From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Feb 07 2003 - 02:09:18 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker writes
> > (Lee Corbin <lcorbin@tsoft.com>):
> > The reservations that I have about "Roe V. Wade" are well
> > summed up by Judge Bork:
> >
> > [Old "abortion isn't mentioned in the Constitution" stuff]
>
> My essay concentrated on biological arguments rather than legal
> ones, but Bork's argument is just as much nonsense as the religious
> arguments, and just as dishonest. People who claim to be
> reading the constitution literally will point out amendment ten
> when it suits their pre-chosen agenda, and conveniently ignore it
> when it doesn't.
All of 'em?
> The idea that a right cannot be protected just because it isn't
> mentioned is a direct contradiction of the plain English text of
> that amendment, and is not an argument worthy of any respect.
Well, it's startling the aplomb with which you dismiss the
entire strict-constructionist view.
The tenth amendment reads, as you know,
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.
Says "states or people", not Federal government.
Lee Corbin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 02:05:42 MST