Did you see the TV thing on Antonin Scalia? He is wrong

Antonin Scalia doesn’t sound much like a Catholic and he doesn’t seem to be much into the Constitution either (…all his LOUD protestations to the contrary notwithstanding :mad: )… .

He said on TV (was it 60 Minutes? Sorry, can’t recall)… that there is nothing in the Constitution that would make abortion illegal??

Huh??? What???

It’s in the very first part!!

"… the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… "

:mad: :hypno:

I feel this issue is like the one Lincoln faced with slavery (though more important since it is life/death): Lincoln said (something to the effect) that slavery was so immoral that there had to be a way to outlaw it, even if it meant… being un-Constitutional…

More people have died in abortion than in all the world wars and US wars (and etc.) combined…

We should all write and remind him of what the Constitution clearly says…

I think if you wrote to:

the Honorable (?) Scalia @ US Supreme Court, Washington DC 20205 it would get there…
(it might be best not to include the ? mark :smiley: )

Reagan said: “Isn’t it interesting that all those who are pro-abortion are already born.”

i think he said that there was nothing in the Constitution that protects abortion.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Federalism, the system we live under, requires that any powers not enumerated as belonging to the Federal government, belong to the States. See the Tenth Amendment. Roe v. Wade took that away and imposed a Federal law superceding the previous laws that the States had made on abortion. (There are lots of things in Federal hands that shouldn’t be… don’t get me started.)

Scalia is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion. There is nothing that allows it, either. The fact that he is intellectually honest is no grounds for attacking the sincerity of his Catholicism. Really, that’s just nasty.

If you are going to argue the pro-life position, please do not discredit it by arguing falsely or from ignorance. Get educated, THEN argue.

Yes, this is truly bizarre. It’s another example of how ultra-conservative folks (or ultra-anythings) eat their own. Scalia is under fire all the time for being some kind of extremist conservative. People who think he isn’t conservative enough should give the poor guy a break.

Edwin

Perhaps you could find a quote or source because I have seen him write and heard him say the complete opposite.

Is this the interview?

cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290.shtml

to me, they are documents that are “together” in the minds of americans as being part of our governmetn… In any case, they are presumed not to contradict one another…( Our government never threw out the Declaration of Independence.)

Federalism, the system we live under, requires that any powers not enumerated as belonging to the Federal government, belong to the States.

I knew that.

. Roe v. Wade took that away and imposed a Federal law superceding the previous laws that the States had made on abortion.

I knew that also.

(There are lots of things in Federal hands that shouldn’t be… don’t get me started.)

i knew that also.

Scalia is right. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion.

. It is only logical: If one doesn’t have a right to even LIVE, what good are other rights?? Rights are for people. If no people exist, that would tend to make a Constitution moot, right? Therefore, abortion is a violation of the Constitution… (I am being fascetious… [just in case you don’t get it… :smiley: )

there is nothing that allows it, either. i knew this also…

[quote] The fact that he is intellectually honest is no grounds for attacking the sincerity of his Catholicism. Really, that’s just nasty.

the fact that i don’t believe he is being “intellectually honest” or at least that i don’t think he is doing all possible to end abortion… is no grounds for attacking my sincerity (and/or whatever). Really, that’s just nasty…

If you are going to argue the pro-life position, please do not discredit it by arguing falsely or from ignorance. Get educated, THEN argue.

You have not proven that i am “wrong” about anything and i have not argued anything “falsely” or from ignorance.

Well, OK, i admit i am ignorant, seeing as how i am not God… but other than that, i am no more ignorant than you are.

What is “bizarre”??

“eat their own”/??? Hmm… I don’t consider him MY own… My own says that murder should never be legal and when/if it does become legal, any means possible (short of murder) should be employed to change that… Lincoln did what he had to to free the slaves… Why can’t we do the same for the unborn? The slaves weren’t being murdered… (with a few tragic exceptions…).

He said on the show that it is a state’s issue (a little late for that, don’t you think? Not to mention - DUH…) and that if the states were given back that right to decide, he would not be against a state deciding to legalize abortion…

Maybe you should have watched the show before just jumping in…

The Constitution is the prevailing law of the land. The Declaration is not.

God’s laws should be the prevailing law of t he land…

And don’t blame me because my grade school and high school teachers never taught me any distinction…

We don’t live in a theocracy. If you want to live in one, I can recommend several, though unfortunately, they are all Muslim.

Your grade school teachers? Come on, how old are you? You can read for yourself. The U.S. Archives website has the Declaration, Constitution, and all its Amendments for your perusal. Take responsibility for your own education.

The Declaration has never had the force of law – it was merely a delcaration that the colonies were separating themselves from the British Crown. Whether the Declaration and the Constitution are “one” in the minds of most Americans is moot; the fact is that they are not.

Thus, you are, in fact, arguing from a false premise – that there is something in the Constitution that contradicts something you think Scalia said. In fact, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids abortion, but there is nothing that protects it, either, as someone else pointed out. As a result, it is up to the states, unless the federal government passes a law recognizing or denying the personhood of the unborn – which it is entitled to do.

Peace,
Dante
[/quote]

I am pretty sure what he meant was that the Constitution doesn’t refer to abortion at all. When interpreting the Constitution, you have to study the original intent of the founders. I can’t imagine that the founders spent much time worrying about abortion because it was not as if thousands of children were being murdered in the womb daily at that time.

