalist arguments he makes more often.
Antonin Scalia, truly one of the richest parts of the legacy left to us by the great Ronald Reagan...
“Funny how these things work out. The constitutional authority for the federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban passed a few years ago? Same as the federal authority over guns near schools or homegrown wheat for personal use - that Swiss Army knife of constitutional phrases - the commerce clause. Scalia can take his adherence to that New Deal precedent and shove it.”
Bump to that. His constitutionalism is all about picking and choosing. Either you’re a federalist and thus a constitutionalist, or you’re not. He’s proven he’s not.
What's with the question mark. Doesn't sound like a question to me. J-school apparently doesn't teach grammar.
It’s not the only one...but it is certainly a major, probably THE major reason to vote for him. Identifying and supporting conservative candidates who can win is also important.
I’m hoping that McCain will give me more reasons between now and November.
Delaying Gay Pride day at Fort Bragg is another minor reason. We’ll see what happens with cutting spending. NEA, CPB, LSA, NEH...all good candidates to get axed. He needs the power to impound funds!
Scalia is so freaking cool!
In which case it's an issue for the States and the Federal Defense of Marriage is unconstitutional. The question is, would a gay marriage in one state (where it is legal) have to be recognized in another State under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution and to what extent can congress regulate the same pursuant thereto.
Left unsaid is that guns ARE in the Constitution.
Bump for the March 18 oral arguments in Heller.
Good post. I disagree with Scalia here as well.