Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Abortion Is NOT Legal!
The American View ^ | 2-8-10

Posted on 02/08/2010 7:49:03 PM PST by kingattax

The following article by Herbert W. Titus, JD, and Christine Ross first appeared in the May/June ‘99 issue of “Life Advocate” magazine. ---

The mainstream media tell us that the Supreme Court legalized abortion with its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The media also tell us that there is nothing we can do about it because Roe v. Wade is the “law of the land.”

Nothing could be further from the truth. Abortion is not legal in America! Recognition of this fact is the first step for the pro-life movement in its campaign to turn back the murderous scourge on innocent babies.

Indeed, heart disease (738,781 deaths per year) is not the number one cause of death in the United States - abortion is, at well over a million deaths per year.

Article VI of our nation’s founding document declares that “[t]his Constitution, and the laws of the United States.. .made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties…made…under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.”

What is clearly missing from this Constitutional list of supreme laws is a court opinion. This was not an oversight.

Our Constitution’s writers knew that a court opinion could never be law; much less the supreme law of the land. This is especially true if that court opinion contradicted the Constitution itself

(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanview.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: prolife; roevwade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

1 posted on 02/08/2010 7:49:03 PM PST by kingattax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kingattax

“Abortion Is NOT Legal!”

Someone better go arrest all them abortion doctors then.


2 posted on 02/08/2010 7:50:46 PM PST by Grunthor (McCain; for when you really need to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

stop sniffing glue


3 posted on 02/08/2010 7:52:00 PM PST by Cyber Ninja (His legacy is a stain OnTheDress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

To think abortion is “legal” in this country you have to believe that courts make laws.


4 posted on 02/08/2010 7:53:26 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
You are hurting your cause.
This is stupid.

I am as prolife as anyone, but -— making us all look silly does nothing positive, for any of us.

5 posted on 02/08/2010 7:53:43 PM PST by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor
Someone better go arrest all them abortion doctors then.

Don't forget to arrest every woman who has every had an abortion, their husbands, boyfriend, family members and friends that knew before the fact that the woman was going to have an abortion.

They must also be arrested and charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder.

6 posted on 02/08/2010 8:06:03 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“To think abortion is “legal” in this country you have to believe that courts make laws.”

Are you prepared to go make a citizens arrest that the local Planned Barrenhood “clinic?”


7 posted on 02/08/2010 8:07:57 PM PST by Grunthor (McCain; for when you really need to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

No. I’m committed to continuing the fight to end abortion by replacing this entire political class with those who can actually read and who will follow the Constitution as they have sworn to do.


8 posted on 02/08/2010 8:16:48 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

If an officer or officers of one branch of government violate their oath, does that relieve the officers of the other branches to violate theirs?


9 posted on 02/08/2010 8:18:46 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

Sorry. I was in a hurry and botched that post. Let me rephrase:

If an officer or officers of one branch of government violate their oath, does that that create an excuse for the officers of the other branches to violate their own?


10 posted on 02/08/2010 8:21:12 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58

It isn’t stupid. It is just irrelevant because the points they make are not understood or accepted even though they are right.


11 posted on 02/08/2010 8:28:27 PM PST by achilles2000 (Shouting "fire" in a burning building is doing everyone a favor...whether they like it or not)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

The “supreme law of the land” is now and always will be GOD’s LAW as expessed in His Holy Word. All law is rooted in scripture.


12 posted on 02/08/2010 8:28:31 PM PST by USALiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: kingattax; All
I believe this is true. SCOTUS is NOT in the business of MAKING law, it reviews & judges the cases presented--according to the Constitution.

Too many conservatives have just given up thru all the years and all the murders, and let the Left rule over us all. Now we have finally taken off the gloves and they are scared as hell. When we take back our country (our childrens'future), all the bastions of liberalism will crumble and turn to dust. Abortion 'rights' with go with them.

Our country has taken a long time to sink to these depths, and it will be a long time coming back. It won't happen tomorrow...but the journey of one thousand miles starts with one step.

