No, however I am in the lawsuit financing business as I put up a pound of flesh or two in to decide of a case merits funding or not. You quickly develop an understanding of what to look for when it comes to a case; quicker than an attorney when you're backing it up with money.
Yet you couldn't fathom the concept that not all States have a similar concept of the castle doctrine. Is it Indiana PolySci?
I agree with Roe v. Wade. It's not my decision to make nor does a woman making that choice affect me personally or society as a whole. It is also in the interest of public health that it remain legal. Make it illegal and people will either go to where it's legal or have them done illegally. Leaving the US and having them done where it is legal puts the patient at risk as the (so called) physician doing the procedure is not subject to the stricter regulation of medical licensing as they are here. The physician doing the procedure out of this country would not be subject to any criminal or civil sanctions in the US.
You need a JD and be a member of a State Bar, some jurisdictions have a federal bar to practice or argue law in a court room. You also need to be a member of a State Bar to be a federal judge and to be a judge in most other jurisdictions. I can read medical records and diagnoses as well as I use to be in the nursing profession as well. Does that make me an authority to practice medicine? No does not. It makes me a well informed consumer with some background on the subject. I also know many nurses who have a better understanding of medicine than MDs and DOs however our medical licensing system just as our attorney licensing system is what it is.
I apologize for giving you the impression that I was trying to practice law here, but I'm not.
Seriously, you're wasting your time with this statement; or do you believe that my political science education led me to believe that knowing the nuances of constitutional case law, by itself, qualifies me to practice law or give legal advice without a J.D.?
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, most of what you say about abortion is correct; but from a purely constitutional perspective, it was clearly decided incorrectly. Have you ever heard of the tenth amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since the ability of the federal government to sanction abortion, nor its ability to prohibit the states from doing it, are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, that means that whether or not to allow it is, according to the Tenth Amendment, up to the states. While Roe v. Wade did not change anything in states where abortion was already legal, what it did do was force states that did not allow it and did not want it to decriminalize it. Furthermore, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would not be outlawed; it would now just be up to each state to decide whether it wants it or not; also, nothing would stop women living in states where it is illegal to go to one where it is legal to get one.
I have found Constitutional justification for my argument; can you point to the section of the Constitution (not a court ruling, but a section of the Constitution) that justifies yours?
