Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Final Soluton to U.S. "Abortion Problem" is Clearly Laid Out in Contstitution Says Writer
LifeSite ^ | March 13, 2006

Posted on 03/13/2006 4:20:42 PM PST by NYer

Final Soluton to U.S. "Abortion Problem" is Clearly Laid Out in Contstitution Says Writer

FRONT ROYAL, Virginia, March 11, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Today's LifeSiteNews Special Report analyses the American Constitution and what is says about who has ultimate authority over U.S. laws concerning abortion. Rand Brown, a student at Christendom College in Front Royal Virginia states in his article that the final solution to the "Abortion Problem" lays "not where most pro-life Americans think it to be".

Brown relates that Congress "can overthrow a Supreme Court ruling precisely because it, and not the Judiciary, is the voice of the American people. As far as the inferior Federal courts are concerned, it is Congress' explicit right, as expressed in both Article I section 8 and Article III section 1 of the Constitution, to create and dissolve those circuits when it sees fit."

Brown relates why there exists "an apathetic and confused Congress" in Washington and why there is real hope that this will change in the future.

As for annual March for Life, which he attends every year, Brown states its emphasis on ending at the Supreme Court "grants the federal judiciary the very legislative legitimacy it wants us all to believe it possesses". He believes there are compelling reasons for the march to end at a different, much more appropriate location.

* See this complete LIFESITENEWS.COM SPECIAL REPORT *
Writer Says Efforts to End Abortion Should Focus More on Congress Than Supreme Court
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/mar/060313a.html




TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: abortion; christendomcollege; constitution; judicialreview; marburyvmadison; moonbat; scotus; wrong

1 posted on 03/13/2006 4:20:47 PM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: american colleen; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; ...
Catholic Ping - Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 03/13/2006 4:21:34 PM PST by NYer (Discover the beauty of the Eastern Catholic Churches - freepmail me for more information.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

While correct, this author (a student mind you) will soon learn there is a difference between the way things are and the way you wish they were.

Reminds me of the "federal income tax is illegal" argument.

While correct, it really has not practical application.


3 posted on 03/13/2006 4:26:13 PM PST by Mr. Brightside (I know what I like.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Some folks have known this for a while. Good luck getting your rep to do it.


4 posted on 03/13/2006 4:26:59 PM PST by satchmodog9 (Most people stand on the tracks and never even hear the train coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A far better argument is the States can ignore the Supreme Court if they desire. There is a total lack of jurisdiction involved and States have the right to determine their own obligations under the compact that forms the United States. If James Madison Jr. was alive today and a governor oc VA he would tell the Court to go to hell (in so many words.)


5 posted on 03/13/2006 4:28:31 PM PST by AZRepublican ("The degree in which a measure is necessary can never be a test of the legal right to adopt it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Then the SC can just then deem the law to be unconstitutional.


6 posted on 03/13/2006 4:43:40 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The US Constitution states that we are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 'nuff said.


7 posted on 03/13/2006 4:44:02 PM PST by buffyt (America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people. Pres. George Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AZRepublican
A far better argument is the States can ignore the Supreme Court if they desire. There is a total lack of jurisdiction involved and States have the right to determine their own obligations under the compact that forms the United States. If James Madison Jr. was alive today and a governor oc VA he would tell the Court to go to hell (in so many words.)

Yes, he may indeed tell them that. However, he might also be surprised when a weak-kneed congress that seems to behold the SC in a higher frame than it ought to freezes VA's federal highway funds, school dollars, etc., in order to get the state to do what the federales wants.

We've gone too far down the road to ruin for this Republic to organize an effort to save itself. What happens to all Republics is happening to us.

It is History, and we are doomed to repeat it, because we failed to teach and instill it in our children.

Sacred honor is a phrase unknown to most in this country.

8 posted on 03/13/2006 4:44:03 PM PST by ImaGraftedBranch ("Toleration" has never been affiliated with the virtuous. Think about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cgk; cpforlife.org

Ping-a-ling!


