Replies

Both arguments seem to be advanced.

Is this an impression or has someone on this thread actually suggested that such laws be returned?

That the government HAS the authority (at either the State or Federal level), and that the decisions striking down laws against birth control were poorly decided (and thus, using logic, that they should still be illegal).

Are you actually trying to make a point here?

What does the Commerce Clause cover? The regulation of Interstate commerce, not the regulation of every act or non-action that could conceivable have any influence at all upon interstate commerce. Notice the difference?

Fine, so what SPECIFICALLY do you think it covers?

I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.

So, what do you think should happen to Roe v. Wade?

Also, where did extra-marital sex, contraception and sodomy become a "natural right"? Where do "natural rights" come from?

Do you think a State law could abridge your freedom of speech? Keep in mind that the 1st Amendment says “Congress shall make no law....”. Do you think that a State law abridging your freedom of speech would be compatible with a Government of limited and enumerated powers that recognizes the natural rights of man?

This has nothing to do with the topic.

To argue that a legal decision is in error, and to argue with an appeal to the consequences of that decision, is (to me) an argument that the law should be changed.

Mileage my vary, but I have yet to hear someone make an argument against a legal decision and not have that person also advance the argument that the law should be different. Most people seem to think the law should be correct - and thus if they are arguing that a law is in error- they argue that this error should be corrected.

Is anyone here making an argument for the preservation of incorrectly decided law? Would such an argument be logical?

Specifically it covers interstate commerce - such that Congress can (and should) pass laws to regulate if Tennessee Whiskey should be taxed, fined, forbidden under Virginia law.

Roe v Wade should be repealed. Natural rights come from our Creator.

The principle of a State outlawing free speech has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, and you have repeatedly brought up State law.

So State law is on topic when you mention it, but off topic when I mention it and you are unable or unwilling to answer a simple question about Constitutional jurisprudence?