Way to go Bill

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

According to the ninth amendment the right does not have to be enumerated by the Constitution in order to exist. That is what happened with Roe v. Wade, An existing right was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution; the Supreme Court merely clarified the fact.

They did not make law. They interpreted law. That is their job. They did their job, and nothing more.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

OK fine, that still does not change the fact that this issue was decided incorectly

It should not have been done in the court. You have nine people in black robes making the law instead of the elected representatives of the people.

But I guess the ends justify the means as long as you agree with it!

I really wish you'd taken the time to read my post all the way back at the start of this thread. I know you said you didn't have time, but it really could have saved you a lot of wasted time posting in the long run. It really could have helped you understand the point. Remember, "a stitch in time saves nine".

You say Roe v. Wade should have been legislated not decided in a court. All that the Court did was tell everyone what the law is and has always been. It didn't make law. If Roe v. Wade had never happened the law would have still been exactly as stated in Roe v. Wade. People may have been acting illegally in violation of that law, but the fact that they did not know they were doing it wouldn't have made their actions any less illegal.

The nine in black robes didn't make anything or any law. They just pointed out the fact that people were already breaking a law that had stood since the very creation of your country.

I don't need to read the rest of your post now.

I think you are incorrect. If Roe v Wade supports a protected right how come so many are worried it may be overturned? If it is will you call the court an activist group in black robes?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

According to the ninth amendment the right does not have to be enumerated by the Constitution in order to exist. That is what happened with Roe v. Wade, An existing right which was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution; the Supreme Court merely clarified the fact.

They did not make law. They interpreted law. That is their job. They did their job, and nothing more.

....and they did so incorrectly. I do not believe an abortion was a non enumerted right. It is an "issue" that should be decided by the states and more specifically the people of those states and those elected leaders.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

....and they did so incorrectly. I do not believe an abortion was a non enumerted right. It is an "issue" that should be decided by the states and more specifically the people of those states and those elected leaders

That would be where your understanding of the Constitution is incorrect. I would suggest a Civics class at your local college, so you might obtain a better understanding of how the judicial branch works, and the meaning of the ninth amendment.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

I think you are incorrect. If Roe v Wade supports a protected right how come so many are worried it may be overturned? If it is will you call the court an activist group in black robes?

No. If they're overturned by a higher court I'll say the court in Roe v. wade was evidently factually incorrect in their conclusions. They were not making law though - merely stating what they considered the law to have been since the year dot.

It is of course possible that they are wrong in their interpretation of what that law had always been - but that does not make them an activist group; just wrong.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

According to the ninth amendment the right does not have to be enumerated by the Constitution in order to exist. That is what happened with Roe v. Wade, An existing right was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution; the Supreme Court merely clarified the fact.

They did not make law. They interpreted law. That is their job. They did their job, and nothing more.

See what you think......

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/Rehnquist.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

According to the ninth amendment the right does not have to be enumerated by the Constitution in order to exist. That is what happened with Roe v. Wade, An existing right was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution; the Supreme Court merely clarified the fact.

They did not make law. They interpreted law. That is their job. They did their job, and nothing more.

See what you think......

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/Rehnquist.asp

Well I guess he was out voted - democracy at work!

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

According to the ninth amendment the right does not have to be enumerated by the Constitution in order to exist. That is what happened with Roe v. Wade, An existing right was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution; the Supreme Court merely clarified the fact.

They did not make law. They interpreted law. That is their job. They did their job, and nothing more.

See what you think......

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/Rehnquist.asp

Well I guess he was out voted - democracy at work!

Ahh, I wondered when the one liners would start

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

See what you think.....

Dissenting opinions do not trump majority decisions, w/ respect to the Supreme Court.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

See what you think.....

Dissenting opinions do not trump majority decisions, w/ respect to the Supreme Court.

That is not my point. Dam, do you believe that the 9th circus appeals court is correct most of the time

Just because he was in the minority that doesn't invalidate his opinon (or it just because you don't agree with it?) I posted it for the legal reasoning so you could read it. ....dam......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[IanHarrop 42]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

According to the ninth amendment the right does not have to be enumerated by the Constitution in order to exist. That is what happened with Roe v. Wade, An existing right was not specifically enumerated by the Constitution; the Supreme Court merely clarified the fact.

They did not make law. They interpreted law. That is their job. They did their job, and nothing more.

See what you think......

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/Rehnquist.asp

Well I guess he was out voted - democracy at work!

Ahh, I wondered when the one liners would start

I guess I could have been more clear. But I found this to be interesting reading and more persuasive than what you provided. Guess I side with the majority opinion on this one.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Just because he was in the minority that doesn't invalidate his opinon

With respect to the Supreme Court, it does.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Just because he was in the minority that doesn't invalidate his opinon

With respect to the Supreme Court, it does.

