(11-13-2012, 11:56 PM)kandrathe Wrote: I think that is a mis-perception. The civil war amendments did not change the 10th amendment. It's weakness is in the elastic interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper" clause and not due to the civil war.
Of course it didn't change the 10th. It introduced the 14th. Much more powerful, especially given that the interpretation of the 10th you are proposing is federalist fantasy, not existing jurisprudence. States' rights advocates invoke it whenever they want to feel mighty, but nobody's ever managed to get it to support so much as a coffee table, let a lone a major piece of legislation.
Quote:It would be Roe, and Doe that would need to be overturned., and just a reinterpretation on the 14th amendment, but due to stare decisis it is somewhat improbable unless the court were stacked with more Catholics.
Yeah. It's pretty much just Scalia up there all alone, isn't it?
Oh, well, and Alito. Of course.
And Thomas.
And Kennedy. Can't forget Kennedy.
And Sotomayor, naturally.
Oh, and Roberts. That whole chief justice deal.
Actually, come to think of it, that makes the court 2/3 Catholic. How many more exactly do they need?
-Jester