Skip to comments.Why Roe v. Wade is a travesty of constitutional law
Posted on 07/07/2018 2:09:06 PM PDT by TBP
Roe is judicially wrought social legislation pretending to the status of constitutional law. It is more adventurous than Miranda and Griswold, other watchwords of judicial activism from its era. It is as much a highhanded attempt to impose a settlement on a hotly contested political question as the abhorrent Dred Scott decision denying the rights of blacks.
It is, in short, a travesty that a constitutionalist Supreme Court should excise from its body of work with all due haste.
Roe has been commonly misunderstood since it was handed down in 1973, in part because its supporters have been so determined to obscure its radicalism. It is commonly thought that Roe only prohibits restrictions on abortion in the first trimester, when it effectively forbids them at any time, imposing a pro-abortion regime as sweeping as anywhere in the advanced world.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Why is Rich Lowry writing about this explosive subject now?
>>Why is Rich Lowry writing about this explosive subject now?<<
because of the Kennedy replacement. RvW is on all liberals’ minds.
I haven’t read the article but I *know* that RvW was a constitutional farce, carving out a federal “right” where none existed and ALSO opposing the USC in its entirety (”LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”).
The end of RvW does NOT signal the end of abortion. It places it where it belongs: with the States.
But LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is found in the DoI; not the Constitution.
Ya. I know. Why is anyone sticking this in the collective eye of Dems peior to nomination and hearings?
The correct reference is to the Due Process Clauses (see 5th and 14th Amendments). Both refer to not being denied "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".
Roe V. Wade was a travesty of human life costing 80 millions lives. Is is far worse that the holocaust or the even greater stalinist starvation of 10 million land owners or the grand daddy of them all— the 50 millions deaths in China inflicted by Mao Tse Tung. At least know that it will soon end. Praise God.
Does the constitution really need to say, "The government cannot kill you, no one can kill you. You have the right to life"???
The 5th Amendment clear states: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Why not? It;’s going to be an issue in any confirmation fight.
Murder isn't even unconstitutional. It is (or was) a State issue.
More specifically, in stark contrast to the rights that the Founding States amended the Constitution to expressly protect in the Bill of Rights for example, please consider the following.
The 17th Amendment, in conjunction with RvW's fictitious constitutional right to have an abortion, guaranteed career senators an endless supply of reelection votes in exchange for endless unconstitutional abortion funding. This is because constitutionally low-information women voters have evidently never understood that the states have never expressly given the feds the specific power to tax and spend for abortion purposes.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In other words, unlike citizens having an express constitutional right like the 2nd Amendment which makes it relatively easy for patriots to protect their gun rights for example, career senators have to repeatedly fight tooth-and-nail to maintain a pro-abortion majority of activist justices on the Supreme Court in order to keep the phony constitutional right to have an abortion alive.
Consider constitutionally low-information Sen. Collins for example
The correct reference is to the Due Process Clauses (see 5th and 14th Amendments). Both refer to not being denied “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
Perhaps the most problematic issue is “no person” shall be denied instead of “no citizen” shall be denied.....
Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of the 20th century. What it says is that effectively an unborn person has no rights that it's mother is bound to respect.
Nominate an unapologetic Constitution loving American. Who will be our pre election Bork? We need another Trump like person for the times.
Fine. I just dont see a never trumping establishment rino going for this with good intentions
Thats all. Watch lowry after the SC Judge gets in. See if he’s still making any kind of a case that has anything to do with defending the unborn victims or Trump. Or the Constitution
CS is LONG dead!
While the 'right' to KILL is found in the shadows (penumbral).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.