Agit8r
Gold Member
- Dec 4, 2010
- 12,141
- 2,209
- 245
Abortion is covered no where in the Constitution. Nor is the right of privacy. Judges make these up. They find penumbras. They imagine.
...Abandoning originalism means abandoning the rationale which Marbury v. Madison uses to justify judicial review. Without originalism there can be no constitutionally limited government, and no judicial review.
a textbook case of having just enough knowledge to be dangerous.
The inventors of Strict Construction (Jefferson and Madison) were bitch-slapped by Marshall in Marbury, and as in the later decision of Roe v Wade, his originalism extended to the English Common Law and it's context:
"I am next to consider such injuries as are cognizable by the Courts of common law. And herein I shall for the present only remark that all possible injuries whatsoever that did not fall within the exclusive cognizance of either the ecclesiastical, military, or maritime tribunals are, for that very reason, within the cognizance of the common law courts of justice, for it is a settled and invariable principle in the laws of England that every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress."
-- John Marshall; quoting Blackstone in decision of Marbury v. Madison
The Myth of Strict Construction - Broowaha
Such is the obfuscation of those who are ignorant of the fact that the amendment process is the ONLY method for legally altering the Constitution.
Nothing here about "legally altering the constitution." it is about understanding the constitution in context. Since you are obviously EXTREMELY confused about this, I suggest you re-read above ^ or better yet; educate yourself about the history of constitutional law much more extensively before regurgitating the diatribes of the other ignorant people that make up the right-wing media