13 posted on 02/08/2010 8:28:44 PM PST by molybdenum ((Yes I posted this masterpeace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OnTheDress

When did the US Congress pass a law legalizing abortion?


14 posted on 02/08/2010 8:29:07 PM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
You are hurting your cause. This is stupid. I am as prolife as anyone, but -— making us all look silly does nothing positive, for any of us.

That statement bears repeating. It is very correct.

The real crime of Roe v Wade is that the Supreme Court made law out of whole cloth. There was absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would support that ruling. This is a matter that is up to the individual states of the United States.

As much as I abhor the concept of abortion I would support the law of any state that allows abortion as I would equally support the law of any state that prohibits abortion.

When the courts can make law as opposed to ruling on the legality of law made by legislation of the states, there is no law, there is no judiciary, there is no executive, there is no legislative body, all that exists is tyranny of judicial fiat abetted by a silent executive, a silent legislature and the people.

15 posted on 02/08/2010 8:34:13 PM PST by cpdiii (Oil Field Trash, Geologist, Pilot, Pharmacist. THE CONSTITUTION IS WORTH DYING FOR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; kingattax
Please, do not post or be involved with such foolishness as this.

It is legally very wrong and makes all Pro Life people look like fools.

Work as you choose to elect people will appoint judges who will reverse Roe v. Wade, but to call it not the current law of the land is legal insanity.

16 posted on 02/08/2010 8:57:38 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

You know that would not happen. You are posing extremes because this solution makes you uncomfortable. IMO


17 posted on 02/08/2010 9:05:26 PM PST by molybdenum ((Yes I posted this masterpeace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

Just after they passed gas. 50 million and counting.

I didn’t become a cynical pro-life bastard by choice.

I’m adopted.


18 posted on 02/08/2010 9:12:54 PM PST by Cyber Ninja (His legacy is a stain OnTheDress)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: molybdenum
You know that would not happen. You are posing extremes because this solution makes you uncomfortable. IMO

Yes, I understand that the premise of this thread is false in that abortion is still legal in the US.

However, once Roe is overturned or the Human Life Amendment is passed, those doctors and women who conspire to murder an unborn baby will be charged with murder.

Furthermore, all those who conspire with the woman and/or doctor to murder a child must be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.

19 posted on 02/08/2010 9:27:41 PM PST by trumandogz (The Democrats are driving us to Socialism at 100 MPH -The GOP is driving us to Socialism at 97.5 MPH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz

Technically correct. As I said, the journey of 1000 miles begins with one step. It will take a long time.


20 posted on 02/08/2010 9:33:26 PM PST by molybdenum ((Yes I posted this masterpeace))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cpdiii

I would acknowledge the reality of a state law that authorizes abortion, but I would not ever support it, and would do what I could to secure its abolition with a single exception, to wit: The extremely rare instance of abortion being necessary to preserve the life of a mother.


21 posted on 02/08/2010 9:41:18 PM PST by Elsiejay (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Please, do not post or be involved with such foolishness as this. It is legally very wrong and makes all Pro Life people look like fools.

not only do you apparently accept the leftist tactic of calling people names to coerce them into silence on an issue, you then proceed to promote it.

as such, the leftists will be relieved to know they will never have any trouble from you.

also, my future posting decisions will be based solely on FreeRepublic rules and most certainly not any fear of being viewed or having what i post called "foolish" by anyone.

22 posted on 02/08/2010 9:52:12 PM PST by kingattax (99 % of liberals give the rest a bad name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
but to call it not the current law of the land is legal insanity.

What is insane is to accept the fallacy of judicial supremacy and the idea that court opinions are laws. They are not. Only legislatures and the people can make laws. Judges judge in individual cases, according to our Constitutions and laws, they do not make laws.

And the officers of the other branches have a co-equal obligation to interpret the Constitution and our laws and to act accordingly. That includes the responsibility to provide the necessary checks and balances on the judiciary.

