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.
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.
Gov’t sanctioned killing of the innocent is unconstitutional, perfesser dipsh**.
"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?
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.
“Erwin Chemerinsky”
If you want a hard leftist legal opinion on anything, all you have to do is ask this clown. If you hear his name, you can give his viewpoint even before he opens his pie hole.
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Amendment XIV
“These disciplines variously approached the question in terms of the point at which the embryo or fetus became ‘formed’ or recognizably human, or in terms of when a ‘person’ came into being, that is, infused with a ‘soul’ or ‘animated.’”
Roe v Wade, majority opinion
recognizably human - ~12 weeks
animated - ~5 to 6 weeks for a beating heart
“An AMA Committee on Criminal Abortion was appointed in May 1857. It presented its report, 12 Trans. of the Am. Med. Assn. 73-78 (1859), to the Twelfth Annual Meeting. That report observed that the Committee had been appointed to investigate criminal abortion ‘with a view to its general suppression.’ It deplored abortion and its frequency and it listed three causes of ‘this general demoralization’:
“The first of these causes is a wide-spread popular ignorance of the true character of the crime — a belief, even among mothers themselves, that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.
“The second of the agents alluded to is the fact that the profession themselves are frequently supposed careless of foetal life . . . .
“The third reason of the frightful extent of this crime is found in the grave defects of our laws, both common and statute, as regards the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being. These errors, which are sufficient in most instances to prevent conviction, are based, and only based, upon mistaken and exploded medical dogmas. With strange inconsistency, the law fully acknowledges the foetus in utero and its inherent rights, for civil purposes; while personally and as criminally affected, it fails to recognize it, and to its life as yet denies all protection.”
Roe v Wade, majority opinion
Do note the terms “inherent rights”, “personally” and “protection” with respect to a fetus expressed in an AMA writing as of 1859, prior to Amendment XIV.
not at all unconstitutional.
a ridiculous statement from Bezerkeley
You best know of the concurring opinion of Justice Stewart:
“MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.
“In 1963, this Court, in Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726 , purported to sound the death knell for the doctrine of substantive due process, a doctrine under which many state laws had in the past been held to violate the Fourteenth Amendment. As Mr. Justice Black’s opinion for the Court in Skrupa put it: ‘We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.’ Id., at 730. 1
“Barely two years later, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 , the Court held a Connecticut birth control law unconstitutional. In view of what had been so recently said in Skrupa, the Court’s opinion in Griswold understandably did its best to avoid reliance on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the ground for decision. Yet, the Connecticut law did not violate any provision of the Bill of Rights, nor any other specific provision of the Constitution.”
....
“’Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).’ Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).”
Roe v Wade
Tell us Comrade, what part of the Constitution supports abortion?
Strictly speaking, given CURRENT Supreme Court precedent, he is correct.
Will the US Supreme Court use this to do the constitutional thing and return abortion law to the states? I don’t know. I do feel 100% certain that 4 of the judges will vote it down. And I’m not confident on Roberts, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.
He is only a professor at UC Berkley. Not worth much!