[Texasforever]

There is some higher more comprehensive all encompassing law...right? Otherwise we'd all be dancin' Between the lines...right?

Not when it comes to the constitution. The constitution is what we charge government officials with following. Nothing else. The constitution is VERY different from the one that was originally written with the most glaring changes coming after the civil war. The 14th amendment upon which R v W was originally argued has been a liberal playground from it's inception. However; it IS in the constitution just as the 16th amendment and all of the others and it is now a very cumbersome document with many paths to interpretation and I don't care who is reading it you will have as many interpretations as there are readers.

[griffin]

Validity of 'interpretations' for the constitution as ratified in 1788-89 can for the most part be cleared up with research through the Federalist Papers. Poor or open wording of politically motivated amendments after that allows many interpretations if guiding principles and the foundation of Christian morality are not acknowledged... without them you will get, ALWAYS, what you described as playgrounds for interpretation and political agendas detrimental to the health of the Republic. Yes, the constitution is suppost to be the law of the land, but certain assumptions were relied upon when creating the constitution....those of Christian morality.

"The foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; ...the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained..." George Washington, First Inaugural, April 30 1789

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams