Under the current methodology which holds that the meaning Constitution is subject to the fickle position of a majority of Supreme Court justices, the statement that a proposed law is "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" is meaningless.
Before the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973, when 2/3 of the states outlawed abortion and allowed it only in a few circumstances, if you had asked if abortion was "constitutional," the answer would have been "no."
But with the 1973 Roe decision, without a new law or a single change to the U.S. Constitution, abortion suddenly became "constitutional."
So to say the proposed South Dakota abortion ban, HB 1293, is "unconstitutional" is a joke. Since it depends on the mood of the nine justices who will be sitting on the Supreme Court when the law gets there in a few years, we don't know whether it's "constitutional" or not.
If we were going by the clear meaning and intent of the Constitution (as we should), it would be easy to figure out if a law was constitutional. But liberals don't want to play that way; they want to establish law based on the mood and opinion of nine people.
So by the liberals own rules, HB 1293 isn't unconstitutional. We don't know what it is yet, so we might as well pass the law and see if it stands.
Featured Article
Monday, February 12, 2007
Abortion was Unconstitutional Until it Became Constitutional
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment