Answered by Chuck Diaz
“Do you think if Pres. Trump is re-elected in 2020, his likely nominees to the Supreme Court will seal the fate of pro-choice or other current rights?”
Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia once said he believed in stare decisbyis; the term that means to follow precedent. He also has said, especially, if since the last decision was made, that it had been publicly accepted.
Roe v Wade has never been accepted by all Americans. That’s why the left worries so much about it. But that’s not why it should be removed.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, forty-nine states had laws against abortion. That expressed the feelings of most Americans before the sexual revolution. Those who supported abortion during that time could not get the state laws changed, because the people of the time did not want them changed. The activist Supreme Court got involved and created law instead of protecting the Constitution from this misuse.
If you read the Constitution, you would be hard-pressed to find a way to protect abortion rights in the words our forefathers wrote. Abortion can be legalized by the People, without it being a “right,” if the people want it so. And it is the people who should ultimately define the moral issues that affect the people’s society, not the federal government.
Some may say there are certain rights that are more important then what the People at the state level vote for, but they are wrong. To exist is any society, that society will have to have some code of values and morality.
When our forefathers wrote the Constitution, they, and the world, had seen many crimes and savagery. Yet, they did not pen any rules or laws concerning moral issues.
That’s why the Liberals, who complain that the Constitution is an old out dated document, are wrong. They want it to be a Living Document and, in a way, it is. It can be modified via the amendment process.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law rob a bank.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law to murder your neighbor.
The Constitution does not say it is against the law to sell or use drugs.
It does not say anyone has to believe in God or be a Christian.
It does not say anything about marriage and it does not say anything about abortion.
The Constitution is not pro-life. It is a secular political document and it is not the Bible.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights weren’t written to address moral issues. They were written to address political freedom for the people and to set limits of power for a federal government. I cannot stress enough that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are political documents, not moral ones.
Moral issues are covered by an individual’s conscience, religion and laws passed by local or state communities and can change as the moral culture changes, for better or for worse. As a result, those issues are off limits to the federal government. Let me repeat, OFF LIMITS!
Over time, as morality changes, it is the laws enacted by the people at the community, county, and state level that are intended to handle changes in moral values. If the people of California vote to approve or ban gay marriage, the Constitution does not give the federal government (SCOTUS) any authority to intervene for or against it.
Marriage is not a political freedom issue. Likewise, the federal government was not granted the power to impose itself upon any state policy regarding murder, robbery, drugs, or any other issue of moral law.
The Supreme Court should be ordered by an amendment to the Constitution to remove all decisions that include or are based in a moral context or that address any issue of morality. I say remove, not reverse, because a reversal of a decision based in a moral issue would still be a decision in which the Constitution is not designed to be involved.
Morals may change with time, but the definition of freedom will never change, and the Constitution must be protected from those who abuse it. Today politicians at every level, who swear to defend the Constitution, are abusing the Constitution on a daily basis.
If our forefathers had an inkling this would happen, they could have added one paragraph to the Constitution—actually one sentence—and it would be, “Amendments or decisions made to the Constitution may never consider any issues regarding morality.”
That mistake has allowed immorality to wrap itself around many of our rights, protections, and movements in America, and there are those who want to spread it throughout the world. Countries that still have a deep religious belief must consider us the evil empire because we are quickly becoming one. An immoral nation will not stand.
How can anyone believe it’s moral to abort a third trimester baby? There are a few that want the right to murder the baby after it’s born. Believe it or not, as far as the Constitution was concerned, if the People wanted any of it, they could pass it at the State level. The Constitution is not a moral document and that is why Roe v Wade must go. Let the States decide.
What I just wrote was defining the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as intended by our Forefathers. Since then we have certainly amended it and screwed it up at the same time.