Roe v. Wade: Unconstitutional, Like an Amendment in Every Sense

The principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are foundational to the American ethos, deeply embedded in the Declaration of Independence. These rights are deemed inalienable and granted by natural law and a higher divine authority. This perspective forms the basis for arguing that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional.

 

From the inception of the United States, the belief that every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been central. These rights are not granted by the government but are inherent to human beings. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were designed to protect these fundamental rights, ensuring that they cannot be unjustly taken away. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 effectively created a federal mandate that legalized abortion nationwide. This ruling, however, can be seen as an overreach of federal power, surpassing the natural and God-given rights to life. By mandating that states could not impose significant restrictions on abortion, the federal government imposed its will over individual states, altering the balance of rights and protections originally intended by the framers of the Constitution.

The argument posits that Roe v. Wade, in its effect, acted as an amendment. While it was not a formal constitutional amendment, it significantly altered the interpretation and application of constitutional rights. By extending the right to privacy to include the right to an abortion, Roe v. Wade effectively amended the understanding of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. This judicial decision reshaped the legal landscape, impacting the fundamental rights of individuals and states alike.

The essence of the argument is that any federal action, including judicial decisions, that infringes upon the natural and God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is inherently unconstitutional. Roe v. Wade, by mandating a federal standard for abortion, infringed upon these rights, especially the right to life. Thus, the decision can be viewed as an unconstitutional alteration of the foundational principles that the nation was built upon.

The Declaration of Independence famously asserts that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These principles are not only the bedrock of the American republic but also reflect a universal moral order that transcends legal codes and governmental decrees. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended to protect these fundamental rights from government overreach, ensuring that the government would serve the people rather than the other way around.

REPUBLICANS MUST UNITE ON THEIR STANCE ON ABORTION: LISTEN BELOW

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, was designed to protect individual rights against state infringement. It guarantees that no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law and that all individuals are entitled to equal protection under the law. While the amendment has been used to expand civil rights and protect individual liberties, it is crucial to interpret it in a manner that respects the natural and God-given rights it was meant to safeguard.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade hinged on the right to privacy, which the Court found implicit in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The ruling effectively nullified state laws that restricted or prohibited abortion, establishing a federal standard that states were compelled to follow. This decision can be viewed as a form of judicial overreach, where the Court extended its authority beyond its constitutional limits, imposing a uniform standard on an issue deeply rooted in moral and ethical considerations.

One of the core arguments against Roe v. Wade is that it undermines the fundamental right to life. The right to life is a natural and inalienable right, inherent to all human beings. By legalizing abortion nationwide, Roe v. Wade effectively sanctioned the termination of unborn life, conflicting with the principle that every individual has the right to life. This decision bypassed the moral and ethical debates surrounding abortion, imposing a federal mandate that disregarded the natural rights of the unborn.

The United States operates under a federal system of government, where power is divided between the national government and the states. This system is designed to ensure a balance of power, allowing states to govern themselves in accordance with the needs and values of their populations. Roe v. Wade disrupted this balance by imposing a federal mandate on an issue that many believe should be determined by individual states. This imposition not only infringed upon state rights but also disregarded the diverse moral and ethical beliefs held by the people in different states.

While Roe v. Wade was not a formal amendment to the Constitution, it had the effect of one by fundamentally altering the interpretation and application of constitutional rights. By extending the right to privacy to include the right to an abortion, the decision redefined the scope of individual liberties and the role of the federal government in protecting those liberties. This judicial action effectively amended the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights by altering their foundational principles.

Liberty is another core principle that was impacted by Roe v. Wade. The decision framed the right to an abortion as a matter of personal liberty, but this interpretation can be seen as conflicting with the broader understanding of liberty as a natural right that must be balanced with other rights, including the right to life. By prioritizing the liberty of some (those seeking abortions) over the life of others (the unborn), Roe v. Wade disrupted the delicate balance of rights that the Constitution is designed to protect.

The pursuit of happiness is a fundamental right that encompasses the ability to live one’s life according to one’s values and beliefs. Roe v. Wade, by imposing a federal mandate, limited the ability of states and individuals to legislate and live according to their moral convictions regarding the sanctity of life. This imposition can be seen as a violation of the natural right to pursue happiness in a manner consistent with one’s ethical and moral beliefs.

The assertion that all deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a call to return to the core values of natural and divine rights that form the foundation of the American republic. Roe v. Wade, by imposing a federal mandate, can be argued to have surpassed these rights, infringing upon the natural and God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This perspective advocates for the decision in light of the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

3 thoughts on “Roe v. Wade: Unconstitutional, Like an Amendment in Every Sense

  1. Why do you people always misspronounce and miss spell the word inalienable by using the word unalienable which is not even a word found in the dictionary!!

    1. The final version of the Declaration uses the word “unalienable.” Some earlier drafts used the word “inalienable,” which is the term our modern dictionaries prefer. The two words mean precisely the same thing. Unalienable is indeed a word, and constitutionalists use the founding father’s literal meaning because they are not a bunch of triggered Karen’s. Helpful? Now go play hide and go fuck yourself.

      unalienable

      [ uhn-eyl-yuh-nuh-buhl, -ey-lee-uh- ]
      Phonetic (Standard)
      IPA
      adjective
      not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
      The Declaration of Independence acknowledged that all humans have innate, unalienable rights.

  2. Good essay, Matt. There is no “right to privacy“ anywhere in the constitution. Roe v. Wade simply made up this so-called right. This is why it is important to have “originalists” on the Supreme Court instead of progressives who will twist and reinterpret the constitution to mean whatever they want.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *