3 ms·
It also can be argued that overturning Woe v. Wade was good, because it put it into the hands of legislators. It was shitty law because it instituted a right
by starkd 4y ago
It also can be argued that overturning Woe v. Wade was good, because it put it into the hands of legislators. It was shitty law because it instituted a right where none was. Thus, it kept legislators from legislating on an evolving issue.
- kortex 4y agoThere are many who argue that no specific law is necessary, that the Constitution gives the right of privacy and bodily autonomy, and that Roe v Wade correctly asserts that constitutional right. Do you need a specific law protecting the right to throw a barbecue, own a dog, or read books on dangerous topics? No, because the Constitution is a framework which broadly allows actions by people, and carves out specific things that the government has control over.
- salawat 4y agoExcept SCOTUS will not smack down things based on the 10th Amendment like they should be. They'll sure warp the bounds of Federal Government jurisdiction through the interstate commerce clause though.