- Feb 26, 2007
It is not there, but that is a moot point. The Supreme Court decides what is constitutional or not.
So what they say is right by fiat?
Nevertheless, until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, or a new law is enacted the status of the unborn has not changed.
The purpose of these discussions is not to state the obvious. If you are going to take a side, then you should be prepared to defend that side. Stating what is hardly constitutes a defense.
The 14th Amendment appears to say that to you and even to me. Considering that the Supreme Court via Roe v. Wade though otherwise, that is a moot point. No such law has been legislated.
Ergo the unconstitutionality of the roe v wade decision.
Yet they did.
Are you saying that they had the right to do it or they did it whether they had the right or not?
You are right, they do reverse themselves from time to time. They may reverse themselves on Row V. Wade, but they have not at this point. Their decisions are not unconstitutional. They are the ones who get to say what is unconstitutional or not, no matter what words are in the constitution despite your unwillingness to accept that.
You don't believe that the court can make an unconstitutional decision? Are they infallable like the pope (as if ). If they were to decree tomorrow that we actually do not have the right to refuse to incriminate ourselves in a court of law, or that we really don't have the right to speak freely, you would meekly accept their decree as constitutional because they said it was?