Posted on 05/28/2019 10:43:27 AM PDT by rktman
UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argued last week that the recent Alabama abortion bill is “unconstitutional.”
In an interview with Berkeley News, UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky argued that the recent Alabama abortion bill is “unconstitutional.”
“The Alabama law is clearly unconstitutional,” Chemerinsky said in the interview. “And it’s what’s next. Whatever federal district court, whatever (U.S.) Court of Appeals, hears it would have to declare it unconstitutional. Now, that doesn’t mean that the court will have to take the case. It could be that the lower courts declare it unconstitutional, and the (Supreme Court) decides not to take this (Alabama) case.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Law Professor?! I wouldn’t let this guy mow my lawn much less listen to his legal opinions.
Everything liberals are unhappy with is “unconstitutional.”
When the Constitution is at variance with what they want, they ignore it.
The Constitution states that no one shall be deprived of life or liberty without due process.
Where is the baby’s day in court?
This POS wouldn't know a constitution if it beat him severely about the head and shoulders, just to get his attention.
Silly. You didn’t read the new guidelines. They’re not babies until the start to walk. Anything before that they’re just bothersome tissue masses.
Given that abortion has never been protected by the Constitution.
The "right to privacy" excuse to allow abortion is a Constitutional FRAUD.
Show us where abortion >is< Constitutional.
bttt
Depends on what he charged.
Might be good at it since he CLEARLY isnt good at law.
Won’t the Supreme Court have to review the Alabama law, since the Row V. Wade decision made abortion legal in all 50 states?
Gov’t sanctioned killing of the innocent is unconstitutional, perfesser dipsh**.
If the “right to privacy” protects abortions, how come it doesn’t protect President Trump’s tax returns?
"The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition [emphasis added]." —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Inexcusable controversies about the constitutionality of abortion persist because FDR’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices butchered 10th Amendment (10A)-protected state sovereignty when they wrongly decided Wickard v. Filburn in Congress’s favor imo.
In fact, using inappropriate words like "concept" and "implicit" here is what was left of 10A after FDR's justices scandalously "aborted" it in that case.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was "necessary and proper" to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept [???] of sovereignty thought to be implicit [??? emphases added] in the status of statehood." —Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
Patriots need to continue to support PDJT in draining the swamp out of the Supreme Court.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA!
That’s unconstitutional. Do I have to guess what he thinks about 2nd amendment infringement?
The “right to privacy” excuse to allow abortion is a Constitutional FRAUD.
What it boils down to is that 7 Justices felt that there should be a right to an abortion somehow overlooked by the Founders and nearly every state in the Union and decided to create it. Kind of like how they found the right to homosexual marriage in a nook of the 14th Amendment.
They’re not babies until the start to walk.
= = =
or maybe until they start to vote.
Based on what?
I suspect it may be too early to get Roe overruled. The Court is not going to change the law with nothing but a bare majority. It’s going to have to be at least 6-3, as it was with Roe. They currently don’t have a 6-3 majority.
We need another Trump appointee. If the issue comes up with only a 5-4 majority, then the District Court very likely will declare it unconstitutional, the circuit will affirm, and the S.Ct. will deny cert.
Yes, but the good news is that the Dems want to extend the vote to babies.
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.