9 posted on 03/13/2006 4:46:02 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007 (Hitler and Stalin have nothing on Abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch; cgk; Victoria Delsoul; AmericaUnited; Alberta's Child

I disagree; for although things have gotten bad, the socialists are beginning to wash out of the political fortresses they have long held to. The Reaganite Conservatives are now reaching the age where THEY will become the country's representitives.

For although the times seem dark, hope springs eternal.


10 posted on 03/13/2006 4:48:53 PM PST by Ultra Sonic 007 (Hitler and Stalin have nothing on Abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
Yes, he may indeed tell them that. However, he might also be surprised when a weak-kneed congress that seems to behold the SC in a higher frame than it ought to freezes VA's federal highway funds, school dollars, etc., in order to get the state to do what the federales wants.

Then VA should just tell the feds to f**k off. When you tie yourself to the evil ones(the fed government)you are asking to give up the soverienty of the state to fed rule. Throw the money back at them, don't take it, and see what hold they have on the state then. NONE. We are all bound to the crooks, ciminals and cheats in Washington DC because of the fed money. The simple solution is to stop being on the dole and that will get them off your backs. The less fed law the better, as far as I am concerned.

Long live the American constitution, may we get back to it soon!

11 posted on 03/13/2006 5:07:15 PM PST by calex59 (seeing the light shouldn't make you go blind and, BTW, Stå sammen med danskerne !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

The US Constitution states that we are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 'nuff said.



That is the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution.
The US Constitution states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property.


12 posted on 03/13/2006 5:36:51 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch

I think that Federalist 45 and 46 definitively sum things up exactly and show how dramatically the US government has spurned the Constitution.

FEDERALIST No. 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Fournal.
MADISON To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States. The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us. Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale. We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other. In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons. The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members. The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State. The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States. If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union. PUBLIUS.



FEDERALIST No. 46

The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared From the New York Packet.
Tuesday, January 29, 1788.
MADISON To the People of the State of New York:

RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents. Many considerations, besides those suggested on a former occasion, seem to place it beyond doubt that the first and most natural attachment of the people will be to the governments of their respective States. Into the administration of these a greater number of individuals will expect to rise. From the gift of these a greater number of offices and emoluments will flow. By the superintending care of these, all the more domestic and personal interests of the people will be regulated and provided for. With the affairs of these, the people will be more familiarly and minutely conversant. And with the members of these, will a greater proportion of the people have the ties of personal acquaintance and friendship, and of family and party attachments; on the side of these, therefore, the popular bias may well be expected most strongly to incline. Experience speaks the same language in this case. The federal administration, though hitherto very defective in comparison with what may be hoped under a better system, had, during the war, and particularly whilst the independent fund of paper emissions was in credit, an activity and importance as great as it can well have in any future circumstances whatever. It was engaged, too, in a course of measures which had for their object the protection of everything that was dear, and the acquisition of everything that could be desirable to the people at large. It was, nevertheless, invariably found, after the transient enthusiasm for the early Congresses was over, that the attention and attachment of the people were turned anew to their own particular governments; that the federal council was at no time the idol of popular favor; and that opposition to proposed enlargements of its powers and importance was the side usually taken by the men who wished to build their political consequence on the prepossessions of their fellow-citizens. If, therefore, as has been elsewhere remarked, the people should in future become more partial to the federal than to the State governments, the change can only result from such manifest and irresistible proofs of a better administration, as will overcome all their antecedent propensities. And in that case, the people ought not surely to be precluded from giving most of their confidence where they may discover it to be most due; but even in that case the State governments could have little to apprehend, because it is only within a certain sphere that the federal power can, in the nature of things, be advantageously administered. The remaining points on which I propose to compare the federal and State governments, are the disposition and the faculty they may respectively possess, to resist and frustrate the measures of each other. It has been already proved that the members of the federal will be more dependent on the members of the State governments, than the latter will be on the former. It has appeared also, that the prepossessions of the people, on whom both will depend, will be more on the side of the State governments, than of the federal government. So far as the disposition of each towards the other may be influenced by these causes, the State governments must clearly have the advantage. But in a distinct and very important point of view, the advantage will lie on the same side. The prepossessions, which the members themselves will carry into the federal government, will generally be favorable to the States; whilst it will rarely happen, that the members of the State governments will carry into the public councils a bias in favor of the general government. A local spirit will infallibly prevail much more in the members of Congress, than a national spirit will prevail in the legislatures of the particular States. Every one knows that a great proportion of the errors committed by the State legislatures proceeds from the disposition of the members to sacrifice the comprehensive and permanent interest of the State, to the particular and separate views of the counties or districts in which they reside. And if they do not sufficiently enlarge their policy to embrace the collective welfare of their particular State, how can it be imagined that they will make the aggregate prosperity of the Union, and the dignity and respectability of its government, the objects of their affections and consultations? For the same reason that the members of the State legislatures will be unlikely to attach themselves sufficiently to national objects, the members of the federal legislature will be likely to attach themselves too much to local objects. The States will be to the latter what counties and towns are to the former. Measures will too often be decided according to their probable effect, not on the national prosperity and happiness, but on the prejudices, interests, and pursuits of the governments and people of the individual States. What is the spirit that has in general characterized the proceedings of Congress? A perusal of their journals, as well as the candid acknowledgments of such as have had a seat in that assembly, will inform us, that the members have but too frequently displayed the character, rather of partisans of their respective States, than of impartial guardians of a common interest; that where on one occasion improper sacrifices have been made of local considerations, to the aggrandizement of the federal government, the great interests of the nation have suffered on a hundred, from an undue attention to the local prejudices, interests, and views of the particular States. I mean not by these reflections to insinuate, that the new federal government will not embrace a more enlarged plan of policy than the existing government may have pursued; much less, that its views will be as confined as those of the State legislatures; but only that it will partake sufficiently of the spirit of both, to be disinclined to invade the rights of the individual States, or the preorgatives of their governments. The motives on the part of the State governments, to augment their prerogatives by defalcations from the federal government, will be overruled by no reciprocal predispositions in the members. Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter. But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole. The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other. But what degree of madness could ever drive the federal government to such an extremity. In the contest with Great Britain, one part of the empire was employed against the other. The more numerous part invaded the rights of the less numerous part. The attempt was unjust and unwise; but it was not in speculation absolutely chimerical. But what would be the contest in the case we are supposing? Who would be the parties? A few representatives of the people would be opposed to the people themselves; or rather one set of representatives would be contending against thirteen sets of representatives, with the whole body of their common constituents on the side of the latter. The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them. PUBLIUS.





13 posted on 03/13/2006 5:58:15 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: old republic

if you actually think anybody is going to read those "lead desert" pieces, as professional printers call this kind of text, you are delusional.

To make text understandable you have to structure it. Maybe Hamilton suffered from a lack of paper, and actually wrote it this way - I don't know. But conventions - reading as well as printing - have changed in the last 200 years, and people act accordingly.

So, next time you post a larger Hamilton screed, be generous and give it appropriate line and paragraph breaks.


14 posted on 03/13/2006 7:01:44 PM PST by Tullius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

technically he's correct....

but wow could you imagine the uproar from BOTH sides of the aisle?

I don't know if this is entirely based in reality but it's a nice idea.


15 posted on 03/13/2006 7:02:59 PM PST by MikefromOhio (aka MikeinIraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer; 4lifeandliberty; AbsoluteGrace; afraidfortherepublic; Alamo-Girl; anniegetyourgun; ...

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

16 posted on 03/13/2006 9:55:09 PM PST by cgk (Happy Birthday to FReeper WhistlingPasttheGraveyard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...


17 posted on 03/13/2006 9:56:46 PM PST by Coleus (Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, algae)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

18 posted on 03/13/2006 10:27:16 PM PST by cpforlife.org (A Catholic Respect Life Curriculum is available at www.KnightsForLife.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Thanks for the ping! :D


19 posted on 03/13/2006 10:27:22 PM PST by cgk (Happy Birthday to FReeper WhistlingPasttheGraveyard!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

You say that the "income tax is illegal" argument is "correct".

