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 ...
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry sir, but I suggest you get a good book on jurisprudence and study it before you give legal opinions.
To show you how legally correct this quoted article is, it was first published 11 years ago, with no changes in operative law since.
Nope. They thought they were acting within the law. This won't fly.
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.
Publishing an article is a legal challenge in court?
ping of interest
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.
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?
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.
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.
My opinion is that Scotus wrote law with this opinion. That is not what they are to do.
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?
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.
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.
Whoever wrote this is on crack.
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.