Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
One can not have the pursuit of happiness without life. If we do not protect life all else is a sham ! One can not have liberty without life.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
It has been distorted, but it's supposed to mean more than that courts followed the rules laid out by legislators. The rules themselves have to meet certain requirements. For example, the prohibition against depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process cannot legitimately be overcome by a legislature passing a statute allowing a cop's declaration that he wants something is sufficient to meet the "due process" burden for confiscating someone's property.
Unfortunately, the Court seems to ignore real violations of rights at the same time as it protects "rights" of its own invention.
Before it does, just be happy the court is not composed entirely of lawyers from the ACLU, Ginsburg or the twin twits, Sotomayor and Kagan.
Yes, and he’s 74. It’s a concern, but I thank God that he is there.
This is one courageous man. I fear the wrath of hell will be coming down on him for these remarks. You watch as the impeachment talks surface.
Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the Court's result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. Shortly after the Roe v. Wade decision, Professor John Hart Ely, now Dean of Stanford Law School, wrote that the opinion "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born. Yet that is what the Court ruled.
As an act of "raw judicial power" (to use Justice White's biting phrase), the decision by the seven-man majority in Roe v. Wade has so far been made to stick. But the Court's decision has by no means settled the debate. Instead, Roe v. Wade has become a continuing prod to the conscience of the nation.
President Ronald Reagan, 1983
BUMP !!
In my opinion, the Left twisted the meaning of the word when they used the term “Living” constitution.
We are the ones who believe that the constitution is still the fundamental law of the land, and that it still means what it says it means, and that it still says what the writers meant for it to say. We are the ones who believe it is alive.
The Left doesn’t believe in constitutions. For them the constitution is dead, its a relic that they wave whenever they want to lend additional superstitious solemnity to whatever is their opinion of the moment. To cover up their belief that the constitution is dead they refer to it as “living” but as a relevant document it is as dead as a doornail.
Even in something so simple as this the Left hides behind words that they invert to mean the opposite of what they in fact mean.
I think he's just trying to be intellectually consistent. Abortion is NOT a social issue that was addressed by the Founders in the Constitution. So, what does that mean. It means that, in Scalia's opinion, it should be something that is addressed, if it's addressed at all, in the legislature, and specifically in the state legislature.
Just like he doesn't find any guarantee of abortion in the Constitution, he also doesn't find any guarantee from abortion.
Scalia wants complicated, contentious social issues decided in the place that the Framers wanted them decided - the Legislative Branch. I think on balance, this is the right approach.
Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that because our understanding of science is so much further advanced today than it was in 1776, legal doctrine shouldn't reflect the scientific realities of a modern society. It's tough to look at a 3D ultrasound and then argue that's not a person, endowed with same inalienable rights as anyone else. I'm not saying - and I bet Scalia wouldn't either - that argument is wholly without merit. But, because of the contentiousness of the issue, he'd still rather give deference to the legislature.
All things considered, the country would be much better off, and these kinds of issues would be much less divisive - strangely - if we did just that.
Katie Couric, that disgusting excuse for modern feminism, will show hew colonoscopy on TV but they would never show a late-term abortion since cleaning out one’s colon is much more acceptable than cleaning out one’s social life.
Caution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15JsYSZIT-Q
Sick leftist. It’s the reason Metallica sang Harvester of Sorrow.
bump
I am with you Justice, watch your back, man.
Wow, somewhat well done, Justice Scalia.
Now just address the substitution of due process as a right, for substantial due process as a privilege, and you've said something that can actually change things.
Not when it comes to the Commerce Clause:
______________________________________
...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.
Justice Scalia
______________________________________
Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything, and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.
Justice Thomas
______________________________________
Which is the originalist position, and which is the elastic position?
I do not blame him for being angry....
Scalia’s critique of Roe and similar cases is spot on. No argument.
But add to that: Since when is it okay, as in abortion, to tear a little baby girl or boy apart limb from limb? Any politician who can’t see that this should be illegal is going to have to remain suspect, even though they may be clever on other issues...
“Justice Scalia, along with Justice Clarence Thomas, are the high court’s two jurists that firmly embrace an “originalist” doctrine - abiding by the original intent and context of legal language - when it comes to interpreting the U.S. Constitution and federal laws.”
I fully concurr with them. The Constitution MUST be interpreted in light of what its original intent was. If an issue comes up that is not specifically addressed in the constitution, it is spitting on the Constitution to illrationally or illogically extrapolate beyond what the original intent of the document was. Roe vs. Wade was a terrible abuse of the intent of the Constitution.
When matters are not, within logical reason, addressed in the Constitution, then the courts must defer the matter to States to decide or for the constitution to be ammended. States should never have been forced to accept abortion as a constitutional right....or whatever convoluted reasoning that Roe came up with.