Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
To say the Court has expressed doubt about Roe doesn't mena that the decison was wrong. The Court was wrong in Plessy v. Ferguson and it was wrong when it decided the Internment cases.
In any event, I didn't base my argument on Roe. I based it on the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment guarantees each person the right to be secure in her person, with the right to life and liberty. The Amendment predates Roe and it predates any decision calling it into question.
|
On the first paragraph, fair enough. The Court has been wrong before. The Court is signalling what's coming sooner or later about Roe. Say they deal with Constitutional issues as they arise, and insofar as they have not been dispositively addressed before. The Fifth Amendment?
I'm going to have to reread what "secure in her person" even means, to tell you the truth. But life? OK, so you have your exception for life of the mother. Liberty? I'm not sure I've ever heard it used in this context. Nobody is going to jail. Nobody loses their otherwise protected freedoms. They can still carry a gun. They can still stand on a soapbox and yell. So no, that wouldn't seem to fly, but I'd be interested in hearing more on either life or liberty. And "secure in her person"???
I'm sure you and others disagree on this, but its seems pretty clear where this ends up. Your pro-Lifers are going to end up in Indiana, Michigan and Missouri. But Illinois will get lots of 20-something women in return. Not sure how the tax distribution plays out, but I think Indiana comes out ahead.
Hello
