3 ms·

"Directly" is a strong word. It's an interpretation which assumes there is such a thing as a right to an abortion such that the states would then be violating

"Directly" is a strong word. It's an interpretation which assumes there is such a thing as a right to an abortion such that the states would then be violating by passing legislation. Now, I am not of the opinion that something has to be explicitly protected in the constitution for it to be a right. I prefer to assume a limited view of what behavior government has the authority to limit. However, if something is not explicitly protected in the constitution, then it is at least up for debate. There's procedural implications for this distinction as well: the Supreme Court can overturn its prior precedent (as Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson). But the Supreme Court cannot overturn the text of the Constitution itself. Only an amendment by Congress can do that. EDIT: Just to clarify, that procedural distinction means that the Supreme Court could uphold the Texas law while overturning a similar law restricting gun ownership without contradiction.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
The second amendment is neither clear nor absolute. For example the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban is still unclear. Your point would stand if Massachusetts banned the right to bear arms. However, if they banned everything but single shot rifles, it comes back to precedent. Like the Texas law, it's obviously unconstitutional based on precedent, but not obviously unconstitutional based on the text of the amendment alone.
- lliamander 5y ago
  All laws require some interpretation in their enforcement, but this is pretty blatant equivocation. Aside from some archaic language, the second amendment is actually fairly clear. It is clearly talking about guns, and the phrase "shall not be infringed" is fairly strong, clear language. On the other hand, the 14th amendment say nothing about abortion, and there's no reason to suggest the authors of that amendment had abortion in mind when they wrote it. That does not mean that such a right does not exist, or that it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to receive protection, but any judge who wants to assert that such a right exists is going to have to do a lot more work than one who wants to assert the existence of an individual right to own guns, even "assault weapons" (which is a largely nonsense category anyway).

bryanlarsen 5y ago

The second amendment is neither clear nor absolute. For example the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban is still unclear. Your point would stand if Massachusetts banned the right to bear arms. However, if they banned everything but single shot rifles, it comes back to precedent. Like the Texas law, it's obviously unconstitutional based on precedent, but not obviously unconstitutional based on the text of the amendment alone.

lliamander 5y ago
All laws require some interpretation in their enforcement, but this is pretty blatant equivocation. Aside from some archaic language, the second amendment is actually fairly clear. It is clearly talking about guns, and the phrase "shall not be infringed" is fairly strong, clear language. On the other hand, the 14th amendment say nothing about abortion, and there's no reason to suggest the authors of that amendment had abortion in mind when they wrote it. That does not mean that such a right does not exist, or that it needs to be explicitly mentioned in the Constitution to receive protection, but any judge who wants to assert that such a right exists is going to have to do a lot more work than one who wants to assert the existence of an individual right to own guns, even "assault weapons" (which is a largely nonsense category anyway).