Skip to comments.Supreme Court refuses to hear Planned Parenthood cases (another win for abortion clinics)
Posted on 05/28/2013 8:13:04 AM PDT by ZakeetEdited on 05/28/2013 8:23:24 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court dealt a setback Tuesday to the campaign of abortion opponents to “defund” Planned Parenthood.
Without comment, the justices turned away Indiana’s defense of a 2011 law that would ban all Medicaid funds to an organization such as Planned Parenthood whose work includes performing abortions.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
When we say a women gets to kill her baby, she gets to kill her baby ... and we can force you Right Wing Nuts to pay for it with your own money that we confiscate from you ... and we can do this even though we're unelected ... cause we're the law ... cause we say so!
What did you expect? The Supreme court legalized the murder of innocent human life and wants to be darn sure that the barbarism is fully funded. Frankly Roe has diminished respect not only for the Supreme Court but for the constitution itself. How can a person of conscience take an oath to uphold and defend something that sanctions wholesale killing?
Being the God of Justice, where do you think He will aim first? I don’t have to enact punishment, and am told not to, so this is not a threat (for whoever is monitoring this public statement). I do voice my opinion, Loudly, that Child Sacrifice will be avenged, and we have been warned.
Psalm 94 God of vengeance
O LORD, God of vengeance;
God of vengeance, shine forth!
Rise up, O Judge of the earth;
Render recompense to the proud.
How long shall the wicked, O LORD,
How long shall the wicked exult?
They pour forth words, they speak arrogantly;
All who do wickedness vaunt themselves.
They crush Thy people, O LORD,
And afflict Thy heritage.
They slay the widow and the stranger (sojourner),
And murder the orphans.
And they have said, “The LORD does not see,
Nor does the God of Jacob pay heed.”
Pay heed, you senseless among the people;
And when will you understand, stupid ones?
He who planted the ear, does He not hear?
He who formed the eye, does He not see?
H who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke,
Even He who teaches man knowledge?
The LORD knows the thoughts of man,
That they are a mere breath.
Blessed is the man whom Thou dost chasten, O LORD,
And dost teach out of Thy law;
That Thou mayest grant him relief from the days of adversity,
Until a pit is dug for the wicked.
For the LORD will not abandon His people,
Nor will He forsake His inheritance.
For judgment will again be righteous;
And all the upright in heart will follow it.
Who will stand up for me against evildoers?
Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness?
If the LORD had not been my help,
My soul would soon have dwelt in the abode of silence.
If I should say, “My foot has slipped.”
Thy lovingkindness, O LORD, will hold me up.
When my anxious thoughts multiply within me,
Thy consolations delight my soul.
Can a throne of destruction (tribunal) be allied with Thee,
One which devises mischief by decree?
They band themselves together against the life of the righteous,
And condemn the innocent to death.
But the LORD has been my stronghold,
And my God the rock of my refuge.
And He has brought back their wickedness upon them,
And will destroy them in their evil;
The LORD our God will destroy them.
Psalms 94 New American Standard Version
Libs say government putting any money towards anything religious is “promoting” religion. yet paying for abortion is NOT promoting abortion? We have laws saying federal money can’t be used for paying for abortions.
First, when activist justices gave the green light to abortion in Roe v. Wade, they wrongly ignored the following. Given the Constitution's silence about abortion, not only is abortion not an express, constitutionally protected right, but the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that government power to regulate things like abortion is automatically reserved uniquely to the states. So not only did activist justices wrongly legislate the so-called right to have an abortion from the bench, but justices usurped 10th Amendment-protected state legislative powers to do so.
Next, regarding constitutionally indefensible abortion funding, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress cannot lay taxes in the name of state power issues.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So given that the states have never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate abortion, Congress cannot justify laying taxes for the purpose of funding abortions.
Does anybody not see how easy it is to stop federally funded abortions if you know just a little bit about the Constitution and its history?
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
folks here are “original text only” originalists. Never seen anyone discuss constitutional law cases. We’all are very suspicious of book-learning.
Nothing wrong with book-learning per se. But you've got to be on guard for radical law school professors who seemingly try to "translate" English language books into English.