Funny word, "correct".

It really depends on what one thinks law is.
If one thinks of it as a set of abstract principles, like mathematical axioms, then one could argue that a law in wide use is illegal with some justification.

But one things that law is a set of political principles, an expression of political will, then law is much more like money. Money is not a fixed thing. "Money is what money does", and law is what law does, not as an abstract thing, but in concrete reality.

If one looks at law that way, then the income tax is clearly the law of the land, and therefore legal by definition.

It all depends on one's philosophy.


20 posted on 03/14/2006 10:58:30 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MikefromOhio

"technically he's correct..."

No, technically he's not correct.
Law is not math. There is no appeal to a book of axioms and mathematical proof to bind outcomes.

Law is the exertion of political will. There's no will, nor anything like the will, to do anything of the sort. There is, meanwhile, Supreme Court precedent that describes the balance of power between the branches, and everybody follows that. Because it's the law.


21 posted on 03/14/2006 11:01:56 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
The US Constitution states that we are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 'nuff said.

That's the Declaration of Independence, but your larger point is correct. All other rights presuppose the right to life. It's the fundamental right, and the protection of human life is the primary responsibility of government.

22 posted on 03/14/2006 11:07:24 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Coleus
Brown relates that Congress "can overthrow a Supreme Court ruling precisely because it, and not the Judiciary, is the voice of the American people. As far as the inferior Federal courts are concerned, it is Congress' explicit right, as expressed in both Article I section 8 and Article III section 1 of the Constitution, to create and dissolve those circuits when it sees fit."

Uh, WRONG! Has this dimwit ever heard of Marbury vs. Madison, which established the principal of judicial review?

Wishful thinking on the part of a total moonbat, although I am sure he is a nice man.

23 posted on 03/14/2006 11:08:17 AM PST by Clemenza (I Like Smoke and Lightning...Heavy Metal Thunder!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Front Royal has a restraunt specializing in sea food and bar b q.


24 posted on 03/14/2006 11:11:51 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. Slay Pinch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
How to end abortion in one easy step:

"In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." (US Constitution, Article III, Section 2)

Congress simply needs to pass a law stating (1) neither the US Supreme Court nor lower Federal Courts have any Jurisdiction to hear any case regarding the personhood of the unborn, or any so-called woman's right to an abortion; (2) the unborn are persons who are entitled to the equal protection of the laws per the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution; (3) Abortion shall be in all cases illegal, and each State or Territory shall punish procured abortion in accordance with their laws regarding murder; (4) States that refuse to prosecute abortionists with murder charges are to be deprived of all Federal funding for all programs and their executive and prosecutorial officers shall be liable to arrest and prosecution for delinquency in protecting the public and ensuring a Republican form of government; and (5) persons promoting abortion in public shall be prosecuted as part of a criminal conspiracy to incite murder.

The Congress doesn't have the guts to pass this.

25 posted on 03/14/2006 11:12:35 AM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

If one looks at the Constitution as a mathematical equation, and not as an attempt to structure politics, one can find some surprising things there.

For example: did you know that the President of the US can order summary executions!
That's right! It's right there in the Constitution! (Follow me here...)

See, if he issues an order to execute somebody, there are loyalists in the CIA, etc., who will do so.

"But that's ILLEGAL!" I hear you cry!
Is it?
Yes, the Constitution says stuff about trials, blah, blah, blah. But there's an old general principle of law: no remedy, no right. And although that's not anywhere in the Constitution, it certainly is REALITY. If someone does something to you that he "shouldn't" do, and you have no recourse, well, that he "shouldn't" do it is really just your OPINION, isn't it?

So, the Constitution has all of these fine articles about trials. But the President has just ordered a summary execution, and the guy is dead. "Illegal!"
Is it?
What happens next?
Either Congress moves to impeach the President, in which case the act apparently was illegal, because there was a remedy.
Or Congress doesn't, because it can't muster the political will to do so.
Without an impeachment, the President has ordered a summary execution, and it has been carried out. And having established the precedent that he can do it...that he has the "right" to do it so long as he has a certain majority of votes in Congress, he'll do it again.

