Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

And the new decision is on even less constitutional grounds. There is nothing in the constitution that allows a state to force a woman to carry a baby. But it happens to be their preferred judicial activism, and therefore somehow not applicable.


So in your view the government cannot make laws against abortion because the constitution doesn't say they can? If that is the case then we can't have laws against rape, assault, reckless driving, etc. The 10th amendment says any power not granted to the federal government and not banned by the constitution is left for the states.


State powers are very broad and a federal judge needs a good and specific reason to strike down a state law. See the tenth amendment.

The only way one might reasonably call the imminent opinion "activism" is based on stare decisis. And that's a debatable topic.


This kind of thinking only applies to the federal government. State governments are constrained by the bill of rights.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: