> Democrats are in full attack stating they must “codify” Roe. Except, such legislation would still be unconstitutional at the federal level. Trust me, there is no explicit or implicit right to murder a baby in the womb, anywhere, in the document. Something tells me the Founder’s would have written that one down.
The Founders failed to write all sorts of shit into the Constitution; in itself that doesn't make that shit unconstitutional. What SPECIFICALLY makes legislation codifying Roe unconstitutional?
The fact something is not stated in the constitution makes it unconstitutional. The right to privacy is inferred, mainly, from the fourth amendment. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments dictate the fact that what is not enumerated is not a power to the federal government. It is quite clear. What power could you possibly think of that grants the federal government the power to codify abortion?
I dunno, how about the same power that allows the federal government to have an Air Force and Space Force, even though the Constitution never enumerated or stated that power?
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . .
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces..
Army is a term that defines military operations on land and navy the sea. It isn't a term that just states "infantry soldiers." It would be a stretch to say that it does not include the air over those areas...hence the Air Force (which started as the Army Air Force). And both terms are "to raise and support" and "to provide and maintain". Back then, they did not have the ability to have an Air Force. So when they could "raise and support" air operations in the Army (where the Air Force started), it was clearly constitutional. I'll tie that one into the Space Force as well. There is also no explicit mention of tanks, but you're a little smarter than that to argue those are unconstitutional too, no?
If tanks were generally understood to constitute a military branch distinct from the Army and Navy, they would also be unconstitutional on any competent plain-language reading of the Constitution.
I think that as long as air operations took place under the aegis of the Army, they might have been defensible as constitutional. But the explicit separation of them from the Army into their own branch took them outside the scope of the clauses you quote. The Constitution refers to "Armies" and "a Navy" and "land and naval Forces" but does not enumerate or state any power to raise/support/maintain/provide air or space forces. Air is not land and space is not the sea!
> Democrats are in full attack stating they must “codify” Roe. Except, such legislation would still be unconstitutional at the federal level. Trust me, there is no explicit or implicit right to murder a baby in the womb, anywhere, in the document. Something tells me the Founder’s would have written that one down.
The Founders failed to write all sorts of shit into the Constitution; in itself that doesn't make that shit unconstitutional. What SPECIFICALLY makes legislation codifying Roe unconstitutional?
The fact something is not stated in the constitution makes it unconstitutional. The right to privacy is inferred, mainly, from the fourth amendment. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments dictate the fact that what is not enumerated is not a power to the federal government. It is quite clear. What power could you possibly think of that grants the federal government the power to codify abortion?
I dunno, how about the same power that allows the federal government to have an Air Force and Space Force, even though the Constitution never enumerated or stated that power?
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 13 & 14:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; . .
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces..
Army is a term that defines military operations on land and navy the sea. It isn't a term that just states "infantry soldiers." It would be a stretch to say that it does not include the air over those areas...hence the Air Force (which started as the Army Air Force). And both terms are "to raise and support" and "to provide and maintain". Back then, they did not have the ability to have an Air Force. So when they could "raise and support" air operations in the Army (where the Air Force started), it was clearly constitutional. I'll tie that one into the Space Force as well. There is also no explicit mention of tanks, but you're a little smarter than that to argue those are unconstitutional too, no?
If tanks were generally understood to constitute a military branch distinct from the Army and Navy, they would also be unconstitutional on any competent plain-language reading of the Constitution.
I think that as long as air operations took place under the aegis of the Army, they might have been defensible as constitutional. But the explicit separation of them from the Army into their own branch took them outside the scope of the clauses you quote. The Constitution refers to "Armies" and "a Navy" and "land and naval Forces" but does not enumerate or state any power to raise/support/maintain/provide air or space forces. Air is not land and space is not the sea!