Abortion

[Tarpeian]

I am curious to hear a discussion of a remark made by Justice Scalia.

“Abortion is off the stage of Democracy, because the court has held that its Constitutional, the matter is settled there is no use debating it.”

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Nimzovik]

Hmmmmmmmm … was not Slavery constitutional as well at one time?

 

[Holly3278]

Hmmmmmmmm … was not Slavery constitutional as well at one time?

Exactly. I’ll be honest with you, though, this comment by Justice Scalia surprises me. Isn’t he a pro-life judge?

 

[Tarpeian]

To be clear, I do not think for a moment he advocates what is implied in his remark. But it does strike me, or should I say, it is very telling on the direction he believes the court has gone.

It may be helpful to view his remarks in context.

I hope this link works:

c-spanvideo.org/program/Intenta

Pax,
David

 

[Leegal]

I am curious to hear a discussion of a remark made by Justice Scalia.

“Abortion is off the stage of Democracy, because the court has held that its Constitutional, the matter is settled there is no use debating it.”

Pax,
Tarpeian

He was speaking as a U.S. Supreme Court judge – however, it’s taken out of context.

The following is the entire quote with a link to the entire speech:

"My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You think the death penalty is a good idea — persuade your fellow citizens and adopt it. You think it’s a bad idea — persuade them the other way and eliminate it. You want a right to abortion — create it the way most rights are created in a democratic society, persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and enact it. You want the opposite — persuade them the other way. That’s flexibility. But to read either result into the Constitution is not to produce flexibility, it is to produce what a constitution is designed to produce — rigidity. Abortion, for example, is offstage, it is off the democratic stage, it is no use debating it, it is unconstitutional. I mean prohibiting it is unconstitutional; I mean it’s no use debating it anymore — now and forever, coast to coast, I guess until we amend the Constitution, which is a difficult thing. So, for whatever reason you might like the Living Constitution, don’t like it because it provides flexibility.

What he is saying is that it’s too late now to quarrel over a 1973 law – Roe was bad law by his examples, however as a Judge he must support the laws of this land, and the Court would not likely overturn this law.

What he is advocating for, as I read it, is that a Constitutional Amendment would be required, but not to expect it to happen as the process is difficult. But to think that the Court will overturn Roe is false thinking – it is decided so there’s no use in debating the actual Roe decision any longer. Does he think that things were “found” in the Constitution that did not exist? Yes.

Read the whole thing – because what he shows is how equal protection did not apply to women having the vote long after the passage of the 14th Amend – like nearly 60 years before we decided that women could vote – it took another Constitutional Amend. to accomplish what the 14th Amendment could not accomplish on its own. Read the whole speech.

cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

 

[Tarpeian]

@Leegal

He also seems to imply that in this case and some others that it was not the function of the court to dictate from the bench on this matter. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he advocates that the burden falls on the legislature and the American people.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Leegal]

@Leegal

He also seems to imply that in this case and some others that it was not the function of the court to dictate from the bench on this matter. Now correct me if I’m wrong, but I think he advocates that the burden falls on the legislature and the American people.

Pax,
Tarpeian

Yes, and as found in the 10th Amend. Actually, some states had abortion pre-1973. And then Roe took it too far, which then takes it out of the hands of the states and the people to decide democratically…

I know Scalia would not argue this decision now, but it truly violated the 10th Amend. to the Constitution – it was never a federal matter for the Court to decide. And I think he would agree.

 

[Tarpeian]

Yes, and as found in the 10th Amend. Actually, some states had abortion pre-1973. And then Roe took it too far. I know Scalia would not argue this decision now, but it truly violated the 10th Amend. to the Consitution – it was never a federal matter for the Court to decide. And I think he would agree.

You mentioned it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe, and the difficulty. The Prop 8 case in California really bears witness to this, the will of the people being struck down in one swift motion by a renegade court. How do we combat this from a practical standpoint?

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Leegal]

You mentioned it would take a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe, and the difficulty. The Prop 8 case in California really bears witness to this, the will of the people being struck down in one swift motion by a renegade court. How do we combat this from a practical standpoint?

Pax,
Tarpeian

I’m looking for a President who supports the 10th Amend. Unfotunately, the only one who mentioned it last night (and he is right on every point) has a doubtful foreign policy. On the other hand, the present one we have been following is not working either, and are we any safer? I wish that domestically these moderators and inteviewers of the candidates would press the 10th Amend. question more, because this President does not respect the Constitution, and I’m not sure that the Republicans entirely “get it” either because 3 of the 4 candidates never mentioned it.

Remember, the next President could have 2 or 3 Supreme Court appointments and you want them to interpret the Constitution the way it’s intended – not “finding” things that are not there. So, you are going to want truly vetted appointments on this question. If enough of the public becomes informed about how important this 10th Amend. is - as important as the First Amend. right to free excerise of religion – maybe we would get more informed voters who see the seriousness of these federal grabs of power.

I predict the whole of Obama care eventually falls on the 10th Amend, (and the 1st Amend.) as will the mandate that includes “forcing” the insurance companies to provide the objectionable coverage free. Insurance companies are state regulated.

Pray that the insurance companies also make a 10th Amend. claim/suit against the mandate. States regulate insurance companies – not the federal government. Obama cannot promise the Catholic Church that the coverage will be “free” because he does not recognize that he has no power to do so and it’s still not acceptable for the Church to seemingly support the mandate by accepting free coverage which Obama cannot force upon the insurance companies to provide. He’s speaking to the wind.

 

[Tarpeian]

I wish I could be optimistic about “informed voters”. I’m for some sort of aptitude test I will spend the weekend on the 10th amendment, thanks for your informed answer.

Pax,
Tarpeian

 

[Leegal]

I wish I could be optimistic about “informed voters”. I’m for some sort of aptitude test I will spend the weekend on the 10th amendment, thanks for your informed answer.

Pax,
Tarpeian

It goes along with our principle of FEDERALISM – that the states are equal to the federal government.

The Southern states feared the powerful North and would not sign the Constitution unless there would be 10 Amendments – or the Bill of Rights.

Few realize how important it really is to protect the state and the people from too much federal power – power not given in the U.S. Constitution to the federal government but designated to the states and the people instead.

 

[Tarpeian]

It goes along with our principle of FEDERALISM – that the states are equal to the federal government.

The Southern states feared the powerful North and would not sign the Constitution unless there would be 10 Amendments – or the Bill of Rights.

Few realize how important it really is to protect the state and the people from too much federal power – power not given in the U.S. Constitution to the federal government but designated to the states and the people instead.

We can thank President Lincoln for usurping state power.(