That is, after all, how the Common Law gets made, how the filibuster was invented, how the Supreme Court got judicial review, etc.

Going directly contrary to a plain text doesn't make something "illegal". The plain text of the 14th Amendment has always said equal protection...but women didn't get the vote in all states until 1921. So, were states breaking the law?

Presidents have always sent Americans to their deaths without trial. That's war. No doubt a President who ordered summary executions, if he picked his targets carefully and was popular enough, would have supporters who would argue that this was within the war power.

And anybody can look at the text of the Constitution and decide that either (a) Congress (or the President) can override the Supreme Court, or (b) the President's real power is limited only by the willingness of the Supreme Court to impeach him.


26 posted on 03/14/2006 11:24:40 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Unfortunately, you are taking this phrase out of context. Read all of Article III, section 2, and you will find that this clause is to distinguish between where the SC has appelate jurisdiction and where it has original jurisdiction. Regardless, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."


27 posted on 03/14/2006 11:43:52 AM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Uh, yeah. Good luck with that.


28 posted on 03/14/2006 11:45:18 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Unfortunately, you are taking this phrase out of context. Read all of Article III, section 2, and you will find that this clause is to distinguish between where the SC has appelate jurisdiction and where it has original jurisdiction. Regardless, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution."

How so? "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The phrase "with such exceptions ... as the Congress shall make" can only refer to "appellate Jurisdiction" in normal english grammatical useage.

See here, and scroll down:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag50_user.html

And then the following page:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag51_user.html#art3_hd149

Later Justices viewed the matter differently than had Marshall. “By the constitution of the United States,” it was said in one opinion, “the Supreme Court possesses no appellate power in any case, unless conferred upon it by act of Congress.”1064 In order for a case to come within its appellate jurisdiction, the Court has said, “two things must concur: the Con[p.781]stitution must give the capacity to take it, and an act of Congress must supply the requisite authority.” Moreover, “it is for Congress to determine how far, within the limits of the capacity of this court to take, appellate jurisdiction shall be given, and when conferred, it can be exercised only to the extent and in the manner prescribed by law. In these respects it is wholly the creature of legislation.”1065

This congressional power, conferred by the language of Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 2, which provides that all jurisdiction not original is to be appellate, “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make,” has been utilized to forestall a decision which the congressional majority assumed would be adverse to its course of action. In Ex parte McCardle,1066 the Court accepted review on certiorari of a denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the circuit court; the petition was by a civilian convicted by a military commission of acts obstructing Reconstruction. Anticipating that the Court might void, or at least undermine, congressional reconstruction of the Confederate States, Congress enacted over the President’s veto a provision repealing the act which authorized the appeal McCardle had taken.1067 Although the Court had already heard argument on the merits, it then dismissed for want of jurisdiction.1068 “We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.

“What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the[p.782]cause.”1069 Although McCardle grew out of the stresses of Reconstruction, the principle there applied has been similarly affirmed and applied in later cases.1070

These restrictions have in fact been made, for example, with Admiralty Courts, which hear all Admiralty cases, as well as some regulatory courts.

The abortion cases before the court, such as "Roe vs. Wade" and "Planned Parenthood vs. Casey" do not involve States as party's to the proceedings, therefore, Congress may restrict the Court's ability to hear these cases, per the precedent cited above.

29 posted on 03/14/2006 12:25:45 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

Congress can restrict jurisdiction in admiralty cases because the issue is a matter of law.

Where the Supreme Court will draw the line and tell Congress "No" is in cases that directly involve the Constitution itself and separation of powers. Congress could try to vote judicial review out of existence by restricting appellate review, but the Supreme Court would almost certainly reply that the Constitution itself is above the Congress as well as the Courts, the Congress may not pass any law which exceeds its power under the Constitution, and the role of the Supreme Court is to strike down such acts that Congress passes which do exceed its legislative authority.

