The scariest thing Kerry said last night.

[Linthade]

Hence the term, Amendment?

Speaking of Amendments, did someone sneak one in to add the Constitutional right to abortion?

Kerry: I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today -- under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.

Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision, not an amendment to the Constitution. With all the legislating from the bench these days, I know its hard to keep them separate.

*lin*

[Cleetus]

Wouldn't the fact that the Supreme Court said that it is legal make it a constitutional right?

[paraflyer]

Wouldn't the fact that the Supreme Court said that it is legal make it a constitutional right?

Wrong.....I said it before, so I'll say it again.

"..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life without due process of law nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction equal protection of law".....sounds to me like it's just as legal to perform partial-birth abortions as it is to perform the same procedure on an adult."

If we apply it your way, then there's no arguement on your side against the death penalty, either.

Besides, I don't remember SCOTUS approaching Congress to get a proper amendment ratification. This is the typical "legislate from the bench" attitude that needs to be thrown out.

[Cleetus]

But we don't have a clear consensus on when Life occurs. Until we have that, the court is not over stepping any grounds, but in fact only doing their constitutional job.

[paraflyer]

But we don't have a clear consensus on when Life occurs. Until we have that, the court is not over stepping any grounds, but in fact only doing their constitutional job.

Not neccessarily.

Where in the Constitution is power granted to the Judicial branch to make law?

Until that's addressed...

[Cleetus]

They didn't make any laws, they judged on one, why is that so hard to understand?

[geoscomp]

Wrong.....I said it before, so I'll say it again.

"..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life without due process of law nor deny to any person in its jurisdiction equal protection of law".....sounds to me like it's just as legal to perform partial-birth abortions as it is to perform the same procedure on an adult."

If we apply it your way, then there's no arguement on your side against the death penalty, either.

Besides, I don't remember SCOTUS approaching Congress to get a proper amendment ratification. This is the typical "legislate from the bench" attitude that needs to be thrown out.

No..he is NOT wrong..the purpose of the Supreme Court is EXACTLY "to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Courts considered opinion, conflict with the Constitution" In fact, this power was suggested first by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in "The Federalist Papers" when they urged adoption of the Constitution.

[Linthade]

Wouldn't the fact that the Supreme Court said that it is legal make it a constitutional right?

Not at all. Actually the Court said otherwise:

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

The Court decided that she had the right to have her baby aborted based on her right to privacy:

We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

Even with this decision they gave it conditionally.

Abortion is not a Constitutional right, legal yes, but not a right. Driving your car is also legal, but not a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

*lin*

[ilovetheusers]

Perhaps, but the way I see it, the "living constitution" as you put it still puts basic rights at risk for change, and not neccessarily for the better.

And what's wrong with Original Intent, anyway?

The original intent was for it to be a living document that could change over time. They knew they could not write a perfect document and the no govenment would be perfect and would need change at time moved forward.

Yes this puts rights and freedoms at risk. It's the risk we take but it's worked all this time. Our whole system is based on trust in people to do the right thing most of the time and to date it has worked. No document or piece of paper will ever keep you or your family safe. You rely on other human beings on a daily basis to do the right thing and so did our founding fathers.

[ilovetheusers]

Not neccessarily.

Where in the Constitution is power granted to the Judicial branch to make law?

Until that's addressed...

They do not make law. The judge laws to be alowed to exists on the merrit that the do not violate the constitution or the Bill or Rights.

[paraflyer]

Yet the Supreme Court has become by far the most powerful branch of our government, beyond the system of checks and balances so carefully established in our Constitution.

Judges rule this country via fiat.

This election will likely decide who occupies the seats on the Supreme Court for the next 20 years -- liberal activists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or constitutional constructionists like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas is the only justice under 65 -- most are in their 70s or 80s -- leaving many to believe that several seats will be vacated soon. However, judges do try to stay on the job until a president with the same political leanings is elected.

President Bush, based on his qualified choices for lower courts, would be apt at choosing judges who are bound by the Constitution, not simply interested in re-writing it.

Noting John Kerry's promise that "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo (the right to an abortion)," the seats that will likely be vacated in the next four years become even more important, as Kerry will undoubtedly keep that promise. It is also of note that while Kerry's only apparent litmus test for judges is that they are pro-abortion, Democrats never cease to caterwaul about the "ideological" choices of the Right.

Double-speak rears its ugly head, indeed.

[Cleetus]

So does Paranoia

[geoscomp]

Noting John Kerry's promise that "I will not appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who will undo (the right to an abortion)," the seats that will likely be vacated in the next four years become even more important, as Kerry will undoubtedly keep that promise. It is also of note that while Kerry's only apparent litmus test for judges is that they are pro-abortion, Democrats never cease to caterwaul about the "ideological" choices of the Right.

And yet GW says he does "not have a litmus test" so he could just as easily promote judges that are pro abortion..or pro gun control..or pro anything else...the only time that people argue about the overwhelming power of the Supreme Court is when they aren't getting what they want. Then they try and pass laws restricting the power of the Court to rule on this issue or that issue..which is specifically prohibited in the Constitution exactly BECAUSE of that intricate system of checks and balances..If the legislature can limit what constitutional issues the court can rule on, then activist judges are replaced by a much more dangerous group..activist legislatures deciding constitutional issues by popularity contests

[Linthade]

So does Paranoia

It is really funny how you keep going back to this.

Concern != Paranoia.

*lin*

[kato2274]

It is really funny how you keep going back to this.

Concern != Paranoia.

*lin*

you got the equation wrong, but concern is part of it

it's probably something more like concern to the tenth power - merit = paranoia