John D. Giorgis wrote:
Rehnquist, in his dissent from the Roe vs. Wade nooted that the Court must
be wrong to find any basis for this right in the 14th Amendment to the
Constitution, for the simple reason, as he explains, that at least 36 laws
enacted by state or territorial legislatures were in force at the time
that the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Moreover, some 21 of these
laws were still in effect when Roe vs. Wade was decided. How, then, could
they
be at odds with the 14th Amendment? In the words of Justice Rehnquist, "To
reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of
the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to
the drafters of the Amendment."
Um... Constitutional Ammendment overrides any and all state laws.
Period. End of story. "Highest law in the land" and all that. You
would think that a Supreme Court judge would know that pretty well.
--
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/
Support Open/Free Mythoi: Read the manifesto @ mythoi.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
