1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Strict Constitutionalist and Overturning a Previous Ruling

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Crabtownboy, Nov 12, 2008.

  1. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,401
    Ratings:
    +637
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Strict constitutionalists believe that if a topic is not mentioned in the Constitution, say a topic like abortion or prayer, should never have been heard in any federal court. That being said once a decision has been made by the Supreme Court, like Roe v. Wade. Is it a violation of that philosophy to hear the case again with the possibility of the decision being reversed?

    Most fundamentalists and conservative say they are strick Constitutionalists. So, are their violating their own philosophy in wanting the Court to hear and overturn Roe v. Wade again?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    I would consider myself a strict constructionist, almost to a fault.

    A very interesting scenario.

    First thoughts?

    A review of a case like Roe v Wade would be an opportunity to correct a previous error, therefore a viable case to be heard before the court.
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,401
    Ratings:
    +637
    Faith:
    Baptist
    True. I believe I could argue either side of this issue.
     
  4. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Ratings:
    +1
    Agreed.:thumbs:

    However, the main thing to remember is that Roe v. Wade did not establish whether or not abortion is legal. The Court left that call up to the Congress. Congress, if it had the guts, could address and solve this debate.
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    It only established that abortion was protected by the supposed 'right to privacy' clause of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment give Congress the right to 'enforce the legislation.'

    This niggles at my strict constructionism. The 14th amendment gave Congress the powers never intended by the original constitution. But, after its adoption, it became a part of the law of the land.

    I am not sure, similar to the question in the OP, how to deal with this conflict.
     
  6. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    21,787
    Ratings:
    +1,287
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No..........
     
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Ratings:
    +80
    It is strict Constructionist, not strict constitutionalist, that is the Constitution means what the original framers wrote. It is not a violation of the strict constructionist philosophy to overturn prior decisions. Those decisions are not a part of the Constitution. :thumbs: :thumbs:
     
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Ratings:
    +0

    You're right. It might not have been a strict constructionist approach to take on Roe vs. Wade initially but it's certainly OK to address past decisions.
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,401
    Ratings:
    +637
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So should we call this "Situational Constitutionalist?"
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    No, I don't think so. If a sitting court considers a previous decision of their own to be in violation of the intent of the constitution itself they should be obligated to review and correct it.

    Roe V Wade's only constitutionality comes from its own ruling. The federal government never should have entered the debate. This constitutionally should be a state issue. The '73 court used this ruling to override a state's right to determine its own law.
     
  11. Andy T.

    Andy T. New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    3,147
    Ratings:
    +0
    Crabtownboy,

    If the SCOTUS suddenly ruled on a case and said slavery was permissible, should it be overturned? Of course. Bad decisions need to be overturned by the Court. Roe was a bad decision. It needs to be overturned. It's pretty simple.
     
  12. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Ratings:
    +0
    Go to CSpan and see if you can find the presentation the Judge Bork gave the night. It was on Saturday night I think. It was very good and he addressed this very issue.
     
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Ratings:
    +80
    Their is nothing constitutional about Roe v Wade. It is an abomination and I believe that, in his own good time God, will punish this nation :tonofbricks: because of all those who profess to be His children yet continue to support this Holocaust.:tear: :tear: :tear:
     
  14. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Ratings:
    +0
    Where in the 14th amendment is a right to privacy?
     
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Ratings:
    +127
    This the stretched clause

    The interpretation of a 'right of privacy' is itself unconstitutional
     
Loading...