I agree. I was pro-life before I was a Christian. I'm a Republican with a capital "R" and libertarian with a lower case "l" and I support social welfare programs to a degree. I think it would be more socially advantageous for us to reduce taxation and regulation and eliminate the minimum wage, so that more people could have jobs. More jobs means fewer people who need welfare.

Yes, exactly! Because I'm on the right side of the issue, the side of freedom.



There are 9 seats on the Supreme Court, there hasn't been five Conservative / Libertarian justices on the Supreme Court since before Roe v Wade.

so as a republican you want to reduce regulation. i agree wholeheartedly. i'm for less government involvement in our lives. and easy to go with lower taxes too. but would repealing roe v wade not mean more government involvement and regulation in the lives of half the people in america? republicans and democrats are very selective about where government is to big.

Roe v Wade is the Supreme Court imposing their opinion on abortion on all 50 states. The Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government (little less the Supreme Court) the authority to make decisions on Abortion for the states, so that power belongs at the state level per the 10th Amendment. Roe v Wade should be repealed and every state should pass their own laws to allow or disallow abortion.

Abortion is not a choice to me. Well wasn't. But I do not want to see incest victims, rape victims, and those who would otherwise be mentally destroyed by carrying such a child have the option taken away. But I do know one woman who had FIVE abortions and kept the sixth child. I did say to her "Didn't you kind of figure out where babies come from after the first???" Hers were all and this is her quote not mine "mistakes". I think Ms. Harmony has a point that some people really really need to think about what they are doing before they so it.

and a woman's freedom to choose is not the right side of the issue?



There are 9 seats on the Supreme Court, there hasn't been five Conservative / Libertarian justices on the Supreme Court since before Roe v Wade.




actually five of the current justices were appointed by conservative republican presidents. and the decision itself was hardly along political lines as seven justices were in the majority.

Freedom is a funny thing. I have the freedom to swing my fist, but that ends where your nose begins. When does life begin? That's the real question in the abortion debate.

If it's so important to protect a woman's "right to choose", then get rid of Roe v Wade and pass a Constitutional amendment to make abortion legal in all 50 states. At least then every state would get their say and that means voters have control over the kind of country they are going to live in.



Steven's is a leftist, one of the most far left. Kennedy is a moderate Republican who supports abortion "rights".

do you not think that the civil rights acts apply to all the states? the tenth amendment does not in any way restrict federal government from imposing nationwide laws. the tenth mendment merely reserves to the states power not deligated to the federal government to the states. article three clearly defines the powers deligated to the judiciary. but hey, if you think you can make a case to overturn roe, go for it.

it's just curious that you want less government except in the lives of women.

Here in CA, we have three strikes you're out. I think there should be a limit on the number of abortions you can have or at least some sort of form you have to fill out stating why or something (maybe there is). It is not like getting snot sucked out of your nose. It is very risky and people can die. But then again, this is CA and there is not limit on stupid plastic surgery procedures either though I do know legit doctors at a certain point if they think you have a problem with excessive plastic surgery will say no repeatedly. As for the women I mentioned, I would have liked someone to have said NO after say the THIRD. She was very fortunate that she was even able to carry the child she kept (the 6th). I know this is a huge leap but there is a plastic surgery procedure called a "full body lift". It is darn near impossible to convince a plastic surgeon in CA to do it due to the danger. Your uterus risks perforation, etc. every time you have an abortion, I don't want anyone taking that right away but I would like someone pointing out that the 3rd or 4th is excessive and maybe a dumb idea.

Yes it does, that doesn't make it good law and it doesn't make it constitutional.



Your point is? Can you show me where in the Constitution, the Supreme Court was given the power to legislate from the bench?



Does Article III give the Supreme Court the authority to find a law Unconstitutional? I'll give you a hint: No, it does not.



I don't need too, actual lawyers have done that for years.

That's ridiculous. I want the Federal Government to stop telling women that they can kill their babies. The unborn baby is a human being who is granted rights by our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution.

