> From: Ronn!Blankenship [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > At 11:43 AM 8/10/03 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > So does Ms. Tucker think we should restore the original > wording of the > > > Constitution by removing the "right to privacy" > interpretation of the 14th > > > amendment on which the SCOTUS based its decision in _Roe > v. Wade_? Or, > > > given that she is black, how about repealing the entire > 14th amendment? > > > > > > >What the hell does this have to do with what she was talking > about? She > >wasn't saying, Don't ever amend the Constitution, she was > saying, Don't do > >it in > >_this particular case_. > > What it has to do with what she was talking about is that the > same "leave > the Constitution alone" argument she used in the article > could be used by > someone else for a different issue, such as the ones I used for > illustration. Her argument is not "Leave the Constitution > alone, period" > as the headline of the article might suggest, but more like > "Leave the > Constitution alone except for issues I agree with." I didn't > say that a > Constitutional amendment defining marriage such as she > describes in the > article is necessarily a good idea or a bad idea: I simply > pointed out > that the same argument she makes against it in the article > could have been > - and indeed has been - made by those opposed to such things as the > decision in _Roe v. Wade_, etc.
I read that original article more on the lines of don't amend the Constitution for religious beliefs that aren't universally shared even among the same religions. And don't amend the Constitution for what is really a minor issue. And no, as an ardent pro-choice supporter, I wouldn't back an amendement that guaranteed the right to abortion. Not without a seriously good reason... Does anyone else see SCOTUS and reflexively substitute another word as they read...? - jmh _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
