Timjoebillybob
Grandmaster
- Feb 27, 2009
- 9,567
- 149
I reconcile it that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, in my mind as was KELO. In KELO the pertinent language of the fifth would be "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It only mentions taking private property for public use, the taking of private property for the use of other private concerns never should have passed muster by inspection. In Roe v Wade it is to my mind the ninth and tenth. The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion on demand and as such I would hold it to be a right of individual states to control as they see fit. But if I am going to be a strict constitutionalist must I not accept the ruling of the supreme court until such time as another case can be brought that might overturn either verdict?
I prefer strict constructionism to individual intent, I prefer to go by what the Constitution actually says rather than attempt some parsing of what the framers really meant. That seems fraught with potential mischief
That I'm likely in good company
I'll agree that both were wrongly decided. But you reconcile it just how? You state as a strict Constitutionalist you have to accept the ruling of SCOTUS (not that I necessarily agree). But you give him a pass on supporting both politically and personally a by your admission wrongly decided interpretation of plain text vs his opposing abortion and stating it should be illegal (notice he didn't say it should be up to the states) which was decided by SCOTUS on the basis of the 9th and 14th Amendments. The 14th which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws which infringe on the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US, same one which applied the 2nd to the states through McDonald. Along with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th along with other un-enumerated rights. And the 9th that states that the preceding 8 are not an exhaustive list. The 10th does not apply due to the 14th.I can agree with the right to privacy being a protected right and it has been recognized by SCOTUS as one since at least the mid 20s, I disagree how they applied it to abortion. And the 9th that states that the preceding 8 are not an exhaustive list.
Strict construction is pretty much how I described Justice Scalia. Mainly Texturalist with some original intent. Plain reading of the text according to definitions in place at the time with going back to what the authors wrote on the subject if the words are ambiguous/can be taken more than one way.
I'd agree that you are probably generally in good company. But with that list which is far from exhaustive, do you still thing it's a good idea to allow the govt to generally profile? Heck by that list I'd say the vast majority of INGO could be placed on the Terrorist watch list, which one of the goals of the anti-gun crowd is getting those on the list prohibited from buying/owing firearms.
Last edited: