[Mmmike]

IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and Exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. There is an amendment process to settle this matter through established channels. It looks to me like (a) they've simply declared the Constitution passe (the Bolsheviks would have invoked "the historical imperative of the Hegelian Dialectic" or some such) and (b)it doesn't seem to bother you.

[elfman2 on another computer]

"IOW, how are the two decisions not analogous? Ron Paul and Exodus have a good point about the shakiness of the current jurisprudence. "

I don’t consider Paul’s arguments persuasive in the least. He ignores evidence that works against him, repeats defeated platitudes and is playing to a cult like fringe following. I posted links to 2 discussions and a web site regarding why congressional authorization is constitutionally consistent. I gave my own reasons, and noone has challenged them. I could go on and debate it in a rational way, but when someone simply shots that it’s illegal and demands to see where the constitution authorizes "congressional authorization" (as if the Constitution is that explicit and tedious), I don’t have patience to walk through a reasoned debate with them.

But if you ignore all that, Row v. Wade and any repeated pattern of court decisions are analogous.