Ron Paul on Roe v. Wade
Thanks to Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal for this gem by the very libertarian Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX):
"It's sad to consider that huge numbers of Americans believe their freedoms hinge on any one individual, Supreme Court justice or not. Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion.... Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures... So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid"
While I agree with Congressman Paul 100%, I do understand the pro-choice activists who fear that an over-reaching Federal government would try to make abortion illegal. After all, as I have argued many times, the Feds frequently regulate things over which they have no Constitutional authority and our Supreme Court lets them get away with it most of the time.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 02/10/06 at 03:22:06 am . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
02/10/06 @ 06:43:58 am
I guess Paul uses the abridged version of the Constitution, the one that leaves out the Fourteenth Amendment.
02/10/06 @ 07:24:13 am
No sense in explaining that to those with their hands covering their ears.
02/10/06 @ 11:14:06 am
KipEsquire brings up a good point. I agree that the "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" provision of the 14th Amendment would constitutionally protect a patients choice to elect a (medically tested and approved)surgery. What are your thoughts?
02/10/06 @ 11:35:55 am
I'm not exactly what point Kip is trying to make....I hope he will expound a bit.
02/11/06 @ 11:08:38 am
The fourteenth amendment provides that states may not abridge any of the rights that the federal government may not (e.g. freedom of speech). It was designed to make the bill of rights apply to the states as well (as it's written, it states that "Congress shall...")
The argument Kip makes presumes that the right would be found in the bill of rights -- it's not.
The fourth amendment does not have penumbras. I've tried all sorts of light -- incandescent, fluorescent, sunlight, moonlight, and it always looks black and white to me.
Since the penumbras are not in the fourth amendment, there's no point looking for their projection through the fourteenth.
Freak.
02/11/06 @ 09:56:01 pm
Hey Freak! ;-)
Since when has anything been black and white in the eyes of modern liberals?
Secular relativism admits only to shades of grey...
Besides it's a 'living' document.