4 ms·

> the law is plainly unconstitutional Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional? Our president says that the

> the law is plainly unconstitutional Can you show me, from the text of the constitution, why this law would be unconstitutional? Our president says that the law is an "assault on a woman’s constitutional rights under Roe v. Wade". However, the constitutional doesn't guarantee _anything_ under Roe v. Wade. RvW was used as the impetus to allow something which the law in many state explicitly forbid. The democrats know this and this is why other states have passed abortion laws of their own (like NY) because they know that legally abortion isn't constitutional.

crazy_horse 5y ago
It is unconstitutional in the sense that the Constitution is a practical document that has the main purpose of establishing a United States. The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.
- clusterfish 5y ago
  This particular SC might have a bigger interest in banning abortion though, all else be damned.
nathanwh 5y ago
This is not a good take. If unconstitutionality was as simple as ctrl-f the constitution we wouldn’t need the court system. Read here for a description of how the bill of rights creates “zones of privacy” which are breached by restricting access to abortion. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973
- nvahalik 5y ago
  You can call it "not a good take" but if the argument is that the "constitution protects it" but it isn't enumerated—then you really can't argue that the constitution protects it.
  - otterley 5y ago
    Tell that to all the judges and law professors who have studied Constitutional law for decades and who have concluded otherwise. I’ll get the popcorn.
ChrisLomont 5y ago
>Can you show me, from the text of the constitution It doesn't have to be from the text of the constitution if the right derives from it under case law. As such, here you go: "In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States." [1] Here [2] is the exact opinion from the Supreme Court. The Opinion starts on p.4 of the document. Go ahead and read through it to see exactly what is Constitutional and what is not. So, under current law, there should be no question, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...
- nvahalik 5y ago
  Except... this isn't law. This is legal precedent. The court can only rule on laws—it cannot create them. This is why we are now "decriminalizing" things: In a plurality of states, you have fetal homicide laws where the life of the unborn is equated to another human life. Courts and prosecutors have simply chosen to ignore the law and the left has pretty consistently used the courts to bypass actually changing or doing anything with the law (probably because the support just isn't there).
  - jakelazaroff 5y ago
    What do you think law is? The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court’s interpretation is that that law protects the right to abortion. You might not understand how (or agree) that follows from the text, but that doesn’t matter. Only the Supreme Court’s interpretation is canonical; ergo, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
gizmo686 5y ago
In the US's system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. Currently, denying access to abortions is unconstitutional because the current Supreme Court precedent says it is. Until the Supreme Court issues a new ruling on the subject, that is the status of constitutional law in the US. There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law. The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.

crazy_horse 5y ago

It is unconstitutional in the sense that the Constitution is a practical document that has the main purpose of establishing a United States. The laws that make federalism unworkable ended up being unconstitutional over time because the SC has a vested interest in maintaining federalism.

clusterfish 5y ago
This particular SC might have a bigger interest in banning abortion though, all else be damned.

nathanwh 5y ago

This is not a good take. If unconstitutionality was as simple as ctrl-f the constitution we wouldn’t need the court system. Read here for a description of how the bill of rights creates “zones of privacy” which are breached by restricting access to abortion. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973 https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/roe-v-wade-1973

nvahalik 5y ago
You can call it "not a good take" but if the argument is that the "constitution protects it" but it isn't enumerated—then you really can't argue that the constitution protects it.
- otterley 5y ago
  Tell that to all the judges and law professors who have studied Constitutional law for decades and who have concluded otherwise. I’ll get the popcorn.

ChrisLomont 5y ago

>Can you show me, from the text of the constitution It doesn't have to be from the text of the constitution if the right derives from it under case law. As such, here you go: "In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother. The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States." [1] Here [2] is the exact opinion from the Supreme Court. The Opinion starts on p.4 of the document. Go ahead and read through it to see exactly what is Constitutional and what is not. So, under current law, there should be no question, right? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade [2] https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep410/usrep410113/usrep410113.pdf https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep...

nvahalik 5y ago
Except... this isn't law. This is legal precedent. The court can only rule on laws—it cannot create them. This is why we are now "decriminalizing" things: In a plurality of states, you have fetal homicide laws where the life of the unborn is equated to another human life. Courts and prosecutors have simply chosen to ignore the law and the left has pretty consistently used the courts to bypass actually changing or doing anything with the law (probably because the support just isn't there).
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  What do you think law is? The Fourteenth Amendment is part of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court’s interpretation is that that law protects the right to abortion. You might not understand how (or agree) that follows from the text, but that doesn’t matter. Only the Supreme Court’s interpretation is canonical; ergo, the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.

gizmo686 5y ago

In the US's system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is and isn't constitutional. Currently, denying access to abortions is unconstitutional because the current Supreme Court precedent says it is. Until the Supreme Court issues a new ruling on the subject, that is the status of constitutional law in the US. There is reason to believe the Supreme Court might change constitutional law when given the chance; which will happen in a few months when they hear a case about Mississippi's law. The Texas law is different. It is designed specifically to avoid judicial review.