The tack they took was plain stupid and sure to be voided, this was completely predictable ... what they should have done was deny state medicaid funds to any provider that was not fully in compliance with health and safety laws for ALL of the procedures they perform in a given center ... and then force the abortion providers to remodel their facilities to the level required for legitimate outpatient surgery centers ... and while you’re at it nail them on inadequate consent information regarding mental health problems and breast cancer risks ... or have your police forces run their own “statutory rape” “sting” operation and pull licensing for those that don’t report.
well, I’ve taken enough courses from radical law profs and poli-sci profs. What was they a-gonna do to moi? brainwashin’?
How y’all gonna come up with the rebuttal if ya ain’t learnin’ what we’re rebuttin’?
Judge Bork suggested that the Tenth is dead and gone ... eclipsed by the 14th, etc.
... Plenary Power, And It Is Too Late To Turn Back.’’
By JOSEPH SOBRAN
Posted: July 20, 1996
“Nearly a decade ago, the Senate rejected Judge Robert Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court. He was defeated largely because he insisted ...
In a recent TV interview, Judge Bork suggested that the Tenth is dead and gone. He said: ``In Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, [the framers] listed the powers of Congress, which were somewhat general, but definite enough. And in the Tenth Amendment they said they really meant it, that powers not granted remained with the states or with the people. That was a system that began to break down almost at once.’’
He added: ``I think the idea of enumerated powers through which the federal government is limited is an unrealistic idea and never had a chance of working. . . . The Tenth Amendment and the enumeration of the federal powers . . . have become passe. The federal government has assumed plenary power, and it is too late to turn back.’’
I hope he is wrong. But what if he is right?
If the Tenth was futile from the start, the implications are enormous. It means that the anti-federalists were right when they opposed ratifying the Constitution. They argued that the federal government, given the powers enumerated in the Constitution, would be so powerful that it could usurp any number of other powers never granted to it, and nobody would be able to stop it.
In other words, the Constitution would be unenforceable against the very government it was supposed to restrain. To put it another way, the Constitution itself doomed us to unconstitutional government.”
The problem with 14A is that FDR's activist justice twisted how post Civil War lawmakers had intended for it to be understood by wrongly claiming that it took away state powers. Consider the following excerpt from Cantwell v. Connecticut for example.
"The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect." --Mr. Justice Roberts, Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 1940.
But FDR's puppet justices wrongly ignored the following about 14A. John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, not only respected state sovereignty, but had officially clarified that 14A did not take away state powers.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (see bottom half of first column)
"No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired " --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (see top half of first column)
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe (see bottom half of third column)
FWIW, I think history has proven the anti-federalists correct. The more power is centralized, the more control it will take. A collection of cooperating states might have been unwieldy, but the only way to prevent centralized power is to have competing interests fight each other for influence.
The courts were always the weak link. When they started grabbing power, only swift action by the rest of government, to include taking away all their money, could have stopped them.
I respectfully disagree that competing interests fighting each other is the only way to prevent this.
For example, parents could start taking the responsibility to make sure that their children are being taught the roughly 28 pages of the Constitution and its amendments, particularly statutes like Section 8 of Article I, Article V and the 10th Amendment which clarify the Founding States' division of federal and state government powers. This is evidently something that has not been done since the Constitution was ratified imo.
The problem is that if every voter knew about the federal governent's constitutonally limited powers, then the networks would have to scramble to find another real-life soap opera to keep people's eyes glued to their TV screens between highly profitable commercials.
Sorry, but the US Supreme Court will NEVER give a rat’s rear about the 10th Amendment again. And the lower courts will follow them, and Congress and the President are happy about it.
The anti-federalists were right. We now have a huge, almost all-powerful central government.
Patriots who study the Constitution and its history can tell you that the Supreme Court is not the end of the road with respect to how the Constitution should be officially interpreted. After all, when state lawmakers actually knew the Constitution that they swear to defend, they knew that they could effectively overturn Supreme Court case decisions by ratifying appropriate amendments to the Constitution. In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states doing just that.
On the other hand, I think that voters need to wise up to unconstitutionally big federal government and work with good lawmakers to impeach Constitution-ignoring lawmakers, executives and justices as opposed to amending the Constitution.
Interesting Constitution discussion. Thank you for the ping.