3,101
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: +
no edit summary
In addition to creating a new constitutional right, '''''Roe v. Wade''''' also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have [[standing]]. In ''Roe'', the Court held that there was [[standing]] because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."
In addition to creating a new constitutional right, '''''Roe v. Wade''''' also created an exception to the usual rule that one must face a threat of imminent prosecution in order to have [[standing]]. In ''Roe'', the Court held that there was [[standing]] because the alleged injury was said to be "capable of repetition yet evading review."
This decision is therefore one of the most famous examples of law by judicial fiat, that is judges writing the laws. It created a dangerous precedent that is still followed today of the 'living constitution".
==Opinion==
==Opinion==
The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], declares that [[abortion]] is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that [[abortion]] is a fundamental right because it falls under the "[[penumbra]]" of the [[right to privacy]]. ''Roe'' provided the underpinning for cases such as [[Griswold v. Connecticut]]<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> and [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>, all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."
The opinion, written by Justice [[Harry Blackmun]], declares that [[abortion]] is a "fundamental right" under the [[U.S. Constitution]] and [[substantive due process]] under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. Writing for the 7-2 Court, Justice Blackmun held that [[abortion]] is a fundamental right because it falls under the "[[penumbra]]" of the [[right to privacy]]. ''Roe'' provided the underpinning for cases such as [[Griswold v. Connecticut]]<ref>See generally Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479</ref> and [[Lawrence v. Texas]].<ref>See, e.g., Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558</ref>, all of which set up spheres of personal activity which states cannot regulate without "good cause."