Who died and made you Pope and Chief Justice?
Why do you assume that the people through their legislature are more apt to write insufferable and unconstitutional laws than activist judges who have nothing better to do than overturn the laws passed by the people's representatives?
And how would you know you have the right bead on what is and is not constitutional?
You seem to be confusing a refusal to criminalize a moral wrong (abortion) with a positive action to destrain a person from acting or enjoying a thing (penal/capital punishment and seizures).
Under the consitution, the state can refuse to punish an immoral act, such as prostitution. I wouldn't view such liberty as a good law, but the effect of a refusal to punishment is decriminalization. On the other hand, the constitution gives no authority for the state to force a woman into prostitution, which would be a deprivation without due process.
The state can prevent an action by criminalizing or allow an action by decriminalizing. It can only coerce an action through punishment, which is why we demand due process in such cases.
The problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it forcibly decriminalized a morally abhorent action in all cases that the people had outlawed.
Perhaps you should look at it in another way. Most states allow you to use deadly force against an intruder in your home. Some, however, out of a misidentified sympathy for crimnials, crimnialize self-defense. Allowing self-defense is not really different in consequence or law than allowing abortion. The effect is the termination of a human life withot a trial or action of the law by an extra-governmental agent.
What makes the difference is that most people view self-defense as a normal legal right, while most people view abortion as a sin.
Lets not confuse the powers of the state with the needs of the law.
Who died and made you Pope and Chief Justice?
that doesn't answer the question. What's the answer to the question?
Why do you assume that the people through their legislature are more apt to write insufferable and unconstitutional laws than activist judges who have nothing better to do than overturn the laws passed by the people's representatives?
i don't. That has nothing to do with what i wrote.
And how would you know you have the right bead on what is and is not constitutional?
i read it. How would YOU know i don't?
You seem to be confusing a refusal to criminalize a moral wrong (abortion) with a positive action to destrain a person from acting or enjoying a thing (penal/capital punishment and seizures).
Straw man. The 5th and 14th amendments are POSITIVE rights. Those judges who would rule to deprive those rights from innocent citizens are wrong. simply enough to me.
Under the consitution, the state can refuse to punish an immoral act, such as prostitution.
Under the constitution NO state can deprive an innocent person of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law.
The problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it forcibly decriminalized a morally abhorent action in all cases that the people had outlawed.
i agree.
Allowing self-defense is not really different in consequence or law than allowing abortion. The effect is the termination of a human life withot a trial or action of the law by an extra-governmental agent.
False analogy. The intruder is not innocent. The unborn baby is.
Be careful of having your argument "prove too much". You are actually making the case (whether you realize it or not) that the 5th and 14th amendments are null and void.
what makes the difference is that most people view self-defense as a normal legal right, while most people view abortion as a sin.
Abortion is derpiving an innocent person of life without the due process of law, with no exceptions as understood by the common law and the framers (self defense, etc. And, no, the framers did not write said amendments without the original understanding of exceptions).
Lets not confuse the powers of the state with the needs of the law.
That's exactly what i would say to you. The state is expressely forbidden to deprive the unborn of life. Therefore Gonzalez was wrong.