"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 10:08:59 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court is entitled to
amend the Constitution?

When has it done so?

Frequently, going all the way back to Dred Scott, the Slaughterhouse
Cases,
and Lochner v. NY, running through the reapportionment cases, the various
abortion cases, Lawrence v. Texas (holding that the 14th Amendment created
a
right to commit sodomy), and on and on. Among recent cases the dead
giveaway
is reference to finding some newly created right hiding in the "penumbra"
or
being an "emanation" of the 14th amendment, lying in the shadows and
undiscovered for some 140 years. (Which clause is it where I'd find the
words "privacy" and "third trimester?")

And before you start dragging out all the old war horses, let me say I do
not disagree with the result in Brown v. Board of Ed., and I generally
favor
minimum if any legal restrictions on abortion. At the same time it's
pretty
clear that the latter is not a topic anyone thought was addressed by the
14th Amendment until the Supremes decided to replace intentions of those
approving the Amendment with whatever the nine wise men happened to think
is
a good idea on a particular day.


Interesting, but you said earlier that the Supremes have "amended" the
Constitution. I know they've ruled on various aspects of it, but I didn't
realize they actually amended it. Is there not a requirement for 2/3 of
States to ratify before that happens?


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com