To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade

Re: To the supporters of Roe vs. Wade


The Constitution secures and protects individual liberty from both FEDERAL and STATE oppression of individual liberty. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, struck down an oppressive state law as unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court decided a case or controversy arising under the Constitution and was acting in accordance with the powers it was delegated in the Constitution. Therefore, your alleged "amazement" of people who support Supreme Court decisions that uphold constitutional limitations on state powers as being persons who are somehow complicit in the subjugation of our Constitutional system is a farce.

If you truly understood our Constitutional system as it evolved after the civil war and as it exists today, the only thing that would amaze you would be your own uninformed audacity to say what you just said.



The federalist papers were written to encourage the ratification of the proposed Constitution. Several decades after the Constitution was ratified, the United States was involved in a civil war. Thereafter, several post-civil war amendments to the Constitution were ratified. The Fourteenth Amendment, in particular, places limitations on State powers. Therefore, state powers that existed when the Constitution was initially proposed are far less today as the result of the civil war and post-civil war amendments. It is deceitful to quote this passage from the federalist papers as a means to advocate or justify limited federal powers without reference to subsequent history and the ratification of amendments that dramatically changed the dynamics of federal and state powers.






The people ratified the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deprive any person within its jurisdiction of equal protection of the laws. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has power to enforce Fourteenth Amendment limitations on state enactments that arbitrarily (unreasonably or oppressively) infringe upon individual life, liberty, or property interests.

The primary purpose for instituting our government and establishing a Constitution was to SECURE the blessing of liberty to the then existing generation of people and to all future generations of people. Security and protection of liberty is due process of law. State oppression of liberty via the enactment of statutes is NOT due process of law. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects ALL liberty, great and small. A woman's right to determine her own procreative destiny is a liberty interest protected by due process of law. It is within the power of the Supreme Court to invalidate all unreasonable, arbitrary, or oppressive state enactments that place an undue burden on individual liberty interests.





Whenever a case or controversy arises under the Constitution (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment), it is within the power of the Court to decide the case. The Supreme Court is NOT ignoring the limits on its powers when it does exactly what the Court was established to do in accordance with the Constitution. The Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and apply the law to the cases and controversies brought before the Court.

In Roe v. Wade, a case or controversy arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that oppressively infringed upon individual liberty interests. The state does not have a legitimate state interest that would justify state intrusion into a woman's private and personal choice whether to bear and beget children during the early stages of her pregnancy. Your criticism that the Court exceeded its powers and interfered with sovereign power of the state is without merit.

In Kelo v. City of New London, also a case or controversy arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (wherein the Fifth Amendment's taking clause is applicable to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment), the Supreme Court upheld a state law that embraced economic development as a legitimate public purpose that justifies the taking of private property and paying just compensation to the property owner. The constitutional phrase "public use" is broad enough to encompass economic development for the public benefit. The state has a legitimate, even compelling, interest in the economic welfare and prosperity of the state and the people residing therein. If the people do want their state governments to take private property for economic development, it is within their political power to change their state laws.

In Roe v. Wade, you criticize the Court for allegedly infringing on state sovereign powers; whereas, in Kelo v. City of New London, you criticize the Court for NOT infringing on state sovereign powers. There is no pleasing you. Nevertheless, in both cases, the Supreme Court decided cases and controversies arising under the Constitution in accordance with its constitutional powers and your criticism of the Court is without merit.





Raich is a case or controversy arising under the Commerce Clause and is unrelated to Roe v. Wade. Article I, Section 8 of Constitution delegates power to Congress to regulate commerce among the States. The federal government has the power to penalize the possession of marijuana because individual possessions in the aggregate deterimentally affects the federal government's ability to stem the flow of illegal drugs in interstate commerce. If you don't like federal regulation of the possession of marijuana, exercise your right protected by the First Amendment and state your grievance to your representatives in Congress or you can seek to amend the Constitution in a manner that effectively overrules Wickard and places limitations on Congress's power to regulate Commerce.



The only thing these cases have in common with respect to the topic of your thread is your misguided use of these cases to misrepresent that the Supreme Court is ignoring its proper role in our constitutional system.




