"This state constitutional amendment would be 'an unprecedented attack' on the state constitution." Can a valid constitutional amendment ever be an attack on a constitution, or is this sort of argument nonsensical?
This user is currently being ignored
Who decides what is reasonable :)
The statement from the Tennessee assembly isn't at all surprising. "The constitution doesn't protect abortions!"
Well the constitution does mention something about The Supreme Court and Roe vs Wade is a Supreme Court case.
As the poll says and as the link says, we're talking about the Tennessee Supreme Court, Tennessee case law, and the Tennessee Constitution.
Which has to follow Federal Supreme Court, Federal Case Law, and The Federal Constitution.
The argument I'm addressing has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution.
Without comment on the merits of the proposed amendment, I don't understand how any proposed amendment can be considered an attack on existing law.
As with any proposal, you're for or against it. Vote as you will.
I agree. Arguing against a constitutional amendment by appealing to the constitution is an absurd form of argumentation.
A person must appeal to something outside the constitution to defeat a constitutional amendment.
You can't rule something unconstitutional, especially a law, if it's not pertaining to the constitution.
If a Supreme Court (Law of the Land) ruling is being broken then yes it is unconstitutional.
And before someone comes at me with "Just because the Supreme Court passes it doesn't mean it's in the constitution!" No it doesn't, but following the decisions of the Supreme Court is in the constitution. Whether you agree with it or not.
Cool - I hope it passes!
Tennessee citizens are voting on Amendment 1, which would eliminate the state "right to abortion" (no effect on federal law).
Planned Parenthood claims the proposed amendment is an attack on the state constitution.