Quotes of the Day: ‘Did any provision of the Constitution guarantee a right to abortion?’

Scalia makes the U. S. Supreme Court a world laughing stock. Apparently, America recruits it’s judges from Emmet Kelly’s Clown College.
Hey, Tony……where does the Constitution deny the right to an abortion or deny the right to homosexual acts? I know high school students who know more about the U.S. Constitution than Scalia can ever hope to know.
Scalia merely breeds contempt for the judiciary. Koko the Bonobo would make a better Supreme Court Justice than Scalia does.

When the Constitution was written, humans had not so totally overpopulated the planet, that we were killing it. Now we are.
Any means to contain our overpopulation of the planet, and contain the corresponding environmental destruction associated with it, should be considered a big plus.
If we were socially responsible, in our society, we would not ask people to bring children into a dying world, that would only hasten the demise of the planet, and who would NOT be able to adequately provide for those children, in the first place.
It is religion that teaches us to commit suicide, when our brains should tell us not to.

Noz……….Scalia is a joke on America…..a very bad joke. – Doppelganger
How about backing up your opinion with something other than Feelings™.

“Constitution actually says you have a right to your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Babies getting sucked and ripped apart does not appear to follow any of these constitutional guarantees.” um, not that i am FOR abortion, or against, but babies MIGHT BE construed in “pursuit of happiness”.
“where does the Constitution deny the right to an abortion or deny the right to homosexual acts?” Tenth Amendment?
Now, in my opinion, NEITHER of these questions have any business in our Federation Government. IF you want to sleep with and enjoy a full life with someone of the same sex, so long as both agree, fine. IF you want to get married, well, first we have to figure out if marriage is a SECULAR practice or a RELIGIOUS practice. IF it is Secular, than the government cannot stop you as the LAW is equal unto all. IF it is Religious, then the government cannot stop you because the of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no laws respecting a religion nor prohibit the free expression thereof.”
On abortion…i will never have to make that choice, being male. and if the unborn child is not mine, i should have no say in that choice. BUT, do not ask me to FUND someone having an abortion when i have no say in it.

I see no compelling national interest in promoting abortion other than as a political ploy of the democrat party to garner votes from women who would destroy the issue of their own womb, as Mother Theresa might put it.

Are you talking about “Jim Jones drinks the kool-aid” religion suicide? My “religion’ does not teach me to commit suicide. The only “religion” that I know that teaches “suicide” is radical Islam. My brain tells me not to. So who decides the way to control the overpopulation, as you call it, without trampling all over our rights? No one has asked people to bring children into this world. Some of us do because it is our God-given right to do so and we want and them. Maybe we should put the names of everyone in a hat, starting drawing out names and choose that way to see who lives or dies so there will not be a “demise” of planet Earth. This planet is not dying. It is going thru changes that have occurred before. Say hi to Al.

The answer is yes, the 10th amendment. Whatever isn’t explicitly in the constitution is left to the states, and then to the people.
Posted by: American Patriot | Nov 18, 2009 7:38:17 PM
—————————-
And, so, most states have ruled that “marriage” is the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Settled, then.

…where does the Constitution deny the right to an abortion or deny the right to homosexual acts?
Posted by: Doppelganger | Nov 18, 2009 12:07:55 PM
————————————
Where, in the Constitution, is the so-called “Right” to abortion?
Where, in the Constitution, is the so-called “Right” to homosexuality/homosexual acts?

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – B
I don’t think you want to use that argument B.
So far, when the people have voted despite all the attempts at “normalization” by the media/pop culture,
Marriage
remains a union between a man and a woman.
Makes sense, because that’s what it is.
If you are interested in retaining certain union rights for gays then call it what it is,
Garriage
and then see if the people agree to grant those rights.

Jean,
You make good points by they are for the legislature to decide. If we want to make sweeping social changes we should do it the same way the Constitution was passed, by vote. The moment we start allowing the Supreme Court to “find” rights in the Constitution we are allowing 9 people to decide what is best for our country. That is a job for the 536 people we send to Washington. What Scalia says is true- where in the Constitution does it give a right to Abortion or homosexual sodomy. He does not argue they shouldn’t have that right, he simply says it is not currently in the Constitution so if legislatures want to give them those rights or protect them it is one thing, but a completely seperate issue from whether the court should be granting those right.

@ Dan (& others)
Life, Liberty, and personal property is mentioned in the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, in deciding Roe v. Wade, used the 9th and 14th to support their assertion of a right to privacy in the context of abortion.
It is quite the stretch if you look at those amendments.

The Supreme Court, in deciding Roe v. Wade, used the 9th and 14th to support their assertion of a right to privacy in the context of abortion.
Posted by: Ian | Nov 19, 2009 12:30:25 PM
——————————
Though SCOTUS didn’t find anything SPECIFIC to privacy. SCOTUS had to cut’n'paste the Constitution to make up the argument.
In any case, Justice Blackmun also said, in Roe, itself, that, had the personhood of the unborn child been before the Court, the Court would’ve had to rule the other way.
He also says that the State may regulate abortion IF there is a legit, State interest. What would THAT be? DUE PROCESS. That is a legit, State interest, and ONLY persons get Due Process. So, we need to get busy on “personhood.”