OK this is dumb for two reasons. The first reason is that she says she is against abortion rights but FOR the finding (which most conservative constitutional scholars call activist) that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution. That right to Privacy is why Roe v Wade found the right to abortion just like the right to privacy is why in Lawrence V. Texas the supreme court overturned a Texas prohibition on Gay Sex. The idea was that several amendments including the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th extend into a pnembra of privacy, then that privacy is extended to the states by the 14th ammendment (that established federal supremacy). That she does not know the right to privacy is what stands in the way of a repeal of Roe v. Wade shows a profound ignorance of constitutional law, quite bad given one of her jobs if she became president would be appointing hundreds of judges including several to the supreme court.
The second more obvious reason its dumb is that rulings like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scot, Gobidis, Lawrence v. Texas, Brown vs the Board of Education and Bush v Gore have been incredibly important to the history of our nation. For someone aspiring to the office of the President to not even have a basic understanding of the constitution and rule of law is more troubling then anything else she has said in past mistakes.
I also really hate the rambling incoherant responses when she doesn't know; that only serves to make her look dumber. Does even the most stalwart conservative REALLY still believe she is qualified to be anything more then a waitress at Dennys? I mean if I was a resident of Alaska I would be starting a recall petition by this point.
PSN ID: ChosenOne feel free to add me
