Lets discuss the specific Constitutionality of the Dobbs decision

[EvilCat Breath]

The left tried to use the SCOTUS to force their world view onto everyone. Naturally they are livid and freaking out that the people will actually have a voice on this issue.

The left was gleefully expecting SCOTUS to make pot legal under federal law. That's not going to happen.

 

[BluesLegend]

We went from a monarchy to a democracy and the left hates it. All the Court did was to leave it up to the voters to authorize states to determine the conditions that abortion would be allowed. It's ironic that democrats don't seem to trust democracy.

Dems long to rule with an iron fist. Allowing the people to decide is NOT what they want.

 

[occupied]

The left was gleefully expecting SCOTUS to make pot legal under federal law. That's not going to happen.

News to me. The right of government to regulate substances is not in question.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left was gleefully expecting SCOTUS to make pot legal under federal law. That's not going to happen.

The left's world view is a minority view and they know it. Even in ultra liberal California the left has run to the courts to overturn statewide elections and the will of the people when it conflicted with their views.

 

[BluesLegend]

The SCOTUS also blasted a giant hole in the Dem news media's narrative that 'a majority' agree with their view. If that were true Dems don't have to worry about the people in each state having a say now do they.

 

[ColonelAngus]

We went from a monarchy to a democracy and the left hates it. All the Court did was to leave it up to the voters to authorize states to determine the conditions that abortion would be allowed. It's ironic that democrats don't seem to trust democracy.

Its fascinating how easily they are manipulated.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The left was gleefully expecting SCOTUS to make pot legal under federal law. That's not going to happen.

Yep, it is a state issue.

The Fed could decriminalize weed, Congress could pass a bill at any time.

 

[buckeye]

If mom has the choice to keep or kill the baby, and the man has no say….shouldnt the man have the choice to pay child support?

Another crazy point in this debate! Whether this life is deserving of birth is entirely in the woman's hands. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[BluesLegend]

Yep, it is a state issue.

The Fed could decriminalize weed, Congress could pass a bill at any time.

Yes but those in Congress don't want to be held accountable for supporting legalization and losing their seat. Instead they want the courts to do their job.

 

[Seymour Flops]

The OP, ColonelAngus has a point that the constitution does not mention abortion. However, skews13 also has a point that the constitution specifically says that the enumerated rights are not the only rights that people have, so it isn't a settled issue, solely because abortion is not specifically mentioned.

That said, we have to analyze. What rights could the founders have meant? Were they too numerous to enumerate them all? If so, why enumerate any?

My theory is that they enumerated two kinds of rights: Rights that at that time had been violated by Merry Olde England, and rights that are of particular concern to lawyers, who were in the majority of the framers of the US Constitution.

So, we have the right to bear arms, the right to free speech and the right not to quarter soldiers, which King George was violating on a regular bases. We also have the right to due process, not to self-incriminate, a speedy trial, trial by jury, no excessive bail, etc.

So . . . privacy. I believe that the right to privacy is strongly implied by the IV Amendment. If this is not about privacy, what is it about?

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So, what rights would be implied, but not enumerated? Doctor/patient privilege, Lawyer Client privilege, spousal privilege (also protected by the 5th), confessor/penitent privilege (also protected by the 1st and the 5th).

Probably the right to freely travel, including travel abroad, or across state lines would be protected, though it is not enumerated, nor strongly implied that I know of. The right to trade freely and make enforceable contracts is the one that the founders should have enumerated. I'm guessing that they thought no government in its right mind would ever cripple its own nation's economy by trying to interfere with free trade.

They were right, no government in its right mind would. DOH!

It was the doctor/patient privilege that the court relied on in Roe Vs. Wade. But they ignored the plain fact that abortion affects a person who is neither the doctor, nor the patient. The decision also ignored the fact that states have always regulated medical practice, which does not in and of itself violate privacy. If my state requires my doctor to be licensed by my state medical board, my privacy is not violated. If my state bans fee sharing among referring physicians and specialists, that does not violate my privacy.

If a state decides to criminalize abortion on the grounds that it kills a person, that is a violent crime. States have always had jurisdiction over most violent crimes.

Someday, the court may rule that a state banning murder of born persons - but not unborn persons - violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. Then it would be correct to say that the USSC "banned abortion," or at least ordered states to ban it. But that hasn't happened yet.

 

[Pellinore]

The Consitution does not mention abortion as a right. The SUPREME COURT has no justidiction to rule. It is up to the states to make their own laws.

Its not complex.

Its amazing that SCOTUS says , “Make your own laws, its not up to us.”…..and the cult calls them FASCIST!

THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM!

DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION

www.law.cornell.edu

How, specifically is abortion covered as a right in the Constitution?

I see speech, arms, self incrimination, due process….no abortions.

Well, there's two parts to this argument, of course. The first asks whether the federal government has the power and/or the responsibility to prevent individual states from passing restrictive laws. The answer to that is pretty clearly yes; that's what a Constitutional right is, and it was clearly expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment. That solves the jurisdiction question.

The other question is whether abortion is an unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment. By the time of Roe, it had been pretty well established that one of those unenumerated rights is privacy, which is considered part of "liberty," which is guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Blackmun's majority decision in Roe says that part of the right to privacy is the right to your own medical decisions, which includes abortion. You don't have to agree with Roe, but that is what their argument was.

In the Dobbs decision, Justice Alito's majority opinion said that the right to abortion was not "deeply rooted" enough in American society to count as an unenumerated right, referencing back to the time of the Fourteenth's adoption in 1869, and even farther to 17th century English common law, while brushing aside Roe's existence for almost fifty years, and ignoring completely the medical advancements and the inability for women to vote in those days. He also talks about how abortion concerns an "unborn human being," where Roe specifically said that it wasn't the Court's place to decide when human life begins; Alito's implication was that the subject has, in fact, been decided, when anyone with a newspaper can see that it hasn't.

The dissent to Dobbs was pretty blistering but didn't change anything, with Justice Thomas even going so far as to say the Court should reconsider other similar rulings, which leads to how the two questions merge. It really cannot be overstated how much of an earthquake it is for the Court to remove a major Constitutional right, because that is what they did for the first time in American history. That alone strikes me as the opposite of progress, as surely as it would be if the Court allowed states to infringe, for example, speech, arms, self-incrimination, or due process.