Replies

So would a constitutional amendment—in the ratification process it’s pretty darn federalist. Indeed, as I recall, the idea of amending the Constitution is, gasp, written into the Constitution in a remarkably federalist way.

Saying that a constitutional amendment is anti-federalist is silly. It would be anti-federalist if Congress alone could amend, but the Founders were just a tad smarter than that. They put that ratification business in there.

So Fred’s objection to a constitutional amendment is specious and empty-headed. All he has to do is say, “Go for it. If we can get an amendment ratified—very unlikely—it’d be one federalist way to get the job done. If we can get the judiciary to overturn R v W, it’s a less federalist way to do it but the only reason it has to be done at all is that anti-federalist stupidity called R v W.” It wouldn’t have hurt his federalism one iota. But he’s banking on people not stopping to think about the federalisticality of the ratification process of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment. He’s counting on federalists to be stooooooopid. Which shows how smart he is.

But then, again, perhaps those boobs who wrote that Constitution didn’t know what they were doing when the put the ratification process in. Some of them weren’t good enough to play a lawyer on television. What a bunch of doofuses!

Dionysius... wrote: “But he’s banking on people not stopping to think about the federalisticality of the ratification process of a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment.”

OK, please write what you’d like to see added to the US Constitution to ban abortion. I’m not asking for just a statement saying it should be banned. I’d like to see exactly how you’d write that amendment you are so eager to add to our nation’s law. Then you can explain how you are going to get it passed by 2/3 majorities in both the senate and house and 3/4 of the states.