Quote:
Originally Posted by mikemhg
You're still wrong.
The constitution contains a number of provisions of unenumerated rights that aren't explicitly stated.
Specific to the Roe v Wade opinion it should be found within the Due Process Clause -- which says no one should be denied liberty without due process.
You can't simply parrot the constitution as it's written with ambiguities that are still being argued to this day, it carries rights in which we accept today, but are not explicitly stated. The Second Amendment never explicitly indicates that you can buy a bazooka or machine gun, but here we are, it has been an accepted basis.
You're parroting bullshit rightwing garbage about the constitution that is completely facetious in its intent.
A bad faith argument, plain and simple.
|
But can you suggest att what point should the SCOTUS draw a line? I agree that the constitution is written with ambiguity and purposely so. And it’s up to the SCOTUS to determine the final say on how far the ambiguity goes and clarify what exactly The constitution cover. And today, they are doing exactly that.
They determined (at least from Justice Alito’s draft) that the original Roe vs Wade brought more questions than it tried to answer. And the fact that the original constitution never intended to cover a topic that at the time, they had no way to even comprehend. So, they found that it’s not explicitly covered by the constitution, and is therefore not a part of constitution problem but each state or federal legislature should bring forward their own version of laws governing abortion. Just like we have laws governing narcotics and whatnot. You can’t simply say that using drugs is your personal freedom and prohibiting such is a breach of constitutional right. Using drugs were never covered by the constitution. And thus, if federal or state legislature passed laws to regulate it. It’s ok because use of drugs is not a constitutional right and it’s up to finer laws to govern its usage. They are doing exactly that with abortion. It’s not part of constitution. So, if anyone (state in this case) wants to write laws to govern it, it’s ok and it’s not a SCOTUS problem.
Again, I’m pro abortion. I’m just arguing that the SCOTUS is doing nothing wrong for the purpose that they want the SCOTUS to function. If anything, it’sa great time to be bringing appropriate laws for abortion. So there’s no more ambiguity with it. But the Dems would never do that. They will just use this as a topic to attack the Republican.