When it comes to Roe v Wade there is no written protected right to an abortion that would prevent Congress or state legislatures from prohibiting it. The Supreme Court in effect found one.
They talk about "rights that don't exist" which implies that the Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of the people to the exclusion of all others-- and if a right isn't listed, then the people don't have it.
Again that's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, it clearly spells out where Congress can and cannot go legislatively. We don't have a right to do whatever we please, there has to be laws we're governed by otherwise we end up with chaos. If something isn't listed that we as individuals and as a society believe we're entitled to but legislators deny anyway then it's our right and duty to vote them out.
Don't go and fuzz up the debate by discussing rights in a combined federal and state context, because each must be treated differently, as they are each controlled by different documents.
Free speech may be a God-given right we're all entitled to regardless but since man is easily corrupted by power the Founders had to put it in writing to make sure Congress would understand that fundamental principle and not infringe upon it.
I stand by my earlier statement: a vigorous debate surrounded the adoption of the Bill of Rights, with the reasoning supplied as one of the anti-adoption side's points.
When it comes to Roe v Wade there is no written protected right to an abortion that would prevent Congress or state legislatures from prohibiting it. The Supreme Court in effect found one.
Indeed. But since the central government was a creation of the several States, is it not therefore inferior to said States?
This was the predominant thought until Lincoln demolished it at the cost of thousands upon thousands of lives.
They talk about "rights that don't exist" which implies that the Constitution and Bill of Rights enumerate the rights of the people to the exclusion of all others-- and if a right isn't listed, then the people don't have it.
Again that's the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in general, it clearly spells out where Congress can and cannot go legislatively.
We don't have a right to do whatever we please, there has to be laws we're governed by otherwise we end up with chaos.
I never advocated anarchy, just a small-l libertarian government that restrains its actions to the documents by which it was created, whether federal, state or local constitution or charter.
If something isn't listed that we as individuals and as a society believe we're entitled to but legislators deny anyway then it's our right and duty to vote them out.
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Cartridge.
They need to realize that taking any of them away increases the probability that the remaining ones will be used.