As it is, no voters or citizens have a say in making abortion legal. We get to decide if a murderer can be executed in our state, but we can't decide if millions of innocent babies can be killed every year? How does that make sense?

but no law is unconstitutional unless and until it is declared so by a federal court. what you and i think is unconstitutional is moot as the law goes.



as i've said, what you see as legislating from the bench many others see as good application of the law.



indeed it does. sec. 2, art III; "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,................" etc. tons of case history on federal court rulings on unconstitutional law can be traced to this clause in article three.



and yet roe still reigns.

your big on asking where things are stated in the constitution. here's one back atcha. where in roe v wade does it say that women can kill their babies? the ruling struck down laws. it made none. it was based on the fourteenth amendment's equal due process clause. are you saying women should not be afforded equal due process of law?

and of course the declaration of independence is not law nor does the constitution grant any rights. yes, it PROTECTS certain inalieanble rights but it grants none. those we had at birth.

jrbogie,

I don't have time to give you the history lesson you need, but here are the high points.

The Founders did not intend and the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the authority to rule a law unconstitutional. The reason should be obvious, but I will explain. Said authority would allow nine unelected judges power over every single person in the country. The original three branches of Government were: Executive, Legislative and Senate. If an unconstitutional law were passed through all three branches, it could be fixed in the future. In Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court made a power grab, which gave them the authority to rule on the Constitutionality of a law. They have become the final arbiters of the fate of every American and beyond. Now ask yourself if you would want a Supreme Court of 5 Conservatives making those decisions. Can you not see the superiority of the people being able to control their own lives and correct mistakes of past generations or do you really think it's better for the millions of Americans to be under the rule of five unelected judges? The way it's supposed to work is that if the majority of the Congress, the Senate and the President all agree that a law is unconstitutional, then it's unconstitutional. This allowed for the correction of past mistakes and avoided the problem of Judicial Oligarchy under which we now find ourselves.

As for Roe v Wade being good law...Edward Lazarus, who was clerk for Justice Blackmun (the Justice who wrote the Roe v Wade ruling) said the following "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible....Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms". This from a man who loved and respected Justice Blackmun.

Many liberal lawyers and judges, including at least two who have sat on the Supreme Court have criticized the Roe v Wade ruling. The reason for that is simple, it's very bad law. You can't find support for Roe v Wade in the Constitution and they know it, despite the fact that they support "abortion rights".

How are you going to make them unable to become pregnant or make someone pregnant? Forced sterilization? Forced birth control? A law stating they can't become pregnant?

I don't think that I'm going out on a limb here to say that he's saying that if you are on welfare and get pregnant or get someone else pregnant, that you should lose your welfare benefits.

His idea seems to be that people who are on Welfare would intentionally avoid having more children, because their benefits would be cut. Currently, someone who is on welfare has no unusual fear of bringing another child into the world, despite the fact that he/she cannot support the children they already have.

Good post. I know of women who use abortion as a birth control method. It's sickening.

How does eliminating minimum wage allow more people to have jobs?

The minimum wage is very detrimental to society, especially minorities. But to answer your specific question: If an employer must pay 7.25 / hour, then the employee must be able to do $7.25 worth of work or more per hour. Otherwise, the employer won't hire the person. This ensures that only the best and most skilled applicants are more likely to get the job and those who need to learn job skills are often denied the opportunity.

This is wonderful if you are white or Asian, because whites and Asians have the best educations, but it's terrible if you are black or Hispanic. Blacks and Hispanics typically go to terrible schools in terrible neighborhoods and therefore they lack the job skills to deserve $7.25 / hour. That's why teenage blacks have an unemployment rate of over 40%. Go to a fast food restaurant, you'll see plenty of blacks in their 20's, but not many teenagers. The opposite is true of whites and Asians.

If you consider in the fact that most people go to Public schools, it becomes clear that the Government fails to prepare black students for jobs and then ensures that they can't get basic job skills by creating a minimum wage that is too high to allow them entry into the job market.

Now imagine if there were no minimum wage. Two black students from the inner city who both failed to graduate from their public high schools could be hired at $3.63 / hour verses hiring one white valedictorian from a private school (or better public school) with a 4.0 GPA at $7.25 / hour. The two black students would be able to learn job skills while earning money and move on to another job, where their work experience would demand a higher salary. So instead of being unemployed throughout their teens and into their early 20's, they would develop the job skills that the Public school didn't teach them and they would be able to move up in the world.