[Mmmike]

I don't know. Do you always act like legal faits accomplis are self-justifying? Jurisprudentially, what's good for the power to declare war should be good for the "right" to an abortion, shouldn't it?

[elfman2 on another computer]

"Do you always act like legal faits accomplis are self-justifying?"

When someone explicitly shouts that something "is illegal!" when it has been repeatedly judged legal? Yes. And I also refer to why it should be legal, but you didn’t notice that. Do you always jump both feet into the middle of an argument without reading back through the thread, even one step?

[Mmmike]

IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and Exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. There is an amendment process to settle this matter through established channels. It looks to me like (a) they've simply declared the Constitution passe (the Bolsheviks would have invoked "the historical imperative of the Hegelian Dialectic" or some such) and (b)it doesn't seem to bother you.