Tex-s

Let's imagine a nation divided. LOL as if we are not so already.

Let's further imagine 2 diametrically opposed Amendments (given that these often have YEARS to be ratified or defeated) were up for a vote at the same time.

One Amendment, codifies the right to abortion on a national level, and the other forever reserves the right to pass laws governing abortion to the states. (note, this does not ban abortion on a national level)

With a supermajority needed to pass either, what is:

a) the argument for ratifying either or
b) the argument for ratifying neither?

And presuming you chose a side, what is the Constitutional argument for even having the debate at all, given Life precedes liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence, and given the Constitution is clearly defined to be an addendum to the Declaration?

I don't claim to be an authority on all things, but is seems clear to me that the US founding revolved around life, and denying the right to others to command it, define it, control it or end it.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

Well, let us start with "given the Constitution is clearly defined to be an addendum to the Declaration", which is utter nonsense.

The Declaration is merely a transactional document. It declares our independence from England, but once that was accomplished, it became a historic relic. Its statements never had any legal authority,

The Constitution, on the other hand, is the supreme law of the land.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

This is not a Constitutional item that needs to be added..
It is covered easily in the Tenth Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution says absolutely nothing about abortion or anything even remotely related to it thus our brilliant founders covered it in the 10th.
Actually most subsequent amendments have been useless and silly and we would be much better off without them. Especially the absolutely absurd 17th amendment that made senators nothing more than 6 year representatives vs 2 year representatives and constantly running for the popular vote. The founders were brilliant in not having the senate by popular vote. It is such a mess exactly because of the popular vote change.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

It’s good that you don’t claim to be an authority.

Kraken Loc: Barry's Bay

Bill 45

Good thing, because he has no idea what he is writing about.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

No. The founders choose that method for a more practical reason. At the time, there was no mass communication -- telegraph was still a half century off, radio & TV much further. Hence, it would be impossible for the average citizen to know anything about candidate for state-wide or national office. So, they made the logical decision-- the people would vote for just their local representive (for the state legislature and the House) and then the state reps would chose the Senators and presidential electors.

Now, now can make an informed decision on candidates without actually having to meet them. Without is why we switched to direct voting for Senators, and why we should eliminate the electoral college, and directly elect the president.

Conservatives want to get rid of the 17th amendment because the old way allowed them to gerrymandering the senate the way they gerrymandering the House and state legislatures

Tex-s

Late night editing issues aside, the Constitution, according to the writings of several founders, had the express intent of defining a form of governance that assured the ideals expressed in the Declaration. (That it failed on some fronts is not relevant to this discussion.) The expressed intent was to frame a system that guaranteed and protected those unalienable rights. To that end, a good number of 'Constitutional' scholars will look to the Declaration as guidance when interpreting either the text of the Constitution or personal writings of the day. The two documents are irrevocably intermingled in their principles and their intent.

And all that aside, the original query remains. Given the flurry of media around the recent Texas law, and given the new push by leftists all over to push DC to try and pass a national law, I ask the question.

What justification do any of you find for nationalizing a non-law SCOTUS decision into law, or conversely, passing a national law banning the feds from mandating what the 10th amendment clearly defines (in its absence) as a State right?

Among the replies I see less than 25% seem to address the actual issue of my post, which I see as a symptom of the diseased national discourse. Too few are willing to debate substantive ideals, and instead assail the opponent instead of the argument.

I'd love to hear actual law-based or text based ideas (excluding Roe, mind, as Roe piggy backed a non-law interpretation into a second non-law interpretation when it used the "penumbra" fiction invoked in Griswold. And for the record, I think Griswold was rightly decided, but the rationale ended up trying to fit the social setting of the hour instead of law, and as such should be purged from the record and retried.)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Guess you have been taking too many drugs or are clueless about our founders.
Read their writings and struggles over the Constitution then you can discuss.
PS, Twitter is irrelevant, The Constitution is ageless and is to not go with the latest flavor of stupidity.
Democracy fails as badly as communism.
That is why there is a representative government.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Meaningful threads of substance in the Attic often trigger pages of discussion, some valid and some not so much. A thread of substance will generate discussion; a bs thread that is not relevant or otherwise serves no purpose will die on a short vine, much like this one appears to be doing.
We will see.

Tex-s

I don’t disagree about the tendency of Attic topics to diverge and devolve, but I do disagree my query is pointless. Media in EVERY venue is focused almost fanatically on this issue affecting a very small minority of citizens when we have the same media downplaying or ignoring issue that affect 100% of citizens.

phlash46 Loc: Westchester County, New York

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

That is exactly the point. The founders designed the House Of Representatives as "the peoples house" with the intent that a member would serve a few terms and then return to his "regular" life. Thye Senate was designed as a more august body, hense the much longer term. Members of the house were supposed to be regular -not authorities- folks. The system has morphed so there is now a "ruling class "of professional politicians. removed from the the intent of the founders

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

The less experience congress has, the more clout bureaucrats will have. Is that really what you want?

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Talk about rewriting history. What you say here is not even remotely factual.