Moreover, I don't see how a strict constructionist could see permission in the Constitution for laws decriminalizing abortion. While abortion isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, as far as I know, abortion was proscribed by the common law that existed at the time of the writing of the Constitution. Certainly the framers would not have exempted unborn babies from "the blessings of liberty" when future generations are explicitly mentioned in the Preamble, which sets out the purpose of the document:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.No person, group of persons or legislative body has a right to legalize murder. Period.
The Constitution only lists what powers the Federal Government has. What Scalia is saying is that the Constitution does not provide ANY guidance on abortion and is therefore something to be resolved by the several states.
Just like rape, murder, theft, drunk driving, larceny, etc., none of which are touched on by the Constitution yet are still managed just fine, thank you, at the state level.
FedGov can (and has) passed laws against such things but they are only valid in places that one of the states has no jurisdiction. (National parks, District of Columbia, U.S. territories, etc.)
A FedGov capable of giving you everything is capable of taking away everything. Be happy that we have Federalism.
We need to realize that Scalia can only say so much.
If he were to come out and say that he thinks the Constitution prohibits abortion, he might put himself in a position where he needs to recuse himself from THE case that decides Roe v. Wade. He has to speak in vague hypotheticals.