> So does Ms. Tucker think we should restore the original wording of the > Constitution by removing the "right to privacy" interpretation of the 14th > amendment on which the SCOTUS based its decision in _Roe v. Wade_? Or, > given that she is black, how about repealing the entire 14th amendment? >
What the hell does this have to do with what she was talking about? She
wasn't saying, Don't ever amend the Constitution, she was saying, Don't do it in
_this particular case_.
What it has to do with what she was talking about is that the same "leave the Constitution alone" argument she used in the article could be used by someone else for a different issue, such as the ones I used for illustration. Her argument is not "Leave the Constitution alone, period" as the headline of the article might suggest, but more like "Leave the Constitution alone except for issues I agree with." I didn't say that a Constitutional amendment defining marriage such as she describes in the article is necessarily a good idea or a bad idea: I simply pointed out that the same argument she makes against it in the article could have been � and indeed has been � made by those opposed to such things as the decision in _Roe v. Wade_, etc.
-- Ronn! :)
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
