Monday, April 17, 2006

What the Constitution Requires.

Today's headline on USA Today caught my attention so I read the associated article about what the states will do if Roe vs Wade is overturned. A lot of the statistics are interesting but I am intrigued by the attitude of the some of the major players.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned what will happen?

The article itself answers quite well: If it does, a fight that for three decades has focused on nine members of the Supreme Court would be waged instead among more than 7,000 legislators in 50 state capitals.

That is the way it was intended to be under the Constitution. We could have saved this country a lot of fighting and it would have never been a presidential issue if we had kept it in the states where it belonged. This is what the Constitution requires as well.

The 10th Amendment makes all issues not specifically enumerated in the Constitution a matter for the individual states to either rule on themselves or pass on to lower levels.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,or to the people. (The Tenth Amendment). Of course the 10th Amendment is probably one of the more neglected clauses of the Constitution. (In fact I once read a letter to the editor of a newspaper where the writer argued that the 10th Amendment had been nullified by the 13th and 14th amendment.)

What the writer of the USA Today article fears is exactly what text of the Constitution requires. (Roe vs Wade was badly misdecided by the Supreme Court)

6 Comments:

Blogger Crazy Politico said...

Dick Durbin, who was an outstanding law professor, used to lecture that Roe was one of the worst reasoned supreme court decisions ever.

Now that he's a democratic Senator he wants it upheld. Amazing.

8:39 PM  
Blogger ABFreedom said...

That's interesting. One of these days I'm going to have to read your constitution. The Canadian constitution totally sucks. They left it so open ended in a lot of areas that even a misinterpretation looks like it's valid.

9:44 PM  
Blogger Lone Pony said...

"That is the way it was intended to be under the Constitution. We could have saved this country a lot of fighting and it would have never been a presidential issue if we had kept it in the states where it belonged. This is what the Constitution requires as well."

AMEN!

6:40 AM  
Blogger Tom said...

Put it to a vote, & let the people decide this issue and many others.

American Idol does!

4:43 PM  
Blogger Patrick Joubert Conlon said...

Roe v Wade is unconstituional based as it is a the non-existent "right to privacy." And the 10th might as well be dead for all the notice DC takes of it.

7:09 PM  
Blogger Little Miss Chatterbox said...

Ditto what Lone Pony said!!!!!
Great post!!

11:18 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home