[MHGinTN]

"The state must follow our constitution in the writing of law." [Actually, that's incorrect because it is the subpreme court in whatever variation sits the benches at the time that determine what is lawful, what is 'constitutional.] "They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited." [But the nine black-robed oligarchs can establish law by fiat, and have, with such as with the Dred Scott decision ... and Roe and Doe and Bolton and Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Lawrence v Texas and Stenberg v Carhardt, , none of which decisions can be defended via the Constitution but are touted as 'the law of the land' because nine black robed individuals passed a judgment derived from their preferences rather than the Constitution.]

[tpaine]

Our common law defines criminal acts. Our constitution protects us from overzealous interpretations of what is 'crime'.. The state must follow our constitution in the writing of law. They cannot decree that early term abortion is murder, any more than decree 'assault' guns are prohibited.. Maybe you should direct us to the specific portion of the Constitution which actually forbids the individual states to enact a law prohibiting abortion.

Fiat prohibitions [decrees] are forbidden by the provisions of the 14th, primarily. - Such rights need not be specifically enumerated of course, as seen by reading the 9th & 10th.

Actually, that's incorrect because it is the subpreme court in whatever variation sits the benches at the time that determine what is lawful, what is 'constitutional.

Not true.. The court is bound, just as we all are.

But the nine black-robed oligarchs can establish law by fiat, and have, with such as with the Dred Scott decision ... and Roe and Doe and Bolton and Planned Parenthood v Casey, and Lawrence v Texas and Stenberg v Carhardt, , none of which decisions can be defended via the Constitution but are touted as 'the law of the land' because nine black robed individuals passed a judgment derived from their preferences rather than the Constitution.

All of them were/are 'defended' by peer agreement. Unconstitutional decisions, such as upholding booze prohibition, are trumped by jurys & overthrown by amendment or legislative action.

This process is now happening with gun control & drug prohibition.. -- It takes time.