23 posted on 02/08/2010 10:04:56 PM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
OK, if you are right, have your Marshals go oust the other Marshals, the ones with the badges and guns, called U.S. Marshals.

I'm sorry sir, but I suggest you get a good book on jurisprudence and study it before you give legal opinions.

24 posted on 02/08/2010 10:34:15 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance; kingattax

To show you how legally correct this quoted article is, it was first published 11 years ago, with no changes in operative law since.


25 posted on 02/08/2010 10:38:21 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: kingattax
Purposefully targeting and murdering innocent, unarmed people is never legal. Any country that operates under the premise that it is is wickedly deluded.
26 posted on 02/09/2010 1:25:10 AM PST by Bellflower (If you are left DO NOT take the mark of the beast and be damned forever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
However, once Roe is overturned or the Human Life Amendment is passed, those doctors and women who conspire to murder an unborn baby will be charged with murder.

Nope. They thought they were acting within the law. This won't fly.

27 posted on 02/09/2010 5:31:43 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kansas58
Ditto. Hysterical hyperbole is NOT the way to stop abortion.
28 posted on 02/09/2010 5:33:14 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ (usff.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OnTheDress

The point is that the Supreme court can’t make. And I was not impugning your beliefs one way or another. Sorry if you thought that was the case.


29 posted on 02/09/2010 5:34:39 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26; EternalVigilance; kingattax
To show you how legally correct this quoted article is, it was first published 11 years ago, with no changes in operative law since.

Publishing an article is a legal challenge in court?

30 posted on 02/09/2010 5:40:49 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

ping of interest


31 posted on 02/09/2010 5:41:47 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW; EternalVigilance; kingattax
Let's get real.

This man's legal argument is not really about abortion.

The argument this man is making is that the entire foundation of enforceable SCOTUS rulings is wrong. He is arguing that SCOTUS and all lessor courts do not have the authority to interpret laws, their meaning and their constitutionality.

In his thinking, he, or someone else would decide what laws mean. That is a dictatorship. If it was Congress, Pelosi and Reid would be deciding what you could read, travel, do business, what was a crime, etc.

He also makes the foolish ultra-strict constitutional constructionist argument. This is very dangerous as well. For example, the first amendment guarantees “Freedom of the Press.” But what guarantees freedom of expression on Radio and TV? What guarantees us freedom of expression on FR? The Courts have held that Freedom of the Press means freedom in the media that were not in place when the 1st Amendment was passed, because, after all, radio, TV and the Internet do not use presses!

What in the Constitution allows for the regulation of aircraft, the broadcast airways, cars, trucks, and so much more? What about Brown v. the Board of Education? All these are not addressed in the Constitution, but are subject to rulings of SCOTUS.

It all boils down to the reality that someone must make decisions, and when they are made, they must be enforceable. In our system, that is the courts. Can you imagine if that power was vested today in the Executive (Obama) or Legislature?

Although he can argue the point all he wants, and be as right as he wants to be on the issue of Roe v. Wade and abortion in general, he is very wrong that SCOTUS rulings are not the law of the land.

32 posted on 02/09/2010 6:47:08 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
For example, the first amendment guarantees “Freedom of the Press.” But what guarantees freedom of expression on Radio and TV?

The First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What in the Constitution guarantees the right to an abortion?

33 posted on 02/09/2010 6:54:05 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
SCOTUS, (in my opinion, incorrectly) extended an “implied right to privacy” to cover abortion, but that is not the point of the author's article, nor the point of my post.

Roe v. Wade is VERY attackable on a number of points, but not on this author's idea that SCOTUS decisions have no force of law.

34 posted on 02/09/2010 7:07:44 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
he is very wrong that SCOTUS rulings are not the law of the land.

How can they be "the law of the land"? The legislative branch is the only branch empowered to make laws. And the executive branch is the only branch empowered to enforce them.

35 posted on 02/09/2010 7:09:11 AM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

My opinion is that Scotus wrote law with this opinion. That is not what they are to do.


