David writes, in part:
[Huckabee's] saying that Roe wrongly created a broad federal treatment of abortion, and that it also created the wrong treatment of abortion, because it takes an obvious, fundamental human right (life) and subordinates it to a privacy concern.
ME: So, the answer to the broad federal treatment is to create a broad federal treatment, but the right broad federal treatment?
(By the way, I think either approach is appropriate, but I am just trying to follow the logic.)
David writes further:
If Thompson wants a “constitutional amendment to return abortion to the states,” I think it does open him up some criticism, at least for a lack of critical thinking. What benefit is there to such an (impossible) goal? There already exists such an amendment — the Tenth Amendment — but the Roe Court just didn’t care. Roe’s reversal would have the same effect as a “go-back-to-the-states” amendment, and it appears much more attainable — it will likely happen if any of the Republicans (perhaps even Giuliani) wins next November.
ME: With respect, introducing changes in the make-up of the Court has nothing to do with what I raised. Moreover, David’s position, that the Court is already violating the Tenth Amendment and therefore an amendment saying return the matter to the states is repetitive, is unencumbered with a long series of flawed arguments, made by the Court itself, finding federal authority in other places, including the Ninth Amendment. (Ramesh’s book, among other sources, lays it out in detail for those who don’t read court opinions.) Does that therefore mean that any amendment is of no purpose? For example, following David’s logic, would the Court not say, “Look, we already said abortion is a fundamental right under (fill in the blank)?” So, I find David’s position unpersuasive.
But the issue isn’t what David believes, but what Huckabee believes. I appreciate his interpreters, but would like more elaboration by him, including about his inconsistent positions.