3
3
0
An interesting article looking at the role abortion played in the mid terms. As it turns out, the SCOTUS decision is very unpopular. So far anywhere that tried to ban it by ballot measure has lost and anywhere that tried to enshrine it as a right by ballot measure has won. I think finally the Democratic party is coming to the conclusion this is a winning issue for them and I expect it to be a much larger player in 2024.
Abortion Rights Are Reshaping American Politics
Posted from fivethirtyeight.com
Elections
Abortion
Democrats
Republicans
Posted 2 y ago
Responses: 3
2
2
0
You never always know the residual effect of certain decisions that change!
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
Unfortunately for SCOTUS, a slight majority of US Citizens viewed abortion (and still do) as a "Constitutional right" (it is not), which has evolved from a serious lack of knowledge regarding the Constitution which can be partly blamed upon the US Education system. SCOTUS was correct in stating abortion was not a Constitutional right and overturning "Roe v. Wade" and returning the issue of abortion BACK to the individual States where it belonged in the first place, regardless of Public Opinion. See the US Constitution's 10 Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". In my book, it's nice to see a sitting SCOTUS adhere to the Constitution and not making law on the fly. If you live in a State where you do not agree with the Legislative stance re: abortion, you have the ability to vote & change your elected State representatives and/or move to another State that mirrors your view, or you can use the Constitution to campaign for an Amendment to allow Country-wide abortion or call for a Convention of States as prescribed in the Constitution. It's that simple.
(0)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
PO1 John Johnson What is and isn't a Constitutional right based on understanding the meaning of the text is the purview of the SCOTUS. So when they said it was, it indeed was. When they said it isn't, it indeed isn't.
The Constitution enshrines the judicial power in the judiciary. In a common law legal system such as we have since before the founding, the ability to interpret law (of which the Constitution is law) is a judicial power. You can't read the parts of the Constitution the way you want and just ignore the parts you don't like and claim to be a Constitutionalist. The group that decides on how the laws are read and interact together isn't a power granted to one John Johnson, it's a power granted in full to the judiciary
Article III
Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Even in your own analysis you mention the 10th amendment because you think it supports your case while ignoring the implications of the 9th amendment. That's why we individually don't get to read and interpret it how we want. There has to be an umpire and in our system that umpire is the judiciary.
The Constitution enshrines the judicial power in the judiciary. In a common law legal system such as we have since before the founding, the ability to interpret law (of which the Constitution is law) is a judicial power. You can't read the parts of the Constitution the way you want and just ignore the parts you don't like and claim to be a Constitutionalist. The group that decides on how the laws are read and interact together isn't a power granted to one John Johnson, it's a power granted in full to the judiciary
Article III
Section 1 The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2 "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Even in your own analysis you mention the 10th amendment because you think it supports your case while ignoring the implications of the 9th amendment. That's why we individually don't get to read and interpret it how we want. There has to be an umpire and in our system that umpire is the judiciary.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google