rollo_tomassi423 asked:
Suppose Congress (or all the state legislatures) were to enact a law similar to China’s one child policy, that made it illegal for a woman to have more than one child. Please don’t tell me why this won’t happen, or whether it would be a good idea or not. My question is whether such a law would be constitutional. And if you say it would be unconstitutional, please cite the provision of the US Constitution that such a law would violate.
yes, it would violate a womans right to privacy granted in the roe v. wade case.
Comment by Kim — April 2, 2006 @ 10:19 am
The 9th Amendment.
Comment by wichitaor1 — April 2, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
The Judicial Branch would name it unconstitutional and ban it under the 1st ammendment
Comment by Hope Solo — April 5, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
1st Amendment: freedom of speech. Having a child could be considered a Speech Act.
4th Amendment: privacy. What you do in your own home is your own business. This was the same reasoning used to overturn Lawrence V. Texas last year.
Comment by lb_centaur — April 8, 2006 @ 2:58 am
the right to shoot any one
i think that it a constitutional right
if not vote it in
Comment by tunasalard — April 8, 2006 @ 2:17 pm
Well… it would clash rather violently with the opening paragraph…
Comment by prancinglion — April 10, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
Well, maybe freedom of religion. Catholics believe in as many children as possible without tearing out your hair.
Comment by Madikar — April 13, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
Boy that’s out in left field! Granted this is Yahoo Answers, but how about a question that someone gives a damn about, because what you asked IS never going to happen in the foreseeable future, and maybe NEVER! How about real questions for what is real in THIS country?
Comment by Glenn T — April 15, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
I think it would be unconstitutional and it would violate the Human Rights Law, and also I think it would violate the Human’s Right to Privacy.
Comment by 48Special — April 17, 2006 @ 12:02 am
It’s not expressly forbidden, but the Ninth amendment forces the government to recognize human rights that aren’t already listed in the Constitution- that alone would probably get the case into the Supreme Court, if congress and the President suddenly felt suicidal enough to somehow pass such a law.
Comment by beardog4314 — April 18, 2006 @ 7:54 am
It would fall under that same “penumbra” of unspecified “rights” to engage in sodomy or abort one’s own fetus.
Comment by MLaw — April 18, 2006 @ 4:18 pm
Your question indicates that you do not understand what the the Constitution is. The Constitution is not intended to be a document outlining our rights (although the Bill of Rights was added as a protection measure) but, rather, a document limiting the power and authority of a Federal Government. The question isn’t what provision of the Constitution the law would violate. Rather the quesion is what provision in the Constitution grants the Government the authority to do that. The answer is… none. And the Constitution CLEARLY states that any right not SPECIFICALLY granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belongs to the States individually and to the people as individuals. Of course today the Federal Government regularly ignores this caveat with impunity… but that doesn’t alter the document.
Comment by capt_sheffield — April 19, 2006 @ 11:31 am
Thank you Captain.
Comment by gunplumber_462 — April 21, 2006 @ 9:30 am