I don't believe the states of the Union were ever intended to enjoy the same individual rights as the people whose rights the constitution protects. As per the 10th Amendment, where they may rule (on matters not proscribed) they must do so in respect of the constitution. In the spirit of the country's formative utterances, ideally the states would gravitate over time to a "more perfect union" - which to my ear has always read as more consistent across the country in both intent and outcome, and differ only programmatically in how those ends are achieved. Not that a state would be exceptional over many respects of the law, or that "rights" could stand in stark practical difference on one side of a freeway versus another. The goal of a more perfect union is to erase the Mason-Dixon line, not draw new contemporary versions all over the map.
Interpretations that hide behind states rights have often been cowardly attempts to spurn the rights of the people of those very same states as guaranteed by the constitution, constitutional amendment, and judicial interpretation/ruling. See slavery or civil rights. Here's the thought experiment I suggest for you: substitute slavery for abortion and see how the SCOTUS leak reads:
Quote:
We end this opinion where we began. Slavery presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting slavery. Roe and Casey (Decisions) arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
|