JamesCurran wrote:
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.
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.)