Posted on 03/05/2008 4:25:29 PM PST by wagglebee
>> that’s 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.”
__________________________________________________________
That, and:
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
6. ....
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 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. “
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.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.