[xzins]

First, it says that the Constitution applies to us and to our posterity. Our posterity is the unborn. This is in the preamble, the purpose statement, of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no opinion that can be rendered that contradicts the preamble. If a judge says, "abortion is OK" and the Constitution says "posterity" is covered, then...

I'm interested in your take on the "Preamble...posterity" argument. It's becoming common. I buy into it, because I do consider the Preamble to be the Constitution's "purpose statement."

Do you have any thoughts?

[wagglebee]

I'm interested in your take on the "Preamble...posterity" argument. It's becoming common. I buy into it, because I do consider the Preamble to be the Constitution's "purpose statement."

Do you have any thoughts?

A-G, I would also love to read what you have to say about this, please ping me.

[Alamo-Girl]

I fully agree with your position on the posterity clause of the Preamble to the Constitution, dear brother in Christ!

IMHO, it is a stronger case than relying on the "inalienable rights" clause of the Declaration of Independence - simply because the Supreme Court (and all who take the oath of office) are sworn to defend the Constitution.

Since abortion (ala right to privacy) became a "right" by judicial activism, it seems to me the Supreme Court must lay that decision aside. And to do that, they need a foundation argument in the Constitution, i.e. the Preamble.

I pray that all of the conservative justices will enjoy good health during this administration and that the liberal justices will have a change of heart.