The U.S. Supreme Court in a desperate effort to forestall communst OR fascist dictatorship in the 1930s undertoo a series of elitist dictatorial moves in the 1930s. It abandoned textual and historical interpretation in favor of functional interpretation. The Constitution came to mean whatever the supreme court wanted it to mean, without any real regard to history or the actual text of the document.
The products of this anti-democratic elitism have been bad: maybe not as bad as the Dred Scott court decision which unleashed a civil war. Maybe not as bad as the Lochner decision, which simultaneously gutted contract AND prevented legislative reform.
But the wrong headed and frankly unpopular decisions created a thoroughly elitist, in other words anti-democratic system.
As a radical reformer let me tell you: If you cannot talk a majority of voters into supporting your agenda then no number of elites, no matter how wealthy or self-important will make your agenda at all popular when they ram it down people’s throats!<
Supposedly, there is a fundamental constitutional right to abortion. That view is obviously wrong if you look at the text and history of the U.S. Constitution. Abortion was either unregulated or regulated as a crime by ordinary law. As a private law issue it was simply not the object of public law.
Oh, but it gets better. Like your guns? Hate your guns? Love those guns? Hate those guns? Well, here is an honest interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:
1) TO MAINTAIN A MILITIA in other words the States’ national guard, the several states have a COLLECTIVE right which is, like any other right, exercised by individuals. The constitutions says “the right of THE PEOPLE” — not “persons” or “a person” or “individuals” and very clearly states that it is a right held by the collective so that their state may in turn have a properly maintained militia.
Cannons, machine guns, tanks, even A-Bombs might well be part of a “well regulated militia”! However, the public right to bear and keep arms is held by the several states, not individuals. It is governed by STATE law, not federal law.
Well, like I said, I am some sort of radical reformer. What about gay marriage? While I personally want to live in a world where there is tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality I do not think there is any constitutional right to such a thing as marriage because that simply was not the case in 1775 (or 1885)(or 1985!)
When technology and social relations evolve the proper way to regulate such evolutions is through ordinary laws, preferably of the several states, because governing literally hundreds of millions of people requires a diversity of approaches.
Good democracy and good federalism alike explain why
NO, there is no individual right under the U.S. constitution to abortions, gay marriages, or guns.
When the elite of any country become corrupted, whether by their own power, their own belief in their supposed infallibility, when that elite get disconnected from ordinary people and institute a judicial dictatorship the result is factional control which in turn leads to “in groups” who get all the goods, and “out groups” which get the shaft.
So: When the Trumpers come along again, and they will, and you wonder why every why are they oh so unreasonable IT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE ELITISTS WHO THINK YOU KNOW BETTER AND IGNORE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND DEMOCRACY.