Why Abortion is Unconstitutional 1 of 2

Many people argue that the Supreme Court made abortion a constitutional right in the Rove v. Wade decision. This is mainly because many people are taught in high school and in college that the constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it does.

I was among the many people who had been taught this and believed it until I read the Lincoln Douglas Debates. I was persuaded that this wasn't the case when I read Lincoln's response to Stephen A. Douglas's assertion that the Supreme Court could not violate the constitution.

" In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of the Constitution of the United States, we find the following language: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding.” 20
The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which I will now read: “Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upon a different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”" (Entire debate at Bartleby.com)

I later checked this and found that the part of the constitution he quoted was accurate.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Constitution

So now at least its clear that the Supreme Court is not allowed to define the constitution to be whatever they want it to be. This makes sense when you consider that the constitution derives it's legitimacy from the fact that it was voted on by representatives of the people. It would have been irrational for the founding fathers to on the one hand require the states to vote on it before it could be enacted it, or modified, and also allow unelected judges to change it as they saw fit.