This is almost certainly what the Supreme Court would say were Congress to try and remove abortion from the Supreme Court's review. Their response is very predictable. I can pre-write it for them: the protections of the Constitution are not subject to being overridden by simple legislation from Congress. To do that requires amending the Constitution. Abortion is a right arising under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 9th, 10th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution (or the penumbra thereof). Accordingly, neither Congress nor any state can alter abortion rights by simple legislation: a constitutional amendment is required. Congress seeks to invidiously override the limits of its legislative power in this area by asserting that the check on Congressional overreach provided by the courts under the Constitution is nullified by the simple expedient of attempting to deprive the Supreme Court, by legislation, of its powers derived under the Constitution. Congress has no power to do so, and the law is void.

You can pre-read it.
That's what the court would say.
And they'd be right too.
Congress can't do an end-run around the Constitution by saying nobody can review its acts. At least not as people currently understand the Constitution.

There's no humility on either side here, of course, so a real political war over the issue is possible. Republicans don't think they have anywhere near the influence to be able to win that fight.


30 posted on 03/14/2006 1:28:59 PM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
How so?

All a challenger needs do is make a State into a party of the suit. As soon as it becomes South Dakota v. Abortionist X, the SC has jurisdiction.

(3) Abortion shall be in all cases illegal, and each State or Territory shall punish procured abortion in accordance with their laws regarding murder; (4) States that refuse to prosecute abortionists with murder charges are to be deprived of all Federal funding for all programs and their executive and prosecutorial officers shall be liable to arrest and prosecution for delinquency in protecting the public and ensuring a Republican form of government; and (5) persons promoting abortion in public shall be prosecuted as part of a criminal conspiracy to incite murder.

For sure, as soon as (3), (4), or (5) were enacted, at least one State would challenge the congresses constitutional authority to enact the law, and with good reason. This would be a ceding of the authority to pass laws and define punishments that rightfully belong to the States.

The doublethink in item (4), wherein you propose that dictating what an elected representative State government must do from above, under penalty of arrest and being declared "unrepublican", is unacceptable. You might as well have congress pass a law saying that all powers of the States can be overridden by federal legislation.

31 posted on 03/14/2006 1:30:10 PM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ImaGraftedBranch
It is History, and we are doomed to repeat it, because we failed to teach and instill it in our children.

You nailed it right there.
32 posted on 03/14/2006 1:44:57 PM PST by newguy357
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
All a challenger needs do is make a State into a party of the suit. As soon as it becomes South Dakota v. Abortionist X, the SC has jurisdiction.

Unless the State is attempting to do something, the State is not a party, the local DA is (i.e. Wade, Webster, etc.) You can't just arbitrarily name non-party's to lawsuits.

For sure, as soon as (3), (4), or (5) were enacted, at least one State would challenge the congresses constitutional authority to enact the law, and with good reason. This would be a ceding of the authority to pass laws and define punishments that rightfully belong to the States.

The punishment for the crime isn't being defined. The State is free to punish it as any sort of murder it wishes to, and under whatever penalty might apply for that type of murder in that State. What the State would not be free to do is to pretend it is not a crime.

The doublethink in item (4), wherein you propose that dictating what an elected representative State government must do from above, under penalty of arrest and being declared "unrepublican", is unacceptable. You might as well have congress pass a law saying that all powers of the States can be overridden by federal legislation.

So is this clause of the Constitution utterly meaningless to you?

Article IV, Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Is abortion not domestic Violence? Are persons not being murdered by abortion? How can a State pretend to be following a Republican form of government and yet allow some of its inhabitants to be legally murdered?

What if a state decided to legalize other murders? Say it legalized murder if it was in a quarrel over drug turf. Or infanticide. Or killing the retarded or handicapped. Could the US Government forcibly intervene? Why is abortion different?

33 posted on 03/14/2006 7:23:11 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Vicomte13
Congress can restrict jurisdiction in admiralty cases because the issue is a matter of law.