One of two things: your complete ignorance of Scalia’s record or your fanatical extremism, which blinds you to the fact that if Roe v. Wade is ever reversed, Scalia will deserve much of the credit.

“eat their own”/??? Hmm… I don’t consider him MY own… My own says that murder should never be legal

Scalia agrees.

and when/if it does become legal, any means possible (short of murder) should be employed to change that…

So you don’t object to lying? Because that’s all you are faulting him for–simple honesty.

Lincoln did what he had to to free the slaves… Why can’t we do the same for the unborn? The slaves weren’t being murdered… (with a few tragic exceptions…).

Lincoln was far less of an abolitionist than Scalia is a prolifer. Lincoln made clear repeatedly his intention of not interfering with slavery where it existed. When the Southern states seceded anyway (because his opposition to the spread of slavery to new territories was too much for them), he still did not take any action against slavery for nearly two years. Then he abolished slavery *only *in territories not yet conquered by U.S. troops. I would not call this “doing what he had to to free the slaves.” Lincoln was quite willing to sacrifice the abolition of slavery to the preservation of the Union.

Back to the original point: Scalia is a “strict constructionist.” That means that he doesn’t think he has the power to read things into the Constitution that are not clearly and explicitly there and that one cannot reasonably assume to have been intended by the framers. You are blaming him, again, simply for being honest and not making up a dishonest argument so serve a good cause.

Edwin

The contents of your mind do not have the force of law in this or any other country.

In any case, they are presumed not to contradict one another…( Our government never threw out the Declaration of Independence.)

It never had the force of law, so this is meaningless.

i knew that also. . It is only logical: If one doesn’t have a right to even LIVE, what good are other rights?? Rights are for people. If no people exist, that would tend to make a Constitution moot, right? Therefore, abortion is a violation of the Constitution…

But this presupposes that individual human life begins at conception. This is never stated in the Constitution. Given that the framers of the Constitution did not grant full human rights to slaves, your argument is completely unconvincing.

the fact that i don’t believe he is being “intellectually honest” or at least that i don’t think he is doing all possible to end abortion… is no grounds for attacking my sincerity

I for one don’t question your sincerity. I question the quality of your thinking on this matter. You have no case arguing that the Constitution mentions abortion. It simply doesn’t. And as a strict constructionist, Scalia doesn’t think he can read something into the Constitution just because he thinks it ought to be there. That’s precisely the grounds on which he criticizes Roe v. Wade. That’s why your position is so profoundly misguided. The only way Roe v. Wade will be overturned (at least in the near future) is on a strict constructionist basis. By criticizing Scalia’s strict constructionism, you’re cutting the ground out from under the prolife position.

Edwin

Unfortunately, there is nothing the Honorable Justice Scalia can do to overturn Roe v. Wade (as much as you and I would like him to) until a case comes before his court for him to rule on. That means that the U.S. Congress or a state legislature must pass a law outlawing abortion which is then challenged as being unconstitutional. He will then get the opportunity to make a ruling as to the constitionality of the law.

In order for that to happen people like us must get out and vote for a representative who feels the way we do about abortion and then lobby that representative to enter a bill outlawing abortion. The only way such a bill would survive is if at least 2/3 of the Congress was willing to pass it.

Therefore, instead of ridiculing Justice Scalia, we all need to get out and campaign and vote for pro-life candidates and get the pro-choice people out of office.

I feel the Constitution does address abortion being forbidden. It says that one should not be deprived of one’s life without due process… Since an unborn child cannot do anything wrong, he/she should not be sentenced to die a cruel and unusual death (something that is also mentioned in the 8th Amendment).

I feel the Constitution does address abortion being forbidden. It says that one should not be deprived of one’s life without due process…

Since an unborn child cannot do anything wrong, he/she should not be sentenced to die a cruel and unusual death (something that is also mentioned - in the 8th Amendment).

Contarini, you have earned my abject adoration… you are now my favorite Episcopalian! :wink: I just love someone who can dialogue on the Constitution and strict constructionism knowledgeably. As Paris Hilton would say (God forgive me), “That’s HOT!”

distracted, unfortunately, due probably to ignorance of fetal development at the time of writing, unborn children are not included as “persons” in the Constitution. You and I probably agree that with what we know now, that should probably be changed, but that means an Amendment. Meaning 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of State Legislatures all have to agree on it. Good luck… there’s a reason there are only 27 Amendments in 219 years. And ten of those were adopted all at once! Also unfortunately, the unborn are specifically excluded as citizens by the opening clause of the 14th Amendment, not out of any malice or pro-abortion intent, but just because of ignorance, and the non-prevalence of abortion as a social issue. It says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” (bolding mine) Only after birth are people considered citizens and protected as “persons” under our laws. Sucks, but it’s true.

I agree that if Roe v. Wade is ever overturned, Scalia is one of our best chances. He is a brilliant Constitutional legal mind, and for anyone to call him otherwise is wrong.

And, as another poster said, I don’t question your sincerity, distracted, but the quality of your thinking.

I know this… but you know, Marbury v Madison didn’t get to the Supreme Ct. that way… It just seems to me that nobody cared about adhering to the Constitution when abortion was being legalized but now all of the sudden, we have to stick to it…

Besides, i heard that a case did come before it or was on its way… sorry, i hate TV so haven’t been following it…

Therefore, instead of ridiculing Justice Scalia,

i don’t feel i was ridiculing him… I just said i don’t like what he said on that interview… not the same thing.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.