Defining the Constitution, not politics

I must respond to the letter from Don Larson re: two recent Supreme Court decisions printed in the July 7 issue of the Seeley Swan Pathfinder.

Both decisions were exactly the same, they merely defined what was in the Constitution, therefore in the purview of the FEDERAL government, and what was not in the Constitution, therefore left to the jurisdiction of the people (STATES).

Roe -- simply put, did not “trash” (as Mr. Larson states) the right of abortion. It only stated it is not a constitutional right contained in the Constitution, but a state right. It didn’t trash anything. Abortions are now up to the states (just as Mr. Larson pointed out – let’s bring it to the local level). All 50 states can allow abortions. It is just not a federal right somehow contained in the Constitution.

The gun case (Mr. Larson characterizes as fiercely defending mostly male rights) simply held that the right to guns WAS in the Constitution and therefore protected as such.

Simply Put-- with all the political rhetoric on both sides being ignored -- both the decisions simply follow the Constitution as to what is in the Constitution and what is not. The 10th amendment is specific on what is and is not reserved to the states (the people locally). Both these decisions simply followed the Constitution and the 10th amendment.

AS an aside (before anyone has apoplexy) -- even Ruth Bader Ginsburg on a number of occasions both before and after her appointment to the Supreme Court stated that Roe was not a good decision as relates to states versus constitutional rights.

Again -- left/right politics should not be part of this discussion and definitely not the totally false claim that abortions were somehow outlawed. They are now just up to the people in each state. I find it interesting how many times people claim to want more local rule/control, this is exactly what has happened re: abortions but that seems to be somehow an exception. 

You may assume my politics on these matters but political leaning as regards the Constitution are irrelevant. And as regards to my leanings, you might find yourself wrong. I am simply stating the legal facts without all the histrionics.