I seem to keep coming back to the following point --- I believe that even a conservative Supreme Court will leave Roe v Wade stand until it can find a way to hold that abortion is illegal as a Constitutional matter. It can then hold that decisions regarding abortions never should have been, and therefore cannot now be, a matter of State law (or to close the circle, a matter of Congressional legislation).
The Supreme Court will never return the jurisprudence on abortion to the legal status of 1970, as if Roe had never happened.
In my analysis, the overturning of Roe would be handled the same way that the Supreme Court tried to in Dred Scott -- by attempting to ensure that the old establshed decision makers (Congress on slavery, and the States on abortion) were not allowed to make new decisions. That is why the two conversations are related. (See Part 2 -- below)
Anyway, the best way for a conservative court to overturn Roe would be to show that the termination of the fetus violates the 14th Amendment rights of the fetus. Since I agree that jurisprudence surrounding the 14th Amendment has always been a complete mess, I don't really think that it would be a long leap for the Supreme Court to state that a fetus is a person under the 14th Amendment, etc. (Although obviously it would be a huge leap politically.)
On that day, I think we will find a lot of the "intent of the Framers" types and the entire "religious right" much more tolerant of finding additional rights in the Constitution. And the folks on the left will feel somewhat differently, too.
Not to open up that old can of worms again, but we had a little sampling of all that earlier this year, when every person in the Bible Belt expected and demanded that the Supreme Court invent what seemed to me to be new fundamental Federal rights for both . Terri Schiavo and her parents.
I am surprised that Terri Schiavo's name did not come up more in the recent stuff on Harriet Miers. Maybe it didn't come up because Harriet Miers was basicially a family dispute amongst conservatives. When the next Supreme Court justice is nominated, Luttig or Alito or McConnell, I hope that Terri Schiavo's name comes up in talking about the fact that judicial activism is always in the eye of the beholder.
Showing posts with label 14th Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 14th Amendment. Show all posts
Sunday, October 30, 2005
The Intent of the Framers -- Marbury v Madison and the Civil War Amendments
When originalists say that the Supreme Court should interpret the Constitution solely by the intent of the Framers, and the Supreme Court should have no more power than a Surrogates Court, one of the points some of the originalists are trying to make is that MARBURY v MADISON (1801 -- one of the key cases regarding Judicial Review) itself was wrongly decided
Problem with that, of course, is that MARBURY v MADISON itself was a battle between 2 groups of people, both groups being present at the creation, both groups of "originalists".
In MARBURY, the side favoring strong central government with strong judicial review won. The side that said they favored a weaker government with less judicial review (the side that had control of the Executive and the Congress for most of the next 60 years) could have taken steps to limit the Supreme Court, but chose not to.
One moral I take from the story is that the Framers said a lot of different things, and that an activist Supreme Court was useful to generation of the Framers, and the generation after them.
For myself, just about the only thing I can clearly glean from the original Constitution is that the Framers tolerated some form of slavery, and may or may not have favored equal protection amongst the States. In the world view of the Southern Framers (who are the only Framers who seem to count to some of these modern-day originalists), Equal Protection for people was ludicrous.
About the only thing I can glean about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments (Abolition of Slavery, Equal Protection and the Right to Vote) is that the Southern Framers would have opposed them (as did Southerners at the time of passage), and that the Amendments only passed into the Constitution after the Civil War because the South was still out of the Union. I am sure Strom Thurmond, and maybe Robert Bork and Trent Lott, would agree that the poor South was coerced into accepting the Civil War Amendments as an unfair cost of readmission into the Union.
Does that mean that originalist nominees to the Supreme Court in 2005 should oppose the Civil War Amendments as well? Can even a Constitutional Amendment be unconstitutional if it does too much violence to the original intent of the Framers?
Problem with that, of course, is that MARBURY v MADISON itself was a battle between 2 groups of people, both groups being present at the creation, both groups of "originalists".
In MARBURY, the side favoring strong central government with strong judicial review won. The side that said they favored a weaker government with less judicial review (the side that had control of the Executive and the Congress for most of the next 60 years) could have taken steps to limit the Supreme Court, but chose not to.
One moral I take from the story is that the Framers said a lot of different things, and that an activist Supreme Court was useful to generation of the Framers, and the generation after them.
For myself, just about the only thing I can clearly glean from the original Constitution is that the Framers tolerated some form of slavery, and may or may not have favored equal protection amongst the States. In the world view of the Southern Framers (who are the only Framers who seem to count to some of these modern-day originalists), Equal Protection for people was ludicrous.
About the only thing I can glean about the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments (Abolition of Slavery, Equal Protection and the Right to Vote) is that the Southern Framers would have opposed them (as did Southerners at the time of passage), and that the Amendments only passed into the Constitution after the Civil War because the South was still out of the Union. I am sure Strom Thurmond, and maybe Robert Bork and Trent Lott, would agree that the poor South was coerced into accepting the Civil War Amendments as an unfair cost of readmission into the Union.
Does that mean that originalist nominees to the Supreme Court in 2005 should oppose the Civil War Amendments as well? Can even a Constitutional Amendment be unconstitutional if it does too much violence to the original intent of the Framers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)