That said, it doesn't cite the constitution but rather the thinking and the influences of many of the constitution's writers. I prefer that SCOTUS stick to the letter of the law rather than interpreting the likely intention of the writers. Interpretation allows for a lot of latitude, sometimes gross deviations from the letter of the law (for example, Roe v Wade, Citizens United, or recent same-sex marriage rulings). Personally I think the constitution says nothing at all about abortion, or when a person becomes a person, and therefore it should defer to the states on that point. The states determine drinking age, driving age, marrying age, and even voting age within explicit limits set by the constitution; to me it seems reasonable that states should determine personhood on their own, since the constitution says nothing specifically relevant to the unborn within the womb. Obviously hoping that SCOTUS does the right thing; time will tell.
Well, the writers of the Constitution could not cite the Constitution before they wrote it. It did not exist, yet. They could only state their understanding of law that existed for hundreds of years leading up to the Constitution. That should be obvious.
Since the federal Constitution is silent on the issue, it is not a federal power. However, Roe v. Wade said that it is also not a state power, because it is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are above the government (whether state or federal). That is the point of a constitutional republic (not a democracy).
Therefore, we are talking primarily about fundamental rights. That makes it a philosophical debate.
States will pass a variety of laws.
Here is an interesting article on what the Founders thought.
https://idahofamily.org/2021/08/26/is-abortion-constitutional-lets-ask-the-founding-fathers/
That's a good article. I'm glad I read it.
That said, it doesn't cite the constitution but rather the thinking and the influences of many of the constitution's writers. I prefer that SCOTUS stick to the letter of the law rather than interpreting the likely intention of the writers. Interpretation allows for a lot of latitude, sometimes gross deviations from the letter of the law (for example, Roe v Wade, Citizens United, or recent same-sex marriage rulings). Personally I think the constitution says nothing at all about abortion, or when a person becomes a person, and therefore it should defer to the states on that point. The states determine drinking age, driving age, marrying age, and even voting age within explicit limits set by the constitution; to me it seems reasonable that states should determine personhood on their own, since the constitution says nothing specifically relevant to the unborn within the womb. Obviously hoping that SCOTUS does the right thing; time will tell.
Well, the writers of the Constitution could not cite the Constitution before they wrote it. It did not exist, yet. They could only state their understanding of law that existed for hundreds of years leading up to the Constitution. That should be obvious.
Since the federal Constitution is silent on the issue, it is not a federal power. However, Roe v. Wade said that it is also not a state power, because it is a fundamental right. Fundamental rights are above the government (whether state or federal). That is the point of a constitutional republic (not a democracy).
Therefore, we are talking primarily about fundamental rights. That makes it a philosophical debate.