Monday, 24 October 2016

Roe v. Wade v. The Law

I have just watched (a bit belatedly; it was posted on Friday morning) Lecture No. 4 of the Hillsdale College's online course on 'The U. S. Supreme Court,' this lecture entitled 'Roe v. Wade: Privacy And Liberty'.  It was a very good lecture. As have they all been (and to include their course on 'The U.S. Constitution,' of which I am up to Lecture No. 9,  of 10).  But I am frustrated, that a - the, as far as I am concerned - major point is being overlooked, broadly speaking.

The discussion on Roe is around the definitions of such as "penumbras" and "emanations" (on a constitutionally speaking nonexistent 'right to privacy') when the real matter is one of jurisdiction.

Read my lips:

The United States is a federal constitutional republic.  The federal government had no rightful business adjudicating on Roe v. Wade (or subsequent such cases; like 'Planned Parenthood v. Casey' that this lecture also expounded on).  That sort of subject had, and has, nothing to do with its enumerated powers, in the constitutional contract.  For it to rule on the issue of abortion, as a precedent, was to be in violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution.

Ours is not a centralized form of government.

End of story.


This is about 'original intent' of the wording of a contract vs. those who have tried to make of the Constitution a wet noodle.  A dead letter, to be toyed with by shyster-lawyer types.  As I said in a recent thought on the subject (perhaps anticipating this lecture's subject):

To say that
The Constitution
        is subject
To the interpretations
        put on it
By the socio-econo-
   political proclivities
Of the judges
Is to make of it
      nothing but
A weathervane.
       That is not
        to describe
  the rule of law
         but of
  the rule of men.
Otherwise known as
     arbitrary law
Otherwise known as
       How silly
       and deadly
       is that??

Mend your ways,

No comments: