If you missed the announcement...Slavery was eliminated by means of Constitutional Amendment. It is no longer under the domain of State's Rights. There is no Constitutional Amendment eliminating abortion. Until such time it is a matter of State's Rights.
How I feel about either issue is a moot point. The LAW is the LAW.
“If you missed the announcement...Slavery was eliminated by means of Constitutional Amendment. It is no longer under the domain of State’s Rights. There is no Constitutional Amendment eliminating abortion. Until such time it is a matter of State’s Rights.”
Talk about a shallow and circular argument, Tradition. I expected something a bit more...to put it kindly, substantive.
If outlawing slavery via Constitutional amendment rendered it valid in your mind and no longer a violation of “federalism,” then explain why you’d oppose similarly amending the Constitution via the Constitutionally provided process to protect life and marriage?
Would you have opposed the Constitutional amendment to ban slavery BEFORE it was approved by the states, for violating “federalism”? Then suddenly upon its approval by the states, it no longer violated “federalism”?
Please, since you’re obviously an ardent defender of “federalism,” provide us a logical defense of the concept.
Yeah, but Fred opposes a constitutional amendment to make Abortion Illegal. This is the primary reason that social conservatives don’t trust him. So, I return the question to you - would you have supported a constitutional amendment to ban slavery? Or would you oppose it since it would violate states rights and legislate morality?