8mm
Posted on 04/08/2008 4:28:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
Which would be a thousand times better than what we have now. I am in favor of letting state rights and the democratic process decide things.
ping
Coward.
I believe he was referring to state legislatures of which there are some that would make it law.
Roe v Wade is bad law, legislated from the bench, instead of the ballot box, where this issue belongs.
If the zealots on both sides have any moxie at all, they would let the people speak with their vote, rather than try to force some ethereal meaning that is not spelled out clearly for either side.
But every time I mention this approach, I get flamed.
Well, (A) true, and (B) duh.
Nino! Nino! Nino!
How can the constitution be construed to protect the “right” of SOME people, without due process of law, to completely destroy each and every right of 50 million slaughtered unborn children and counting? Scalia is correct. There is and can be no such “right” to murder. Under the 5th and 14th, neither the federales nor the states have any power to stand idly by ignoring the slaughter much less encouraging and funding it. The 5th and 10th are simultaneous in time as parts of the Bill of Rights. In such matters where there are simultaneous enactments and ambiguity is claimed, the courts will regard and construe them so as to make them consistent. This means the babies win as far as the federales are concerned. The 14th is a later enactment. Where there is ambiguity or possible conflict between two enactments that are not simultaneous, the courts will construe the latter enactment as controlling. This means the babies win at a state and local level because the constitution demands it.
Consider yourself flamed. See #29.
It's also (C) Necessary. Most Americans don't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground.
Oh, really ... maybe you could tell that to the "zealots" on both sides of the "slavery" issue.
In fact, given that the majority of states had laws regulating abortion when Roe v. Wade was decided, state lawmakers should have had few problems retaliating against the Court's Roe v. Wade decision by flexing their Article V muscle to ratify a pro-life amendment. Instead, our lawmakers just on their hands for the most part, evidence of constitutional ignorance in high places.
So let's begin eradicating widespread constitutional ignorance by examining the Constitution and abortion in more detail.
The truth of the matter is that Roe v. Wade is just one example, in my opinion, where the USSC has wrongly ignored 10th A. protected state powers in state power related cases, a perversion of the Constitution which began in the days of FDR's dirty politics. 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.
prayers up!
interesting point.
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.