From: suo@cae.wisc.edu (Franklin Suo)
Subject: Re: That little itty bitty march
Organization: College of Engineering, Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison
Distribution: usa,local
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:57:19 CDT
Originator: suo@sun-12.cae.wisc.edu


In article <1992Apr10.230843.8319@news.cs.brandeis.edu>, st910858@pip.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

{...}

|> 
|> 	I think you're still missing his point, Ed.  Don't worry, because there
|> is no way at this point in time for the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion.
|> The S.C. decides the constitutionality of LAWS, not issues.
|> 	In order to repeal the 18th amendment, someone had to bring a case to 
|> the court, challenging the law on the prohibition issue - showing its
|> unconstitutionality.  That's the only means for the S.C. to do anything.`

Since when can the Supreme Court declare a part of the Constitution to be
unconstitutional? Once the Constitution is amended, the Supreme Court is
forced to abide by that amendment. Period. The only way to repeal an amendment
is to pass another amendment, which requires a 2/3 majority in Congress and a
3/4 majority of the states.

|> 
|> 	When the S.C. decided that the 18th amendment was unconstitutional, the
|> issue was once again thrown open to the states.  At that point (and someone
|> with a little time on their hands might consider researching whether or not 
|> this happened) the states could have passed laws (or may have already had
|> them on the books) that outlawed the use of alcohol.  These laws probably
|> wouldn't have remained in tact for very long as a powerful legal precedent
|> had been set by the S.C.

Once again, the SC cannot declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional.

|> 
|> 	Had the prohibition laws of the states differed enough from the
|> original, they might have gotten around the reasons that the S.C. 
|> originally used to decide against prohibition.
|> 
|> 	Point being - if the S.C. does overturn Roe v Wade, and as long as the 
|> laws protecting abortion on the state level are not of the same vein (ie
|> they don't allow for unconditional abortion on demand) then there is a good
|> chance that those state laws might survive.  True, abortion might also be 
|> outlawed in this case, but the people, thru the demopcratic process, will
|> have both choices at their disposal - which is my main concern.

If the SC overturns Roe, the states will have the power to outlaw abortion. An
overturning of Roe would have no effect on laws that permit abortion; someone
would have to challenge an abortion-permitting law in court before such a law
could be overturned.

|> 
|> 	I hope I've been able to clear this up for you.  If you really did 
|> understand in the first place, then please accept my humbled apologies for
|> wasting you time with such a long-winded analogy/example.
|>                                              Patrick 

Saying that the SC can declare the Constitution to be unconstitutional doesn't
clear up much, except maybe our perception of your level of understanding of
our government's structure.



"America the Beautiful, land of the free,
Don't change the words to Land of Hypocricy"		Frank Suo
--Anthrax--						suo@cae.wisc.edu

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh