commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 8:10 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:49 pm
commonsense wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 7:27 pm
Am I correct in guessing that you would have cheered the ban and left the issue of the constitutionality separate?
Would I be happy to see the murdering of children stop? Of course.
Was I particularly concerned about a constitution that is not mine, either way? Not really: I admire much about the American constitution, and would prefer to see it honoured; but it is not authoritative in my world, nor am I in a position to defend it or vote relative to it. So in terms of my own interests, the jurisdictional facts do not affect me personally...at least, not directly.
But I see they concerned the Supreme Court -- and should, since it is the body charged with legally safeguarding the constitution and the divisions of powers. So I'm glad they did their job, for two reasons: firstly, because they upheld the constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is for, and secondly, because maybe now fewer babies will be torn apart and killed without a chance at life.
I feel pretty happy about both.
Except that I narrowmindedly assumed you were American, I expected a reply like the one you made, and I appreciate the clarity with which you write.
I have no objection to being mistaken for an American. But I'm not officially one.
I have heard it said that Roe v. Wade is supported by the US Constitution by virtue of the right to privacy.
Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think that, obviously. And they are supposed to be the expert intepreters of constitutional intent. And, obviously, abortion was not an issue considered by the founders, and so it's not surprising it has no constitutional status of its own.
But the truth is that abortion itself was not under judicial consideration in this case. What was being debated was whether or not the Federal government had status to decide the question. And it didn't. The same happened in the case of the EPA, shortly thereafter, it seems; the government had once again reached beyond its jurisdiction. Different issue, same result.
But privacy is, of course, always a local issue. You can't get more local, or more private, than the individual himself/herself. I can't really think of a personal issue on which I want the Supreme Court to rule, whether in favour or against me. I accept that they can rule according to the constitution; but in all other matters, I'd prefer they minded their own business, and stayed out of mine.
Whether the states themselves have right to rule on abortion is another question. But that one was not debated. If anybody has proper jurisdiction, it's more likely to be states or even local areas.
I thank you in advance for your reply.
Well, that's nice of you. Thanks for your politeness, too. I am quite happy when people who may see things differently, or even oppositely, can get along and talk.
Not everybody can handle that, apparently. Apparently, you can.