On Alito
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:36 am
The storm around Alito possibly becoming a Supreme Court Justice seems to center around whether the US Constitution guarantees women the right to abort a pregnancy. To quote a highly respected Gardener (I stole this from the gun forum):
anastrophe wrote: rights are a priori - their existence precedes any description of them. the constitution describes some of our rights, but it doesn't guarantee them. it merely codifies those rights into writing, so that no [despot/dictator/fascist/tyranny] may say 'oh, we weren't sure about that'. I hold the right regardless of the existence of the constitution or the bill of rights. sort of along the lines of 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'. that they are written in the constitution is a grand thing - but it's not the fact that they are written that guarantees them.
the biggest failing people have in this regard is in saying 'hey, see this, it says right here i have this right - the government says i have this right, and it's written down for all to see'. but the government didn't write the constitution, the people wrote the constitution. the people grant the government certain powers but the rights we hold ourselves. the government does NOT grant us our rights.
As I see it - and I'm no lawyer - laws are de facto created to restrict rights and freedoms. If rights are a priori, and I agree that they are, the Constitution does not need to enumerate it for it to be true. Therefore, in a Constitutional sense, the 'right' to abortion is moot.
Should Roe v. Wade be a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice?
Note that I find abortion in general to be abhorrent (sp?) and would support most any law that recognizes the life and inherent rights of the pre-born human being.
anastrophe wrote: rights are a priori - their existence precedes any description of them. the constitution describes some of our rights, but it doesn't guarantee them. it merely codifies those rights into writing, so that no [despot/dictator/fascist/tyranny] may say 'oh, we weren't sure about that'. I hold the right regardless of the existence of the constitution or the bill of rights. sort of along the lines of 'we hold these truths to be self-evident'. that they are written in the constitution is a grand thing - but it's not the fact that they are written that guarantees them.
the biggest failing people have in this regard is in saying 'hey, see this, it says right here i have this right - the government says i have this right, and it's written down for all to see'. but the government didn't write the constitution, the people wrote the constitution. the people grant the government certain powers but the rights we hold ourselves. the government does NOT grant us our rights.
As I see it - and I'm no lawyer - laws are de facto created to restrict rights and freedoms. If rights are a priori, and I agree that they are, the Constitution does not need to enumerate it for it to be true. Therefore, in a Constitutional sense, the 'right' to abortion is moot.
Should Roe v. Wade be a litmus test for Supreme Court Justice?
Note that I find abortion in general to be abhorrent (sp?) and would support most any law that recognizes the life and inherent rights of the pre-born human being.