The people consented to the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has broad power to pass laws pursuant to its Commerce Clause powers. The Court must fullfill its proper role by deciding cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Accordingly, your assertion that the federal government is acting without the people's consent is without merit.



Exactly, the people are bound by the Constitution that they ratified and the Court must do its duty as the guardian of the Constitution. Even though state legislative enactments banning abortion were instigated by the major voice of the Community, the Supreme Court was duty bound to declare those enactments unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.




You're spewing "the sky is falling" hysteria that has no relevance to Roe v. Wade. Save it for when it is truly applicable. If you continue to cry wolf, no one will listen to you when it really matters.

John w k- Another Opinion, which I feel correlates with the ideals found in the Federalist Papers.

quote:

"On a pragmatic view of Roe vs. Wade is not that it read the Constitution wrong-for there are plenty of well regarded decisions that reflect an equally freewheeling approach to constitutional interpretation--but that it prematurely nationalized an issue better left to simmer at the state and local level until a consensus of some sort based on experience with a variety of approaches to abortion emerged"

From "Overcoming Law"--P. 404- by Richard Posner

Jeez, john w k, you're either looking to stir up sh*t, you want to just rant, or a little bit of both.

Regardless, I'm just as interested in an interesting and informative discussion about RvW, but I doubt we'll get one through you. Why? Because of these kind of comments:





Insulting and talking down to people who disagree with your opinions does little more than make people roll their eyes and say "Oh Christ, it's another one of THOSE guys."

Debra_Law did you a favor by actually addressing your points. I hope you do yourself a favor and try to read her comments with an open mind.

And next time, try to use a little more civility.

I say "folks" occasionally.

I say fuc*king christian mindless bigots occasionally, does that mean I talk down to or insult them?

I imagine if anyone cared enough and went looking, they'd find I've used the word "folks" a few hundred times on these boards.

I would certainly hope so . . .

And John w k- In addition to the comment by the noted Jurist, Richard A. Posner in which he said:

quote

On a pragmatic view the error of Roe Vs. Wade is not that it read the Constitution wrong--for there are plenty of well-regarded decisions that reflect an EQUALLY FREEWHEELING APPROACH to constituional intepretation- BUT THAT IT

PREMATURELY NATIONALIZES AN ISSUE BETTER LEFT TO SIMMER AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL UNTIL A CONSENSUS OF SOME SORT BASED ON EXPERIENCE WITH A VARIETY OF APPROACHES TO ABORTION EMERGED."

end of quote:

That will occur in part. Judge Roberts has signaled that he considers Roe vs. Wade as Stare Decisis. I am sure that Judge Alito will consider it similarly.

What will happen is that Roe vs. Wade, now that these two judges have joined the Supreme Court will be stripped bare so that it has virtually no power. Most of the states will gear up to pass laws against "partial-birth abortion" and legislation concerning the rights of parents to be notified before minor daughters receive abortions. The USSC, as presently constituted, will turn away any challenges to these state initiatives.

And Debra Law will continue to write incomprehsible and furious diatribes that will do no good.

While we're on the subject, I want it noted that for those familiar with my relevant commentary on these boards there can be no question of the respect, regard, and deference I accord to religionists - and I single out no one particular flavor of religionists for any greater approval than any other

Big Bird, truer words were never writ . . . there is absolutely no doubt in my mind . . .

Judge Posner also points out(CAPS MINE)

QUOTE:

"Consider the equal protection argument for abortion rights. It begins by noting that a law forbidding abortion weighs more heavily on women than on men. Granted. But a difference in treatment DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION LAW IF IT IS JUSTIFIABLE, and this particular difference seems,at first glance anyway, justified by the fact that men and women are differently situated in relation to fetal life by virtue of their biology. TO SHOW THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO AN IMPORTANT GOVERMENT INTEREST, AND IS THEREFORE UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE PREVAILING STANDARD FOR REVIEWING SEX DISCRMINATION CHALLENGED UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, REQUIRES CONSIDERATION OF

THE S O C I A L V A L U E OR M O R A L W E I G H T OF FETAL LIFE.

But that is an intractible inquiry, or at least one that the defenders of Roe v. Wade are reluctant to undertake."

Timberlandko:

When I attended a lecture at the University of Chicago and Judge Posner, a lecturer there, was labeled a religionist by a spectator, the Judge laughed and said--I don't think Reform Jews can be considered religionists.

That would be your hero's opinion - and an opinion at odds with the definition and etymology of the word, a denial of the concept embodied by the word.

If you fail to understand my posts, written in plain English, with respect to constitutionally-secured liberty, that is your problem. Don't read my posts if you find them incomprehensible.

I have no doubt that the moral majority and the radical right will do everything in their power to regulate abortion to the nth degree. But with oppression comes the pain of oppression and the American people don't tolerate pain very well. I don't expect my "diatribes" to alter the course of the conservative movement; I expect the conservative movement to eventually hang itself when its own members start feeling the pain that will undoubtedly flow from their own stupidity. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.

The government does not have a legitimate interest in protecting a man's interest in a fetus to the detriment of the woman's interest. Society does not have a legitimate interest in imposing their morals on others through the power of the state. Moral disapproval alone is never a legitimate state interest that justifies the deprivation of individual liberty interests. A fetus is not a person and has no rights protected by the Constitution.

I'll let Judge Posner know, Debra Law. I am heartened that there are so many Legal authorities in our land.

But, Debra Law, if I am on these threads when the USSC rejects a challenge to a state law regarding the blocking of "partial Birth abortion" or to the right of parents to be informed that their minor daughter is seeking an abortion, I will be sure to let you know.

Then, you may wish to review your position.

When Judge Posner's views on abortion and the equal protection clause become the supreme law of the land, maybe it will be worth your time to quote him. Inasmuch as his views conflict with HIGHER AUTHORITY, yes, you can inform Judge Posner that Supreme Court disagrees with him.



The Supreme Court has already issued its decision on "partial birth abortion."

STENBERG, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEBRASKA, et al. v. CARHART, 530 U.S. 914 (2000).

Held: Nebraska's statute criminalizing the performance of "partial birth abortion[s]" violates the Federal Constitution, as interpreted in Casey and Roe.

The Supreme Court has already decided the issues respecting parental notification.



PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).

There is no need for the Supreme Court to review issues it has already decided. The Supreme Court routinely denies certiorari to 99 percent of the cases presented for review. If you desire to do so, track all the cases and keep us informed of the 99 times out of 100 that the Supreme Court declines to hear cases.

I am sure that the USSC will be forced to revisit the partial birth abortion issue. I will inform you when it does. And as for the "revisit"issue, Howard Lazarus writes in "Closed Chambers"( He was a clerk for Blackmun) that

quote

Although the trio could not stop the four anti-Roe Justices from granting cert. in future abortion cases, still by controlling the outcome of such cases they had rendered cert. grants futile, The conservtives recognized as much. IN THE FIVE YEARS AFTER CASEY, WHILE OCCASIONALLY SKIRMISHING OVER S I D E I S S U E S, THE COURT HAS NOT GRANTED FULL REVIEW IN A SINGLE PURE ABORTION CASE"


The key words here are side issues; full review and pure.

To continue

"Casey also marked the END of the broad view of due process that originally led to Roe. DESPITE THE JOINT OPINION'S HIGH FLOWN RHETORIC--IN PARTICULAR KENNEDY'S CLAIM THAT DUE PROCESS LIBERTY INCLUDED THE "right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning ,of the universe, and of the mystery of human life, the Court has since REJECTED LITIGANT CLAIMS AND LOWER COURT RULINGS FURTHER EXPANDING DUE PROCESS.

The most important of these cases was the definitive DENIAL in 1997 of a right to physician assaisted suicide, A RIGHT PREMISED ON EXACTLY THE SAME DUE PROCESS LOGIC AS ROE.

When read together with Casey the right to die decision makes clear that a majority of the Court( including Kennedy) are now committed to a truce of the status quo:

THE ROE BASED RIGHT WILL STAND, BUT IT WILL HAVE NO HEIRS."

end of quote

First you said that the Court would turn away (as in "not hear") these challenges to these abortion issues. Now you say the Court will be forced to revisit these issues. Make up your mind and report back.