Posted on 10/17/2007 3:25:32 PM PDT by wagglebee
Philadelphia, PA (LifeNews.com) -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia attended Catholic celebratory events on Monday and gave a speech at Villanova Law School's Second Annual John F. Scarpa Conference on Law, Politics & Culture. He reconfirmed his belief that the so-called right to abortion is found nowhere in the Constitution.
He said that notion is not guided by his Catholic views but by his understanding of the Constitution and his perspective as a "strict originalist" and "legal positivist."
"Not everything you may care about is in the Constitution," he told the audience, according to a report in The Bulletin newspaper. "It is a legal document that had compromises in it. What it says it says; what it doesn't say it doesn't say."
"I don't agree we are in an era of narrow constitutional interpretation. There are still sweeping decisions out there," Scalia added.
"Roe v. Wade is one. There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion," the associate justice explained.
Scalia said that he also supports the notion that state legislatures should be allowed to make laws because they are closer to the people. That state's rights argument has long been extended towards overturning Roe v. Wade.
"To the extent you believe judges have the right to change law then you are in the soup," he argued, according to The Bulletin.
"Why would you think nine people, much less nine lawyers, are likely to come to a more accurate reflection of current mores than our legislators?"
If opposition to abortion is presented on a secular level, there stands a better chance of support for opposition to abortion to win the day as it will bring together both those of a religious point of view and persons in opposition to religion. Such a presentation exists.
The purpose of the Constitution of the United States of America was to establish a form of government that could best assure the unalienable rights proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. First and foremost among these rights is Life.
Science, the often-defined “religion” of the nonreligious, defines life as the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects. Using this secular definition, an embryo at any stage of development has life.
Further, the Preamble of the constitution states the purpose to be, “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. Our posterity is future generations. This being a purpose of the constitution it is therefore unconstitutional to abort the life of a member of posterity.
The debate over abortion must expend into secular thought if abortion is to be banned.
Because people want to have sex with who they want, when they want, and they prefer not to deal with the consequences.
Well the reality is that everything we do has consequences and we don't need to kill others because they aren't the consequences we would have preferred.
There is nothing in the Constitution about the right to abortion!
Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution about a right to privacy, either.
Where in the Constitution did the people or the state cede their right to the federal legislative/administrative/judicial axis to rule on homosexual rights, or redefine marriage, or determine what is taught in our schools, or the requirement to teach evolution, or to tell a teacher they cannot bow their head at a football game, or any of another thousand rights the federal government has taken from the state and the people. What is heavens name happened to the 10th amendment. What does the Constittution say anywhere about abortion, or cloning, or any other issues than what they say. Where do they get off redefining the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment to mean a valdictorian of a graduating class cannot thank God or Jesus in a speech. How did it go this far from the original intent? They have stolen our constitution and vivisected our souls, and we don't even make a peep. Where did we go?
That’s a win
The 14th amendment has given excuse for every liberal in this country to redefine the constitution and rewrite it. I heard of a case back during FDR, when they were trying to control the amount of grains produced by farmers. They alledged the interstate commerce clause was their constitutional excuse. The farmer said he raised corn to feed his pigs and cattle, and his family and none was shipped across state lines. The court ruled they still could regulate his volumn of production. They just took his rights away by fiat. It is happening every damn day in every walk of life and we say nothing. Not one damn thing do we say any more. What a crying shame. The government is what the judiciary, and legislative and excutive leaders say it is. They take an oath to uphold the constitution and then systematically set out to destroy it. And it is in tattered rags my friend. It is nearly shreaded to an unrecognizable rag. That precious progenitor of freedom. What a crying shame.
bttt
the 1st amendment.....sorry.
It really is quite simple, isn’t it.
Scalia is what a Supreme Court justice is all about.
Well said. Just because something is antithetical to one’s religion does not mean that it should be unconstitutional. If we attempt to use religious arguments as the strongest prop for banning abortion, we have no right to complain when Muslim citizens use their religion to make arguments against women owning land or driving.
I am no fan of Rudy. But given a choice between him and Hillarhea or B. Hussein, I’ll have to go with Rudy. Voting for a third-party candidate in protest to having Rudy as the Republican nominee is guaranteeing a marxist (Hillarhea or B. Hussein) will be elected in 2008. America cannot survive that without a civil war. But, if a civil war is what it will take, then so be it. I would prefer, though, it never got to that point.
those not explicitly expressed or restricted by are reserved to the states or the people ...
the constitution does not express our rights... it enumerates a small portion of them.
teeman
“Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.”
As it stands today, they DO! Granted, I don’t think the Constitution says they do. But, I’m not one of nine black robe-wearers who said they do. And, given the ruling in Marbury v. Madison, we are stuck with what the black robes say, until another set of black robes over-turn it..
“Not too many months ago, he reiterated that women have a constitutional right to an abortion.”
As it stands today, they DO! Granted, I don’t think the Constitution says they do. But, I’m not one of nine black robe-wearers who said they do. And, given the ruling in Marbury v. Madison, we are stuck with what the black robes say, until another set of black robes over-turn it..
“Scalia is what a Supreme Court justice is all about.”
Yes, the kind DUNCAN HUNTER promises to appoint- no ifs, ands, buts, or disclaimers....
www.gohunter08.com
Re: Your Post #77
I am a staunch Duncan Hunter supporter.
Hillary will automatically get 45% of the gimme vote.
Her opponent must get more than 45%.
At least 20% of regular voters will stay home if Rudy is annointed by the bluebloods.
DO THE MATH.
Glad to hear it.
I just can’t see discussing Rudy as an option. He has no principles. He will keep people away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.