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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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).

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.

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.