[Intolerant in NJ]

"The Constitution of the United States is one of limited and expressly delegated powers which can only be exercised as granted, or in cases enumerated."...Tenth 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.....

[Tim Long]

8th Amend.: No cruel and unusual (to dismember conscious individuals) punishment

5th Amend.: No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law

[balrog666]

Of course Congress could correct this at any time, so direct your ire at your personal Representative in the House.

Of course, that also tells you why nothing has happened ...

[AntiGuv]

...isn't neither...

gasp!

[AndyTheBear]

Boiled down to apologetic terms, ask your liberal friends:

Are people too stupid to vote on the issue of abortion?

[lastchance]

It all began with Griswold vs Connecticut.
There is another thread with comments on an article by Judge DeMoss. There is a very good ongoing debate as to whether the " right to privacy" is a Constitutional right.
I am not sure how to find the thread but it was posted today.

[spunkets]

"Instead, the 14th Amendment imposed its limitation directly upon the States, thereby bypassing giving Congress direct jurisdiction over the deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people without due process for violation of law made criminal."

So, the Bill of Rights amounts to, "deprivation of life, liberty and property of the people". This is rubbish, so is the rest of the article.

[airborne]

The Constitution gaurantees these as unalienable rights. "Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happines".

So it's a question of life. If the woman's life is protected, then, unless the child presents a clear threat to the life of the mother, the unborn child's life must also be protected.

The Constitution gaurantees protection to both.

Just my personal opinion.

[AppyPappy]

Bingham's initial Fourteenth Amendment proposal was soundly rejected because it was seen as giving the federal government jurisdiction over the lives and liberties of the people

The fact that slavery was practiced in many states made this necessary. There was no federal guarantee of freedom.

[bigsigh]

The basic issue with abortion is whether or not you are killing a human being. This should not be subject to local or state interpretation.

If you need some citation, I like post 3.

[Prost1]

If the Supreme Court, with the addition of Alito, were to revisit Roe and amend or repeal the decision in favor of the states (10th Amendment justification), the effect would be to cause consternation and uproar among the left.

After that settled down, Roe would no longer be a litmus test for NOT Confirming justices based on qualification.

What then would prohibit the left from voting against (denying a nominee) to sit on the court or a court?

This is the greatest stumbling block in judical review and appointments today. With the overturn, it would end. And if GW gets one more pick, the lock would be secure. (Wrong metaphor.)

Then SCOTUS could revisit the "taking" decision and restore property rights.

And, they could further erode the ENTIRE CONGRESS (both sides are guilty) by limiting the COMMERCE Clause!

Hoping sunny days are ahead...