. A: Who is trying to rewrite the Constitution?
They aren't trying, they did as the wiki quote explains.
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice William Rehnquist. He objected to the majority decision giving several reasons.
He first pointed out there was no legitimate plaintiff in the case and that was a requirement to hear the case. A legitimate plaintiff would be a woman in her first trimester of her pregnancy at some point while the case was being tried. McCorvey (Jane Roe) did not fit that qualification and so the ruling had no application to the case.
The court recognized a woman's right to abortion under the general "right to privacy from previous cases. But he argued, "A transaction such as this is hardly 'private' in the ordinary usage of the word."
The majority opinion was vague on where exactly the right to privacy was located in the Constitution. Several amendments were mentioned, but none were specifically identified to contain the right to privacy. The word privacy is not found in the Constitution.
Additional problems include the court acting as a legislature in breaking pregnancy into three trimesters and outlining the permissible restrictions states may make. Rehnquist pointed out that 36 of the 37 states in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, had laws against abortion, including Texas. He wrote "...The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."
Understanding Roe v. Wade
Right to privacy interpretation
The basis for the "right to privacy" is a judicial interpretation that can be traced from an earlier case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In this landmark case, the Supreme Court ruled a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives violated the right to privacy as found in the Constitution. However, the right to privacy is not directly mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has stated that the Right to Privacy is implied by several amendments. Beginning in 1923 the court interpreted the "liberty" guarantee in the Fourteenth Amendment as a broad right to privacy. Justice William O. Douglas stated the guarantees of the right to privacy had penumbras (implied rights) "formed by emanations (a flowing) from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
In its decision, the court used the three trimester framework of pregnancy. During the first trimester an abortion was safer for the mother than childbirth. The reasoning was that the decision whether to get an abortion at this stage should be left up to the mother to decide. Any law that interfered with abortions in the first trimester would be presumed to be unconstitutional. During the second trimester laws could regulate abortion only to protect the health of the mother. During the third trimester the unborn child was viable (able to live on its own outside the mother's womb). So laws could restrict or prohibit abortions except in cases where it was necessary to preserve the mother's health. This doctrine stood until 1992. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) the court changed from basing the legality of an abortion on trimesters to basing it on fetal viability.
When you start making up things the constitution doesn't say by saying, "it "implies" it says it", then you should look at how the states that adopted the amenmant interpretted it, and most thought it allowed them to outlaw abortion. So, William Douglas changed the meaning of the constitution that day by misusing the word implied. He should have waited for a constitutional amendment or a law to pass. The laws did come and a lot of states legalized murdering the unborn human beings. Some states still would have laws outlawing or restricting the murder of unborn human beings by voting for that law but William Douglas changed the meaning of the constitution so that elections no longer matter except maybe to select judges so they can legislate new meanings are implied in the constitution.
. A: When the president is evil, there's not much we can do about that. Besides all that, "good and evil" are very subjective, and not everybody will agree based on their politics.
So why are you calling the president evil. Evil is determined by what evil policies a president is promoting. Can you name one and explain why it is evil?
A: Congress already has the responsibility to secure our safety, and construct and maintain our infrastructure at the national level.
Congress is the legislative branch and how the power of the purse. The word "secure" as an active verb is delegated solely to the executive branch unless you mean they must secure the funds by passing a law.
A: That's up to the citizens to elect the kind of people who understands those issues, and keep their promises. Most do not.
Thanks to our pathetic public school system. The solution is making education a locally controlled system driven to excellence by competition through vouchers.