36 posted on 02/09/2010 7:11:26 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

If the Court issues an opinion in a particular case, and the President and/or the Congress believes in good conscience that the opinion is unconstitutional, should they follow it?


37 posted on 02/09/2010 7:12:40 AM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

case law n. reported decisions of appeals courts and other courts which make new interpretations of the law and, therefore, can be cited as precedents. These interpretations are distinguished from “statutory law” which is the statutes and codes (laws) enacted by legislative bodies, “regulatory law” which is regulations required by agencies based on statutes, and in some states, the Common Law, which is the generally accepted law carried down from England. The rulings in trials and hearings which are not appealed and not reported are not case law and, therefore, not precedent or new interpretations. Law students principally study case law to understand the application of law to facts and learn the courts’ subsequent interpretations of statutes.


38 posted on 02/09/2010 7:13:44 AM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
But who says SPEECH covers PICTURES (movies, teleVISION) ?

SCOTUS does.

Does Freedom of Speech give a merchant the right to lie about a product or service he offers?

SCOTUS says it does not.

Who says Freedom of Speech gives you the right to go to a sexually explicit movie, but not shout “Fire” in a crowded theater?

SCOTUS does.

Who says that cops need a warrant to search your home or person, but checking for weapons among persons boarding an aircraft is not forbidden?

SCOTUS does.

39 posted on 02/09/2010 7:14:09 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kingattax

Whoever wrote this is on crack.


40 posted on 02/09/2010 7:15:55 AM PST by Constitution Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
And the judiciary is empowered to decide waht the laws really mean?
41 posted on 02/09/2010 7:16:17 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
My opinion is that Scotus wrote law with this opinion. That is not what they are to do.

Perhaps true, but in reality, (no disrespect intended), meaningless.

42 posted on 02/09/2010 7:18:01 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

It may be meaningless but this ruling is not based on law or a clear meaning in the Constitution. They made it up. Now one gets into separation of powers.


43 posted on 02/09/2010 7:20:30 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
no disrespect intended

Btw, none taken. Friendly exchange of ideas/opinions.

44 posted on 02/09/2010 7:24:42 AM PST by DJ MacWoW (Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you. Ben Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: USALiberty

All law Should Be rooted in scripture, sadly, that is not always the case.


45 posted on 02/09/2010 7:24:52 AM PST by RoadGumby (For God so loved the world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If the Court issues an opinion in a particular case, and the President and/or the Congress believes in good conscience that the opinion is unconstitutional, should they follow it.

Do you really want to give that authority to Obama, Reid and Pelosi?

Do you want Obama to decide that the laws forbidding Americans to support an enemy in combat on foreign soil are unconstitutional.

Do you want Pelosi to decide that laws prohibiting adoptions by avowed homosexuals, such as we have in Florida, are unconstitutional?

46 posted on 02/09/2010 7:25:14 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
And the judiciary is empowered to decide waht the laws really mean?

They couldn't keep their oath of office if they couldn't do that. But the exact same thing is true of the other branches.

47 posted on 02/09/2010 7:26:37 AM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

This isn’t about any faction’s personal power. This is about whether we live in a constitutional republic or in a judicial oligarchy.

Unfortunately, a large mass of political and legal elites today believe we live in the latter.


48 posted on 02/09/2010 7:29:03 AM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Whoever wrote this is on crack.

While there are a number of important things I disagree with Herb Titus on, he's hardly "on crack." He's the former Dean of the Liberty University law school, and almost certainly knows more about the law and the Constitution than all of us on this thread put together.

49 posted on 02/09/2010 7:32:56 AM PST by EternalVigilance (TATBO - "Throw All The Bums Out")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RoadGumby
Should we start with Judges 11, wherein Jephthah pledges to God that if God makes him victorious in battle, Jephthah will make a burnt offering (kill and sacrifice) of the first person who comes out of the door of his house when he returns home?

The problem is, Jephthah's daughter is that first person to come out of the door, so after giving her 2 months to “bemoan her virginity” Jephthah kills her for God.

Great basis for law!

50 posted on 02/09/2010 7:34:35 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson