Roe v. Wade Question

[TomCollins]

Show me where in the Constitution it states this. Is it next to the Right to Privacy?

Here is a good article that basically frames the entire debate of whether or not judges should have supreme command without any checks or not.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/plecnik/050905

Reading this, then researching further, then making up your own mind might make more sense than listening to some jack-off's with-me-or-moron stance.

[BCPVP]

Question: does the Constitution list all the rights a human has?

I guess I don't understand the mentality some conservatives have about privacy. It's exactly the reason the Federalists did not want to include a Bill of Rights; because some government (people) might decide that citizens only have the enumerated rights.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Show me where in the Constitution it states this

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, that's kind of the point. Judge-made law is so fundamental to our system of justice that it isn't expressly provided. The extent to which judges can make law is open for debate, the extent to which it should apply to certain areas of law is open for debate, whether there exists the ability for judges to create law is an ABSOLUTE cornerstone to the rule of law in this country.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Question: does the Constitution list all the rights a human has?

I guess I don't understand the mentality some conservatives have about privacy. It's exactly the reason the Federalists did not want to include a Bill of Rights; because some government (people) might decide that citizens only have the enumerated rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. But it puts explicit limits on governmetns powers. It says what it can do (and sometimes what it absolutely can never do, in the case of the Bill of Rights).

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Show me where in the Constitution it states this

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm, that's kind of the point. Judge-made law is so fundamental to our system of justice that it isn't expressly provided. The extent to which judges can make law is open for debate, the extent to which it should apply to certain areas of law is open for debate, whether there exists the ability for judges to create law is an ABSOLUTE cornerstone to the rule of law in this country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic. It's so obvious it doesn't need to be said.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It's so obvious it doesn't need to be said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me where in the Constitution that it says that prior cases should control future ones (i.e. the doctrine of stare decisis)? It isn't there. Still a fundamental principle of our legal system.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the court can hold a statute to be unconstitutional? It's not there. Still fundamental to our legal system.

Where does it say that you need unanimous juries in criminal cases? It doesn't. Still, fundamental to our legal system.


Incidentally, the reference to suits at common law in the VII Amendment suggests (very strongly) that the framers assumed a common law (i.e. judge-made law) system.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a good article in this month's GQ about Phill Kline, the Attorney General of Kansas who's zealously pro-life. In it, the author makes the following observation:

"Roe came at a time when abortion was being hashed out in the country's state legislatures. If it had remained there, our nation's laws would have reflected what polls have shown year after year- that most Americans want to keep abortion legal but restricted.....Instead, Harry Blackmun and his concurring justices stopped that democratic process in its tracks and imposed a national solution that went beyond what all but the most fanatically pro-choice Americans were wishing for..."

Is this a valid description of Roe v. Wade? I was not alive when it was decided, and most of the discussion about it today is useless. I was under the impression that it was a controversial decision, but one that came with a groundswell of support; this article makes it sound like judicial activism at its worst. The article also implies that abortion was a relative non-issue (at least when compared to today), and this decision basically created our present controversy.

Do any pro-choicers feel that Roe v. Wade was a poor decision, and/or would they support overturning it if it were replaced by measures that could keep abortion legal (by, say, making it a state issue instead of a federal one)?

Any replies are appreciated. Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Roe v. Wade is one of the best decisions the Court has made. It's too bad liberals don't actually believe in the philosophy behind Roe v. Wade. Rvw, if taken properly, is actually a threat to nearly everything modern american liberals stand for.

natedogg