First of all, you are quite wrong on your belief that the basis for Roe v. Wade was the IV Amendment. You have posted this multiple times, and you're misinformed. Roe rests on substantive due process of the XIV Amendment, which protects fundamental unenumerated rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
Thanks for proving my point.
"Substantive due process of the XIV Amendment, which protects fundamental unenumerated rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
In other words, we'll just go ahead and assume this is what the Founders meant or stretch the original intention so far out of wack to justify anything we want.
Quote:
Your application of Constitutional principles is appallingly narrowminded and contrary to what the framers intended. How do you account for the IX Amendment if the Constitution is an exhaustible list of rights? The Constitution is not statutory law, but constitutionalism requires applying the principles of the document (broadly spelled out, rather than narrowly crafted, like statutes) to laws passed by legislatures.
Because marriage, procreation, family decisions, etc. aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean that laws affecting these rights should not be held up to the constitutional mandates of due process and equal protection, guaranteed in the XIV.
Not "norrowminded," just going by what the Constitution actually says and not buying into this it being a "living, breathing" document BS that lawyers like yourself use as the basis for making new laws based on perversion of the Constitution.
You and I both know there is nothing the Founders put in the Constitution that would have ever justified support for gay marriage. Rather, you take a basic principle found there, bastardize it with a bunch of legalese mumbo jumbo, and misuse it to justify gay marriage.
Last edited by IvyLeague; 05/22/1411:28 AM.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
