Skip to comments.Scalia: Abortion not in the Constitution
Posted on 01/04/2011 2:50:43 PM PST by NYer
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo: Stephen Masker)
January 4, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) In a recent interview with California Lawyer, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia stated that abortion is not included in the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia, who is opposed to the notion of an evolving or living Constitution, told interviewer Calvin Massey that by giving some of the necessarily broad provisions of the Constitution an evolving meaning, these provisions fail to do their job, which is to put in place limitations on what society can or cannot do.
Even if the current society has come to different views [than the original framers], he said, you do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society.
Instead, he said, when something isnt found in the Constitution, it should be taken up by legislators. One of the examples that he used to illustrate this point was abortion.
You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that, he said. But that doesn’t mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.
That’s what democracy is all about. It’s not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.
While Scalia said that sometimes Constitutional interpretation can be difficult, especially when the intent of the original framers isnt clear, he said that some issues are abundantly clear, such as whether or not there is a constitutional right to abortion.
I do not pretend that originalism is perfect, he said. There are some questions you have no easy answer to, and you have to take your best shot.
We don’t have the answer to everything, but by God we have an answer to a lot of stuff ... especially the most controversial: whether the death penalty is unconstitutional, whether there’s a constitutional right to abortion, to suicide, and I could go on.
The 74-year-old jurist, who was appointed to the high court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, made similar remarks in November, when he told those present at a University of Richmond luncheon that the idea of a living Constitution has allowed five out of nine hotshot lawyers to run the country.
At the time Scalia said that the high court distorted the meaning of due process (referring to legal procedure) in the 14th Amendment to invent new rights under a made up concept of substantial due process. That, he said, has allowed the 14th Amendment to become the gateway to legal abortion and other behaviors, which the constitutional authors never intended and viewed as criminal.
Last line says....some behaviors...like abortion...are criminal
But it is in the Declaration of Independenceshalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiachWe hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.and YHvH commanded usDeu 5:17 'You shall not murder.
I posted here the idea that the Constitution actually does have a ban on abortion.
In the Preamble, it says "...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I suggested that the "Blessings of Liberty" refers to rights granted from God (Blessings and Liberty being capitalized, and Liberty being one of three capitalized rights from the Declaration from our Creator), and "secure... our posterity" means for our children and their children.
How can we "secure" "Blessings" for "our posterity" if we allow "our posterity" to be aborted?
You got it... they hate it... but GOD knows! We Conservatives know too! Abortion is murder... end of story.
Abortion not in the Constitution?!?
Oh, it’s there, right under “Treason...Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
And if the genocidal murder of 50 million unborn Americans isn’t giving aid and comfort to our enemies, not to mention being a crime against humanity, then what is?
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
I am not sure why Scalia says abortion in the Constitution, he seems to be saying that it's a states' rights issue. But he does say it was a crime. If anyone understands this more clearly, let me know!
Deuteronomy is not the Constitution.
Whatever may or may not be written in them tells us nothing of what is required, prohibited, or unaddressed by the Constitution.
Scalia is right. Roe v Wade is wrong. The Constitution does not address abortion. Consequently the Congress and the several State Legislatures, Roe's errors to the contrary notwithstanding, are free to prohibit and penalize the abhominable practice.
>> Abortion is murder... end of story.
It is unfortunately the legal, violent killing of nascent human life. It is not murder nor manslaughter. It is not “child abuse”, not “abandonment”, not “neglect”, not even “bullying”. It is, however, among the greatest and most violent atrocities perpetrated against humanity.
Has the Declaration of Independence been abrogated ?shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
The Constitution is not Divine Scripture; there's no need to pretend that it's perfect.
I doubt that the founders ever conceived the idea that anyone would be perverted enough to argue abortion as a good. They simply did not address the topic; they had no need to do so.
How can it be? It is not, and never was, the law of these United States.
It's a wonderful document, outlining some of the political philosophy of our founders. Its authorship and signing marked the beginning of the end of British rule in parts of North America. Every American should be familiar with it.
But it is not law.
Imho, he is saying that the Constitution does not give citizens the right to abortion (unlike what is implied in Roe vs. Wade). However, with the Constitution, we do have a way to prohibit abortion via state's rights. I also see nothing here that would disallow an amendment to the Constitution, although he didn't address that issue, probably because that would be much more difficult, but I am only guessing here.
I'm no lawyer, obviously.
abortion has no place in the federal government, either for or against. All power not specifically granted to the federal government, is reserved by the states, respectively. Abortion is a states right issue, according to our constitution. Anyone who believes otherwise, does not believe in our constitution, and thus wished to impose his or her beliefs upon the rest of society by means of passing laws. That makes this person a socialist. Any questions????
Nothing is silent in our founding documentation. It clearly states those limited responsibilities not outlined herein are left to the people.
Government should not be involved.
So what’s the distinction between abortion and murder or abortion and manslaughter? Is it a question of the acknowledged humanity of the victim?
Justice Scalia is a right smart man...
His statement should be understood to mean that there is no expressed “right to abortion” in the Constitution like there is a right to freedom of religion, speech, assembly, etc.
That DOES NOT MEAN, however, that Scalia (or anyone else) can assume that ONLY those rights specified or else denied in the Constitution itself are reserved to the People or the States.
Furthermore, Scalia, I’m sure, was speaking specifically about the Constitution, but he wasn’t purposefully excluding the Declaration of Independence, which is technically considered as much a part of American Jurisprudence as the Constitution.
When the Declaration (AND the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, for that matter) specifically guarantee all Americans the right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” within that context, abortion is most certainly addressed.
One last point, which Scalia is ultimately right about. The real solution of the Abortion issue, at least in the legal sense, is legislative, NOT legal. This should be dealt with by State Legislatures, and the Congress. Perhaps another clearly worded Constitutional Amendment one day.
Of course, the only solution that will END abortion is spiritual — changing human hearts. But that addresses the issue in a realm Scalia cannot comment on officially.
Scalia is a smart man. A good justice. But he’s not perfect. If given the opportunity, at least we know he’d overturn Roe v. Wade. Save your stones for someone who would actually kill children.
No questions. Your post was quite clear.