Much Less A Matter Of Policy, But Purely As A Matter Of Constitutional Law, Is Roe V. Wade A Good Decision?

[wendlesora]

This is simply not a query about abortion per se, but purely as a matter of constitutional law. Please retain personal opinions being an at the mercy of the very least about abortion. The situation is, may possibly be the majority view created in the very first scenario a high-good quality act of constitutional meaning, or could it be a kind of "Lochnerizing" from the judge, generating law rather of interpreting it.

[burnard83]

Roe v. Wade utilizes a sort of precedent back once once more to the mid-1800's. As a result it is nicely-reasoned and makes use of stare decisis. The holding in Roe v. Wade relies in the appropriate to privacy present in the U.S. Constitution.  The reasoning in Roe relies on the reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut,(1965)which declared unconstitutional a Connecticut law prohibiting the utilization by everybody, married or single of any contraception devices.  The best to privacy reported in Griswold are available inside an opinion by Justice Story in the middle 1800?s.   Within the Harvard Law Overview(1890) Louis Brandeis advisable, within an article coauthored with Samuel Warren, that the declaration of regular house interests was only of restricted power in the protection of privacy.  What was important was the protection of "an inviolate character".  They stated that solitude was "the very best to be let alone."   As a result we observe that Roe is not some unexpected jump of judicial activism.  It's section of an all all-natural development of situations and comentaries interperting the Constitution.  Bear in thoughts: the which means of judicial activism is any viewpoint with which doesn't agree.  And Lochner followed stare decisis for the purpose that it followed a current legal idea called "substantive due procedure for law", because forgotten, apart from. Dirtlawyer 85 weeks previously Please register to provide a supplement. Please confirm your account to offer a supplement. Please register to deliver a note. Please confirm your account to provide a message.

[granger]

Dirtlawyer stated: 1 newbie218712, relating to your resolution "Requesting the difficulty is just a bit risky, but yes, it's a dubious opinion.": You talked just of one's apparent dislike of your selection, and that you'd have preferred the courtroom to discuss the rights of mom and the unborn. I noticed not just one particular word regarding the law in this matter. Underneath the regulation, the unborn do not have any rights. In what the law states they do not occur. They are made from the parents, if any statements are created. Regarding the rights of mom, if she's any she's the very best to an abortion. It's other folks who're attempting to restrict this appropriate. 84 weeks previously

[Ubel]

Asking the question is a bit dangerous, but yes, it is a questionable opinion. You have asked a dangerous question in pro-choice circles, who have taken Roe v. Wade to be gospel truth when it, like any other law, has its issues and cracks that may or may not withstand the test of time.First remember that although Federal Law trumps state law, overturning Roe v. Wade would not prevent a state from allowing an abortion. Given the number of abortion clinics in the few states that would actually elect to outlaw the practice, the real impact of overturning would be the pro-choice movement's noise, not the ability for someone to get an abortion.Roe v. Wade hinges on the right to privacy. It suggests privacy is a protected right in the Constitution, which is not on the most firm of grounds. Privacy is not guaranteed in many places, even without a warrant(the most notable example being public security cameras, including the 'red light' cameras). I am not alone in believing that privacy is not guaranteed in the Constitution, and it was a stretch for the court to use this particular argument to justify the law.The law doesn't address rights of a fetus or a pregnant woman, or delve into bioethics, which I personally think would be a good idea, save that lawyers usually botch those kinds of things.But your suggestion is reasonble: the Constitutional rights that are declared in the law are not directly in the Constitution, and it could be argued that they are delegated to the individual states. Sources: My opinion CatOfGrey 85 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[platon]

You have asked a dangerous question in pro-choice circles, who have taken Roe v. Wade to be gospel truth when it, like any other law, has its issues and cracks that may or may not withstand the test of time.First remember that although Federal Law trumps state law, overturning Roe v. Wade would not prevent a state from allowing an abortion. Given the number of abortion clinics in the few states that would actually elect to outlaw the practice, the real impact of overturning would be the pro-choice movement's noise, not the ability for someone to get an abortion.Roe v. Wade hinges on the right to privacy. It suggests privacy is a protected right in the Constitution, which is not on the most firm of grounds. Privacy is not guaranteed in many places, even without a warrant(the most notable example being public security cameras, including the 'red light' cameras). I am not alone in believing that privacy is not guaranteed in the Constitution, and it was a stretch for the court to use this particular argument to justify the law.The law doesn't address rights of a fetus or a pregnant woman, or delve into bioethics, which I personally think would be a good idea, save that lawyers usually botch those kinds of things.But your suggestion is reasonble: the Constitutional rights that are declared in the law are not directly in the Constitution, and it could be argued that they are delegated to the individual states.

[Leron]

newbie218712, regarding your answer "Asking the question is a bit dangerous, but yes, it is a questionable opinion.": You spoke only of your obvious dislike of the decision, and that you would have liked the court to comment on the rights of the mother and the unborn. I saw not one word about the law in this matter. Under the law, the unborn have no rights. In the law they don't exist. If any claims are made, they are made by the parents. As to the rights of the mother, if she has any she has the right to an abortion. It is other people who are trying to limit this right.

[Walcot]

The holding in Roe v. Wade relies in a right to privacy found in the U.S. Constitution.  The reasoning in Roe relies on the reasoning in Griswold v. Connecticut,(1965)which declared unconstitutional a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use by anyone, married or unmarried of any birth control devices.  The right to privacy cited in Griswold can be found in an opinion by Justice Story in the mid 1800?s.   In the Harvard Law Review(1890) Louis Brandeis suggested, in an article co-authored with Samuel Warren, that the assertion of traditional property interests was only of limited utility in the protection of privacy.  What was important was the protection of "an inviolate personality".  They said that privacy was "the right to be let alone."   So we see that Roe is not some sudden leap of judicial activism.  It is part of a natural progression of cases and comentaries interperting the Constitution.  Keep in mind: the definition of judicial activism is any opinion with which one does not agree.  And besides, Lochner followed stare decisis in that it followed an existing legal theory called "substantive due process of law", since abandoned.