Relating to yesterday's badly headlined column, and a good counterpoint by Thomas Knapp, I finally put in the effort today to articulate to myself something that has always annoyed me about the Roe v. Wade "opinion". It's something that has been in the back of my mind for ages, but I'd never spent the time or effort to put it into words. Until now.
And it's not even about abortion.
The Supreme Courtjesters sat down and diligently picked the Constitution apart with tweezers and an electron microscope to "discover" a right to an abortion-- which isn't spelled out explicitly, regardless of whether or not such a right exists-- and yet they can't just READ the bloody document to see it clearly says-- no magnifying glass needed-- that government is not allowed to have any oversight over the weapons (guns, ammunition, swords, cannons, etc.) owned by the people. None. It's right there in writing. In English. No "interpretation" necessary. No need to pick anything apart to find it. Just read it and obey it. Or tell the rest of the government to immediately stop committing the crime of violating it.
But it seems beyond their ability to do this simple job. Because they don't want to. It would be inconvenient to the rest of their gang.
They've put as much effort into burying or overlooking the right spelled out as off-limits to government interference in the Second Amendment as they put into finding a right to abortion fifty years ago. And they are still being dishonest weasels* about it to this day, even when they supposedly reaffirm the right mentioned therein.
*Apologies to actual cute little weasels.
-
Please support Kent's Kitten Rescue Project on Patreon
Yeah, I've always found that annoying as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd the thing is, even when it IS picked apart and carefully analyzed, they don't follow their own logic.
The Second Amendment doesn't say "Congress shall make no law ..."
It characterizes RKBA as a "right of the people" which "shall not be infringed."
And the Ninth and Tenth Amendments make it even more clear that "rights of the people" aren't any more subject to the powers of the states than they are to the powers of the feds.
As for Roe, Blackmun twisted the Constitution into a pretzel to get where he wanted to go when he didn't have to. The 9th Amendment reference to unenumerated rights presumably referred to SOMETHING, and one thing it would presumably have referred to would be rights that the states at the time of ratification already recognized as rights. Which, per the English common law that all of those states had previously adopted, included abortion up to the point of "quickening." [Note: This is not to say that I don't have my own opinions on the matter of abortion -- I'm just commenting on whether, at the time of the founding, it was regarded _by them_ as a right, but not one that the framers chose to enumerate.]