Abortion is clearly a matter of law too, not of right, regardless of what seven criminal nitwits said in 1973. The right to life is protected by Common Law from the first moments of existence in the womb until natural death - that was the position of the Founding Fathers, and they enshrined man's the right to life in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as one of the fundemental principals of our country.

With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.
- Justice James Wilson, Supreme Court of the United States 1789-1798, Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, "Lectures on Law", Ch. 12, p. 597 in The Works of James Wilson. ed. Robert G. McCloskey (1967).
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html

This was from a lecture given to, among others, President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and many other worthies of the new government.

Congress may not pass any law which exceeds its power under the Constitution, and the role of the Supreme Court is to strike down such acts that Congress passes which do exceed its legislative authority.

Where is this authority granted in the Constitution to the Court?

There's no humility on either side here, of course, so a real political war over the issue is possible. Republicans don't think they have anywhere near the influence to be able to win that fight.

Yes, its unfortunate. The actual solution is simple. You make a law like I said, and if the Supreme Court fights it, you arrest the members of the Supreme Court who are advocates of child murder as members of a conspiracy against human life, and try them for incitement to murder (advocation of murder of specific persons is a crime, is it not?). The Police Power of the Executive wins if the Executive has the will to see it through and do what is right.

34 posted on 03/14/2006 7:40:20 PM PST by Hermann the Cherusker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: NYer

They should get some better lawyers working on that site. It is plainly within the competence of the federal courts to make constitutional rights determinations such as Roe and Doe, whether or not one agrees with the reasoning.

There is a very good reason why Congress has never attempted to remove the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on such questions: to do so wouldn't return power to the legislatures, or Congress, but would effectively constitute each Circuit Court as a mini-Supreme Court on such questions, permitting disparate and inconsistent constitutional law around the country.

While Roe and Doe certainly were undemocratic, the demos has had plenty of chances to cause the decision to be reversed. Reagan and Bush, in appointing O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, were, for better or worse, acting with evident lack of concern for abortion. Bill Clinton couldn't have been more pro-choice if he tried, and Ross Perot was too -- meaning a 62% pro-choice majority in 1992.

The shakiness of the democratic argument against Roe can be seen even today -- recall that Breyer and Ginsburg were proudly pro-Roe/Doe in 1993 and 1994, and got no Republican flack for it, while both Roberts and Alito last year and this year had to hem and haw it, and probably could not have been confirmed, even with a Republican majority in the Senate, had they out-and-out said that they disagreed with the decisions.


35 posted on 03/14/2006 7:42:35 PM PST by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tullius

I'm sorry about the drafting of the post, I was in a hurry, but I will try to be more scrupulous about the structure and style of future posts. Thank you for your input though, I appreciate it.


36 posted on 03/14/2006 11:40:44 PM PST by old republic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker

"The actual solution is simple. You make a law like I said, and if the Supreme Court fights it, you arrest the members of the Supreme Court who are advocates of child murder as members of a conspiracy against human life, and try them for incitement to murder (advocation of murder of specific persons is a crime, is it not?). The Police Power of the Executive wins if the Executive has the will to see it through and do what is right."

The police power of the Executive wins whether the executive is right or wrong, if the Executive has the will to see it through and his subordinates will obey.
That is true in every land.
But will the subordinates obey?
Will any federal officers execute an order to arrest the Supreme Court for a decision?
Will other federal officers not interpret their oath to the Constitution against domestic enemies to require them to stop any such action.

I suspect that actually attempting to follow your scenario would lead to a civil war.

I certainly would interpret my own oath to see such an action as the President attempting to seize power and destroy the Constitution, which would make him, and those in the cabal following him, "domestic enemies of the United States", against whom my oath requires me to "Support and defend the Constitution". I think that the Constitutional creates tripartite government, and that the power of constitutional review is inherent in the judicial power. I think that is the traditional understanding that Americans have of our government. Any aggressive action by the Congress to try and simply veto judicial review, without a Constitutional amendment, would, I expect, be extremely unpopular and fail politically. Any effort of the President to outright arrest the court for a decision the executive did not like would be an attempted coup and would force every official in the government to take sides. In the scenario you posited, I would have to come down on the side of the traditional structure of government and the Supreme Court, and I suspect that a substantial portion of the executive branch would as well. I expect that Congress would see this as a usurpation and move to impeach the President.
It's an ugly scenario, which I hope nobody tries.

