Why did she argue this case as a commerce power issue?
Why did she not argue you the case as an Amendment IX right?
What a coincidence that it was 40 years ago today that the Supreme Court struck down a state law prohibiting the use of a contraceptive by a woman, a consenting opinion cited Amendment IX as the constitutional basis for the nullification.
What is the difference between a chemical for contraception or for pain? It is a personal, fundamental right and decision, "retained by the people," for free people to make for themselves, not for their government to make for them.
Yes, maybe it can be "regulated" for safety reasons, but it can not be "prohibited."
Remember it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, why does it not take a constitutional amendment to ban marijuana?
The commerce clause power cannot violate the Bill of Rights, otherwise Congress could "regulate" the content of newspapers, which Amendment I clearly prohibits.
I cannot wait for Judges Owens and Rogers-Clark to start on the federal bench to start the reversal of these current decisions repugnant and at odds with the clear textual language of the constitution protecting our rights.
"Why did she argue this case as a commerce power issue?
Why did she not argue you the case as an Amendment IX right?"
Silly tahiti, there is no such thing as the Ninth Amendment. All power is delegated to the federal government now, donchaknow. It's just a matter of how much it lets the states have! God forbid the states have any powers or rights--that'd be silly in a federalist system like ours. Oops, did I say federalist? I mean unitary!