I guess this discusion is over

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

I guess this discusion is over

Maybe we can come up with a consolation prize for you!

For Great Deals on Gear

[billvon 3,107]

>Where, before does the constitution say someone has a
>protected right to an abortion??

See articles 9 and 10. If it's not in the constitution, you have a right to do it - unless a state passes a law against it. Often, even those laws are found unconstitutional; mandatory school segregation, and the prohibition against interracial marriage comes to mind.

We must, as a society, get out of the mindset that our government gives us rights. It does not. We are born with every right imaginable, since we are human beings. All any government can do is take away some of those rights - and you better have a damn good reason to take them away. They are the most precious things we own.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

I believe they did. Where, before does the constitution say someone has a protected right to an abortion?? They did make law IMHO. How can you not see that?

The court decided Roe v. Wade based on the 9th and 14th amendments.

14: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

This is pretty vague, and it's the job of the court to interpret which privileges or immunities are protected here. They ruled that a right to privacy, inlcuding making decisions about one's reproductive status, falls under that clause.

They also looked at the 9th amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

They've already ruled under amendment 14 that the right to privacy is something guaranteed to the people by the 14th amendment, and therefore, laws that infringe on that right are unconstitutional.

The constitution doesn't have to say "yes, you have this right." Unless the constitution specifically says "no, you don't have this right." or "the government can regulate this." then the court usually will hold that you do have that right.

The federal government manages to regulate stuff like drugs using the commerce clause, which gives the federal government the ability to regulate commerce between states or things that affect it. The powers of congress are spelled out in Article 1, section 8 of the constitution, and it doesn't look like abortion falls under any of those.

If congress can't regulate it, then we have to look to the states, who can't restrict it overly under the 14th amendment, so, finally, the right falls to the people, because there's nothing in the constitution that allows the feds to regulate it, and a clause that seems to prohibit the states from banning it.

So, it looks like if you want to ban abortion you need to amend the constitution. That's what the amendment process is for. Every power that the courts and congress and the president have is dictated by the constitution. If you want the government to have a power, amend the constitution to give it to them. The courts are required to follow the constitution, and would therefore have to permit the government to regulate abortion.

[mr2mk1g 10]

This whole topic could be referred to as the Schrodinger's Cat of Constitutional law.

The law was always there, but no one knew what it was. As such it was neither there, nor not there, and at the same time it was both.

Only by opening the safe door do you know one way or the other. Once the door is open and the Supreme Court Judgment has been handed down, we know what the law has always been ever since the creation of the country. But the act of opening the door does not in itself kill the cat.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

This whole topic could be referred to as the Schrodinger's Cat of Constitutional law.

The law was always there, but no one knew what it was. As such it was neither there, nor not there, and at the same time it was both.

Only by opening the safe door do you know one way or the other. Once the door is open and the Supreme Court Judgment has been handed down, we know what the law has always been ever since the creation of the country. But the act of opening the door does not in itself kill the cat.

That is a really good analogy.

[GTAVercetti 0]

From the viewpoint of those who like to label judges as activists:

Activist (bad) judge - a judge who clarifies the Constitution in a manner that opposes your moral viewpoint.

Constructionist (good) Judge - a judge who clarifies the Constitution in a manner that confirms your moral viewpoint.

Its too bad that morals are not Constitutionally bound.


Here is a good page on the definitions of these "types" of judges:

Activist and Constructionist

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

That is a really good analogy.

I agree.

• Quote

[mr2mk1g 10]

Well don't either of you steal it just yet. I kinda like the analogy too. It's the sort of neat explanation that has the potential to makes its way into an article.

I've suddenly got a hankering to publish something on the subject... I'll let you know if I get up to anything.

(fixed for you now Chris )

[tso-d_chris 0]

Quote

Well don't either of you steal it just yet.

By way of a legal technicality, Nightingale is free to steal it, and I am twice forbidden?

[mr2mk1g 10]

hahahahaha - crap. I see what I did.

[SudsyFist 0]

Quote

So, it looks like if you want to ban abortion you need to amend the constitution. That's what the amendment process is for.

B... I... N-G-O... and Bingo was his name-o.

Then it's, "majority rules," "if you don't like it get the fuck out of our country," "America hater," blah blah yadda yadda again: the dyslexic version.

To me, personally, abortion as a method of birth control is pretty fucking abhorrent, from every way I look at it. But I can see past my own personal feelings about the issue and recognize the law as it stands now, and how it would have to be changed to better represent my views.

It's sad when people can't take that step back.

Good on you, Nightingale, for your brevity and clarity. And for hitting the nail right on its proverbial melon.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Where in the constitution does it say that someone has a federaly garenteed right to an abortion?

"life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"

Um... Zen?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. The Declaration of Independence is not mandatory authority for courts.

but is often cited for intent.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.