Example research essay topic: Responses On The Ethics Of Abortion – 1,015 words

… s by authority of parliament.” WILLIAM
BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND:
A FACSIMILE OF THE FIRST EDITION OF 1765-1769,
137-138 (1979) (emphasis added). “This
Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . .
shall be the supreme Law of the Land . .

.” U.S.
Constitution, Art. VI. #18) “The doctrine that
prevailed in Lochner, Coppage, Adkins, Burns, and
like cases – that due process authorizes courts to
hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the
legislature has acted unwisely – has long since
been discarded. We have returned to the original
constitutional proposition that courts do not
substitute their social and economic beliefs for
the judgment of legislative bodies, who are
elected to pass laws.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372
U.S. 726, 730 (1963).

“For me the only correct
meaning of that phrase [dur process] is that our
Government must proceed according to the ‘law of
the land’-that is, according to written
constitutional and statutory provisions as
interpreted by court decisions. The Due Process
Clause, in both the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments . . . in effect states that our
governments are governments of law and
constitutionally bound to act only according to
law.” In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (Black,
J., dissenting).

#19) “It is emphatically the
province and duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.
137, 177 (1803). “The words ‘due process’ have a
precise technical import, and are only applicable
to the process and proceedings of the courts of
justice; they can never be referred to an act of
legislature.” Alexander Hamilton, New York
Assembly. Remarks on an Act for Regulating
Elections in 4 The Papers of Alexander Hamilton 36
(H. Syrett ed. 1962) (February 6, 1787) (see item
#29 below for another Hamilton quote).

#20) “[T]he
party complaining here appeared, and had a full
and fair hearing, in the court of the first
instance, and afterwards in the Supreme Court. If
this be not due process of law, then the words can
have no definite meaning as used in the
Constitution.” Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U.S.
97, 105-106 (1877). #21) “The constitutions which
had been adopted by the several States before the
formation of the federal constitution, [followed]
the language of the great charter [Magna Charta]
more closely [than the fifth amendment does. This
is because the]. .

. . constitution of the United
States, as adopted, contained the provision [in
Article III, Section 2], that ‘the trial of all
crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be
by jury.’ When the fifth article of amendment
containing the words [due process of law] now in
question was made, the trial by jury in criminal
cases had thus already been provided for. By the
sixth and seventh articles of amendment, further
special provisions were separately made for that
[jury] mode of trial in civil and criminal cases.
To have followed, as in the state constitutions .
. . the words of Magna Charta, and declared [in
the fifth amendment] that no person shall be
deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by
the judgment of his peers or the law of the land,
would have been in part superfluous and
inappropriate.

To [alternatively] have taken the
clause, ‘law of the land,’ without its immediate
context, might possibly have given rise to doubts,
which would be effectually dispelled by [instead]
using those words which the great commentator on
Magna Charta [Lord Coke] had declared to be the
true meaning of the phrase, ‘law of the land,’ in
that instrument, and which were undoubtedly then
received as their true meaning. . . . ‘[D]ue
process of law’ generally implies and includes
actor, reus, judex, regular allegations,
opportunity to answer, and a trial according to
some settled course of judicial proceedings, yet
this is not universally true. There may be, and we
have seen that there are cases, under the law of
England after Magna Charta, and as it was brought
to this country and acted on here, in which
process, in its nature final, issues against the
body, lands, and goods of certain public debtors
without any such trial .

. .” Murray v. Hoboken
Land, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272, 276-281 (1855)
(emphasis added, citations omitted). #22) “The
same words [due process] are contained in the
fifth amendment. That article [furthermore] makes
specific and express provision for perpetuating
the institution of the grand jury, so far as
relates to prosecutions for the more aggravated
crimes under the laws of the United States.

. . .
According to a recognized canon of interpretation,
especially applicable to formal and solemn
instruments of constitutional law, we are
forbidden to assume, without clear reason to the
contrary, that any part of this most important
amendment is superfluous. The natural and obvious
inference is that, in the sense of the
constitution, ‘due process of law’ was not meant
or intended to include, ex vi termini, the
institution and procedure of a grand jury in any
case.” Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516,
534-535 (1884) (emphasis added).

#23) “It is a
cardinal principle of statutory construction that
a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so
construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause,
sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or
insignificant.” TRW v. Andrews, 122 S.Ct. 441, 449
(2001)(emphasis added). #24) “Roe v. Wade, the
1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion,
was wrong because it ‘usurped the power of the
legislatures,’ Bush said. ‘I felt like it was a
case where the court took the place of what the
legislatures should do in America,’ he said when
asked whether he thought the decision should be
overturned.

But Bush refused to say how he felt
each state should act. Instead, he said that when
it comes to legalizing abortion, ‘it should be up
to each legislature.'” Boston Globe, January 22,
2000 at A12. #25) “The Ninth Amendment obviously
does not create federally enforceable rights.” Doe
v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 210 (1973) (Douglas, J.,
concurring) (Doe was the companion case to Roe v.
Wade). The “law did not violate any provision of
the Bill of Rights.

. .” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S.
113, 167 (1973) (Stewart, J., concurring). Justice
Stevens would later endorse this view of Justice
Stewart (regarding the Griswold case) in Webster
v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 564
(1989) (Stevens, J ….

Research essay sample on Responses On The Ethics Of Abortion