Roe v. Wade isn't an infringement of Article I, Section 8 any more than it's an infringement of The Stamp Act, Taft/Hartley, or The Comics Code Authority.

This statement was made in my comments section recently by someone who should have known I could bury it easily. Roe v. Wade is an infringement on more than Article I, Section 8, as I will demonstrate here.

For reference, the following links are appropriate:
1. The Constitution of the United States
2. The Bill of Rights
3. The Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

Of course, we can always start at the beginning when taking out a liberal argument. Article I, Section 1 clearly states:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.

The ability to create law in the United States resides EXCLUSIVELY with the Congress. The courts have no such power. In the absence of a law written by the legislatures regarding an issue, the courts have no power whatsoever to get involved. Please find and cite the clause in the Constitution that overrides this section which gives the Congress exclusive powers to create law before calling me "insane".

Article I, Section 7 is quite lengthy. I shall refer you to the links to get the information directly in order to save space here. What this section covers is the process by which laws are created and passed by the legislatures, and approved by the president. The courts are simply not involved. After reading this, please explain how this process was followed in the case of Roe v. Wade before calling me a "fanatic".

Article I, Section 8 is also quite lengthy, but the last power expressly given to Congress is listed as follows:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again, the Constitution has reiterated the power of CONGRESS to create and pass laws. No authority has been given to the judiciary do make law here, either. Again, please demonstrate how the courts created law in the case of Roe v. Wade without violating this constitutional provision before saying I'm "blowing smoke up people's asses".

Article V explains the process by which the Constitution can be amended. No amendment has ever been passed changing the process of creating and passing law that I know of. Maybe you can help us "xenophobic rednecks" find one?

Oh, by the way, I am hardly fearful of foreigners or things foreign. I am DEFINITELY fearful of the kind of life Americans would have to lead under the kind of socialism most liberals are advocating these days. Who wouldn't be? I don't see people flocking to the Gulf of Mexico trying to get into Cuba, only people trying escape it.

That concludes my analysis of the Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights is next. Again, we are focusing on Roe v. Wade, since our liberal buddy decided to specifically attack my position on that issue.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since no law declaring unborn children anything other than human beings has been passed (or ever will), those children have all the rights declared in the Bill of Rights. They have the right to be secure in their persons against seizure or warrants without probable cause, just like you and I. Until the medical community can provide clear proof that somehow a human fetus develops into something other than a human being, unborn children should not be targets of legislation deeming them "expendable". In either case, there was no law other than the Constitution to go by, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect the lives of innocent human beings.

The Fifth Amendment declares:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...

Putting the issue through the courts does not equate to "due process of law". To say that since the courts all heard the case and agreed would be to say that if you could choose courts that are favorable to your position all the way to the Supreme Court (which the ACLU attempts to do all the time), you could easily get your way in depriving people of their rights without violating the due process clause. The courts are obligated to follow the law. They have not done that, and Roe v. Wade is the prime example of judicial activism run amok. Please find and cite a provision in the Constitution that overrides this before calling the people I "hang" with "batshit crazies". I'm going through all this rather thoroughly, and I don't see that I'm missing anything. Enlighten me, oh liberal friends!

Amendments IX and X turn power over to the States and the people in all cases where the Constitution is silent. Therefore, by inserting itself into the law-making process where the Constitution did not allow it, the courts also violated the rights of the states and of the people. Again, where is the overriding provision?

I haven't quoted a single "far-right buzzword" here, only the Constitution. This is the law fo the land. "Constitutional scholarship" starts with reading the Constitution, and ends with following it. How exactly am I wrong to insist that this be enforced when those who wrote the Constitution would have done the same, as evidenced by the words they saw fit to include in the Constitution and other documents? I doubt my liberal friend understands much about "Constitutional scholarship" if he cannot understand the scholarship I have exercised and demonstrated here. Most likely, he will come up with some baloney about my sentence structure (which is always nearly perfect) and suggest that supporting an organization whose mission statement reads,

to build a national network of chapters and members to restore the values and principles found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, which protect our God-given rights ... provides Americans with the educational materials, programs, campaigns, and essential organizational leadership to restore our constitutional Republic and defeat the organized efforts of those seeking to destroy it.

makes those who agree with me a "xenophobic gang of rednecks".

These people simply do not understand that we respect and cherish that which the Founders gave us, and we intend to stand firm in defending it. Once again, as I have demonstrated, many organizations, and where applicable, the United States government, are breaking the law. Our liberal friends try to tell us that's not true, but if the Constitution is the law (which it is), and people violate its provisions (which they do), what else can you call it?

RWR