[Non-Sequitur]

Did the Court exceed it's authority in Scott v Sandford or Roe v. Wade? No, because both those cases brought Constitutional issues before it. Do I agree with the decisions in either case? No, but that doesn't mean that they are valid decisions. My opinion on what is Constitutional and what is not has no legal standing. And neither, sad to say, does yours.

[exmarine]

Did the Court exceed it's authority in Scott v Sandford or Roe v. Wade? No, because both those cases brought Constitutional issues before it.

Ba-lo-ney! The rules OUTSIDE the scope of the U.S. Constitution! How can a ruling that sanctions murder not exceed authority? Your argument is silly on its face. Is that what the founders intended? The first abortion laws were passed around the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights!

[aristeides]

So you disagree with Lincoln's view of the authority the Dred Scott decision had?

[exmarine]

My opinion on what is Constitutional and what is not has no legal standing. And neither, sad to say, does yours.

You are confused. You forget there is a HIGHER authority than the court - GOD. As Blackstone, Vattel, Puffendorf and Grotius said (the founders relied on the writings of these men), Divine Law is the basis of all law. DThe founders recognized this when they declared that the right to life is INALIENABLE, in effect, placing the United States under Divine sovereignty. Know what "inalienable" means? It means the court HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ABROGATE IT. Yet that is precisely what they did in Roe and Doe! They exceeded their authority by playing God, therefore, their ruling is EVIL and DESPOTIC on its face. Again I ask you: Does the right to privacy trump the right to life (the court says it does)? If it doesn't, should good men stand by and obey such an egregiously EVIL ruling? In Nazi Germany perhaps...this is America!