Once again, Joey Farah over at WorldNutDaily proves why he’s no constitutional scholar, much less a fair-minded journalist.
In his latest misadventure in logic, Joey claims to have a constitutional basis against Roe v. Wade.
His master stroke of legal thinking?
That the constitution’s preamble—which describes an intent to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” with “posterity” meaning “decendants”—is a legal guarantee to defend the lives of future generations (i.e. the unborn).
Here, I have to give Joey a little credit: his interpretation of the preamble as related to Roe is indeed creative. However, his argument fails when one considers that unlike the rest of the constitution and its descriptions of state procedure and various amendments, the preamble is not legally binding.
It is a broad introductory statement with no ironclad specifics described therein.
So once again, Joey proves to be both spectacularly wrong, and probably the last guy fit to lecture anyone on constitutional law beyond, say, L. Ron Hubbard.