Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Annie, Feb 23, 2007.
I'm for a woman's right to 'choose':
I agree with the article. The president really does not have much to do with the law other than the popshot that his/her selection of a supreme court justice may be involved in a reversal decision , or not!
Really Democratti (Rudy) won't be the president anyway so it really does not matter.
I like Rudi but it is his 2nd Amendment positions that bother me. I also like Jimmy Carter as a person but I agree with absolutely nothing he stands for politically.
I'm sure we'll be hearing more about the 2nd amendment. As for Jimmy Carter, the man is a weasel! His last book, pffft. If he had stayed with Habitat for Humanity I could have at least respected him. Now I think he's just a bitter has been.
I know that this will be hard to comprehend, but it is quite possible to believe that abortion is wonderful, that every woman should have at least one, and still believe that Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty. Similarly, one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document. My position is that, regardless of one's position on abortion (including mine) that it was a mess.
Yes, and believe it or not, someone occasionally picks up on this. In law school there were liberal women smart enough to understand that the ruling was a terrible one, legally speaking. Though they still supported abortion rights.
The fact is that abortion is not and never should be a federal issue. Roe v. Wade was dead wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding a state from banning abortion.
Unfortunately, most people aren't going to slice it that thin. And I mean both pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Like so many other issues that never should have been federalized, nobody really gives a crap anymore about the distinction between state and national power. They just want their way. Making this distinction is the sort of measured intelligence that we just don't bring to our politics. It would be perfectly acceptable to me if a presidential candidate just said that much, without getting into the morality of abortion.
So that brings us back to the absurdity that the chief executive of the national government has to come up with an opinion on abortion, homosexuality and how much sugar to include in your cookie recipe, instead of immigration, war, and foreign policy.
I actually agree that Blackmun missed the boat in a way, he missed where the right to privacy is plainly spelled out in the Constitution, it's in the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."
It's right there. Debate it all you want, but it's right there in plain language.
Ummm...no - this "right to privacy" has been manufactured out of whole cloth by a subjective judicial interpretation. More to the point, this subjective judicial interpretation directly contradicts the plain language of the United States Constitution. It insinuates central government - in the person of the federal judiciary - into matters where it is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN - in the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Tenth Amendment - to go.
If the Court is pressed on where the "right to privacy" is found, they'll say it's a part of due process under the 5th and 14th Amendment. That whole idea is big enough to drive a semi through, and liberals are truckin' on through the night.
acludem, I doubt anyone would try basing abortion rights on the 4th Amendment, but you may just have given an attorney an idea...
Separate names with a comma.