At 06:51 AM 6/21/2005 -0400, you wrote: >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.
The point, however, is that this peculiar interpretation of the 14th Amendment requires you to believe that those states voting to ratify the 14th Amendment, were voting to overturn all of their State abortion laws, and to leave the Supreme Court the sole arbiter of personhood in the US. JDG _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
