GMadison

Regardless of the determination made by the Supreme Court, it is not law. The Constitution states that all legislative powers shall be vested in Congress. Not the President (by way of executive orders or any other way) nor the Judicial Branch.

Having an attachment to our Constitution, I have read it over and over and over again. Precedents definitely can help enforce a viewpoint, however it is not law, and all decision following should still be evaluated first upon principles.

There is not one portion in the Constitution that grants any powers to Congress that restrict a persons rights. As a matter of fact, the Enumeration of certain rights cannot be misconstrued as to imply that congress would have had some authority over our rights. This includes the Freedom of Conscious which is also referred to as "Religion". Quite Simply, a person should have the freedom to choose what they do, without any interference from the Federal Government, nor do most of the states allow such an infringment.

There's an old saying that says there are 2 subjects you should avoid in conversation. Religion as well as Politics. But both are the same. No matter how well you try, both are equal in how personal it can get.

Sadly, on both sides of this Political Religion, many people are blind to anything outside of the party name alone.

So as I am opposed to abortion, I do not have to live my life with any decisions that are against my beliefs. A good Christian should realize that only God has the power of Judgement over their existance, and how they conduct themselves. The Federal Government was created with the goal of ensuring that personal rights could not be infringed. The limitation of the power of Congress must not infringe upon the rights of any person. Just as any one person should not infringe upon any rights of others. I think this is a good rule to keep in mind, so as to determine where your rights have been placedl

You have at minimum, A Right to Liberty, A right to Free Conscious, as well as a right to ptoperty. If anyone deprives another their rights, justice is not served. And the Constitution of the several states have no negatives on rights.

American

So if it is not legal (by way of an existing law), then why is it not illegal? Is the term in the case, so narrow that 'illegal' means that no law exists?

My feeling is that it is constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. This is unfortunate, but nonetheless the case. I have heard that some argue that the legal premise and arguments, on which the ruling was based, are flawed. Now if this is true, then the ruling should be challenged on that basis.

Nevertheless, I feel that the use of abortion for convenient birth control is wrong. I do believe that in specific cases, it is morally acceptable. And I think we all know what those are. A woman should not be required to forefit her life for the unborn child. I guess if the baby dies during the pregnancy would count as another. I'm not sure if that is considered a miscarriage.

__________________
It's Obama's fault!

GMadison

The Constitution itself can seem confusing, but pulling from the numerous resources available to us, we can make a relatively logically understanding. I haven't studied the Constitution for many many years, or even have some scholastic award of accomplishment relating to such. However, the Constitution was written in such a way that would be general and simple to understand from all perspectives.

Would you be surprised to know that according to evidence previously accepted by the supreme court, that they should (when able) strike down laws or bills that would be considered unconstitutional as they try to become law?. While I understand that there is plenty of work for the Supreme court, but to do a once over (or have assistant) couldn't be all that out of the scope of reasonable considering the great justice it could serve.

Yes, your feeling is accurate as far as the bar association goes, and the attorneys that we might expect to provide consul to address grievances. (Seems a bit costly to address all such grievances. as a regular citizen who wishes nothing but justice, however can only get it by violating the 'law' and then follow the process from there. Shouldn't a better way be available?


Abortion can be a touchy subject. I say before we can even consider restricting a persons right to choose in order to protect the unborn childs right to live, then those passing the laws must accept everyone in the world has the right to live, and unless they are captured or acted withing our country, we cannot risk the lives of innocent civilians, nor the lives of our soldiers. We need to have protection here, not the way we've been reacting since 9/11.. which was alll just a very convenient way to enter a war against Saddam, imposing our almight missionary tactics for our own good.

All life is sacred, or no laws affecting such can be imposed. That's where I am at.

Thanks for the comment!