Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Twodees
Sorry you couldn't understand what I wrote.

Once the claim is made by the Supreme Court that there is a Constitutional right to abortion, their must be a clarification of the right to abortion under the Constitution. The Court (or another, trumping federal authority, such as the people by amendment) must retract this false doctrine. And not by saying, "oops, didn't mean that." But by saying, "We got it exactly backwards." Roe V. Wade did not merely allow abortion, it assaulted first principles of the whole regime. That damage will not be repaired by a technical retraction, but by an explanation of what was really wrong with the decision -- which was its denial of human equality. Please note that giving a fundamental explanation of the error would not be the same as imposing a new federal law. That's a separate question, and one that would be interesting to take up. The best route, of course would be a Constitutional amendment.

I hope that's clearer.

146 posted on 04/04/2002 5:32:11 AM PST by davidjquackenbush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies ]


To: davidjquackenbush
I understood perfectly what you wrote, son. What I didn't understand is how in the world you've managed to live to adulthood without ever coming to an understanding of our Constitution.

Under the Constitution, the Supremes may rule however they like and they have still established no law since Congress alone can legislate. Under the Constitution, the Supremes cannot declare an entire area of law as off limits to all the states unless that area is specifically delegated to the federal governmet or prohibited to the states by the Constitution. That requires a specific grant of power to the court and no amendment is necessary to stop the court from arrogating such power to itself.

You keep referring to passing new federal law. Why can't you cite the existing federal law which needs to be repealed or supplanted? It isn't that you haven't made your bizarre ideas clear, it's simply that they are wrong. Your view of the Constitution is that the federal government may do anything it can do as long as what they want to do isn't expressly forbidden by the Constitution. The exact opposite is the case: The federal government may only do what it is expressly granted power to do by the document and no specific prohibition is necessary.

Arguing from a false premise, as you and your fellow DFers always do, is maddening to those of us who know better than to accept your false premises in the first place. The fact that you boys insist on repeating the same falsehoods over and over in the face of the facts is annoying to say the least.

167 posted on 04/04/2002 6:55:13 AM PST by Twodees
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson