Here we go again. A newly released document indicates that Judge Samuel
Alito once formulated a plan for the “eventual overruling of
Roe v. Wade,” which might have resulted in the horror — dreadful
to contemplate — of unemployed abortionists.
The good Darwinists of the U.S. Supreme Court had decided that a
human fetus is a lower life form, unprotected by the multitudinous
penumbras formed by emanations from the U.S. Constitution and therefore
eligible to be killed, at least during the first two trimesters of
its life. A further penumbra, discovered more recently, apparently
extended this all the way through the third trimester too, making it
eligible to be killed even in the birth canal.
All this falls under the right of privacy, which the legislatures
of all 50 states had somehow failed to discern in the Constitution.
The Court found it there in 1965 and found further in 1973 that it
Where is this right of privacy, exactly? Well, nowhere, exactly,
but it’s sort of, like, you know, distributed through the Fourth,
Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The main thing is that the Constitution
is a living document, with a will of its own, and its oracular meanings
can be pinned down only by liberal justices.
The danger, of course, is that conservative justices could get the
same idea and start finding a whole different set of meanings. This
would be especially likely if they read the Constitution more literally
instead of abiding by liberal precedents, as conservatives are supposed
to do. This is why liberals see guys like Sam Alito and John Roberts
as threats. Such men might conceivably rule that the right to bear
arms, or the right not to be deprived of life without due process of
law, also emanate penumbras.
For liberals, the crucial part of the Constitution is the Fourteenth
Amendment, which can be made to mean — or at least emanate — just
about anything your heart desires, particularly if your heart is liberal.
In its liberal heyday, the Court decided in effect that the Fourteenth,
though ratified under duress after the Civil War, basically repealed
the Tenth Amendment. As a result, the Federal Government can do pretty
much whatever it wants and Federal judges can strike down pretty much
any state law, local ordinance, or high-school dress code they dislike.
The more power the Federal Government has, the more surely America
is a democracy governed by a majority under a living document. Such
is the liberal view, anyway. It’s one of those things about which
All the Experts Agree. (Meaning that those who disagree don’t
count as “experts.”)
Federal judges now play the Constitution like an accordion, alternately
squeezing and expanding. They squeeze the parts they don’t care
for, such as the Second and Tenth Amendments, which they have rendered
virtually meaningless (the Supreme Court has declared the Tenth a mere “truism”);
while they expand the parts that can be made more to their liking,
such as a few phrases in the First and Fifth Amendments.
So the “living document” turns out to mean one that is
judicially “edited” in such a way that some of its passages
don’t count at all, whereas other passages contain meanings nobody
ever dreamed of. The Constitution as a whole becomes something its
own authors wouldn’t recognize.
As I’ve often observed, the U.S. Constitution poses no serious
threat to our form of government; it now bears roughly the same relation
to that government that the Book of Revelation bears to the Unitarian
Church. And liberals aim to keep it that way.
Which is what, at one level, the fight over Roe is all about. And
some liberals are honest enough to admit this. You will find some advocates
of legal abortion who agree that Roe was badly reasoned; but you won’t
find any opponents of legal abortion who think it was well reasoned.
Apart from being morally monstrous, Roe was constitutionally absurd.
As Justice Byron White said in his dissent, it was an exercise of “raw
judicial power”; and it was also an almost unequalled exercise
of judicial bad faith. Never was the overworked appeal to the “living
document” more necessary to sustain a feeble semblance of legitimacy
for a truly rotten decision.
Copyright © 2011 by the Fitzgerald
Griffin Foundation. All rights reserved. This column was published originally
by Griffin Internet Syndicate on December 1, 2005.
Joe Sobran was an author and a syndicated columnist. See bio
and archives of some of his columns.
Watch Sobran's last TV appearance on YouTube.
Learn how to get a tape of his last speech
during the FGF Tribute to Joe Sobran in December 2009.
To subscribe to or renew the FGF E-Package, or support the writings of Joe
Sobran, please send a tax-deductible donation to the:
Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation
P.O. Box 1383
or subscribe online.