A comparable situation occurred in Florida over Terri Schiavo, with the judiciary pitted against the executive.
Police following the judge's order surrounded the hospital.
Police following the governor's order might have come and attempted to remove Schiavo.
What result?

In the historical instance, police representing the governor's position did not attempt to overbear the police enforcing the judge's order. But it could have been otherwise. Had Bush been more adamant, there could have been a clash of police and a full blown constitutional crisis.

That's what I would expect would be the result were the President to arrest the Supreme Court: a constitutional crisis. And it would all depend on what the Army did.
I think the Army would side with tradition and the court, and the President would be headed for impeachment and prison.


37 posted on 03/15/2006 6:22:53 AM PST by Vicomte13 (Et alors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Brightside

Correctamundo! Both political parties garner votes by keeping the issue alive (and ignoring the alive children being slaughtered in their mother's womb). Let's be clear here, Congress could end the Roe evil with a new law designed to rely upon the time-tested notion of self defense, the defense of an individual's life. But that wouldn't/doesn't mean the guarantee of a dead child, a child noone would be called upon to give support to (not a father, not a mother, not a taxpayer). America is now founded (in the modern era, the past thirty plus years) upon the shed blood of tens-of-millions of alive unborn children sacrificed to our selfishness, political ambitions (as in the democrap party), and financial convenience. We have become a degenerate nationn (sacrificing our innocent unborn children for expedience is truly degenerate) so it's not surprising that degeneracy in other aspects of public life are rising dramatically (can't bring ourselves to reject degeneracy when we are supporting degeneracy with our selfish avoidance to address the most evil social trend of all human history).


38 posted on 03/15/2006 9:45:42 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: only1percent

ping to a screed


39 posted on 03/15/2006 9:51:58 AM PST by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Hermann the Cherusker
Unless the State is attempting to do something, the State is not a party, the local DA is (i.e. Wade, Webster, etc.) You can't just arbitrarily name non-party's to lawsuits.

In a criminal case, the State is a party. Abortionist X is arrested and tried for murder. He appeals the conviction up to the SC.

So is this clause of the Constitution utterly meaningless to you? Article IV, Section 4 - Republican government

So is this clause of the Constitution utterly meaningless to you?

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Congress does not have the power to define murder within a State's jurisdiction, nor can it arbitrarily declare that if a State doesn't toe the line on some Federal decree, it is no longer a republican government. What would they do next? Decide that if a State doesn't allow bestiality, incest, polygamy and homosexual marriage that it isn't a republic?

A republican form of government, as required by the Constitution, is one in which the citizens elect representatives to enact and administer their laws. If the Feds can arbitrarily define State laws, then the States government isn't a republic; it is a administered province.

If you want to have abortion be illegal from the Federal level, there is already a method for Congress to do it that doesn't involve messing with the balance of power or the sovereignty of the several States. It's called a Constitutional amendment.

40 posted on 03/15/2006 9:58:22 AM PST by LexBaird ("I'm not questioning your patriotism, I'm answering your treason."--JennysCool)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: buffyt
The US Constitution states that we are guaranteed LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. 'nuff said.

Ummm, no. Better re-read the document. It's not there.

41 posted on 03/15/2006 10:13:08 AM PST by Melas (What!? Read or learn something? Why would anyone do that, when they can just go on being stupid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN
Both political parties garner votes by keeping the issue alive

I agree in part (probably for different reasons that you). I may get flamed for this but I think the Republican pro-life plank hurts progress on legislation to curb or end abortions.

Personally, I think the GOP should adopt a plank that protects healthy, viable babies, and turns the rest of the restrictions over to the states.

But Phylis Schaffley and RTL would never let that happen.

42 posted on 03/15/2006 10:31:41 AM PST by Mr. Brightside (Watcher of the Skies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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