Replies

Something Senator Santorum emphasized in his presentations regarding this ban on partial birth infanticide has really struck me. He noted that the Declaration of Independence places Life before Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Contrast that truth (and it is a fundamental truth) with the mantra 'a woman's tright to choose to kill babies' (and that is precisely what their mantra means) as first order to enable the woman's pursuit of happiness. I ask, 'how did we reach the sad state when a judicial fiat by the SCOTUS places pursuit of 'happiness' before Liberty and LIFE?' Which of course begs the further question, 'Does America have the goodness to repudiate this horrific topsey turvey abomination to our founding principles?' I would dearly love to see much more open deabte from the perspective of this mutation to our founding principles. Do we really now represent pursuit of 'happiness' as trumping the right to a life already in existence? Partial birth infanticide is the democrat's stealth way of insuring the woman the 'right' to a dead baby! Abortion after the age of viability is nothing but the evil 'right to kill a living able-to-live-outside-the-womb ALIVE baby! May God ahve mercy on America, we've lost sight of that truth in favor of expedience that is deadly by design ... and that 'right to kill a baby is defended ardently by the despotic, soulless democrat party, with the press mostly complicit and supportive in this repugnance.

>>I ask, 'how did we reach the sad state when a judicial fiat by the SCOTUS places pursuit of 'happiness' before Liberty and LIFE?'<<

Do Laws and Standards Evolve? Douglas W. Phillips, Esq. Holmes and his contemporaries laid the foundation for legalized abortion, no-fault divorce, the legalization of homosexuality, and the rejection of the Framers' vision for Constitutional interpretation. Today, most courts have embraced an evolving standard for Constitutional interpretation, rejecting the notion that the Constitution must be interpreted in light of the meanings intended by the Framers

WallBuilders | Resources | Evolution and the Law:"A Death ... Perhaps the first individual successfully to champion this belief was Christopher Columbus Langdell (1826-1906), dean of the Harvard Law School. Langdell reasoned that since man evolved, then his laws must also evolve; and deciding that judges should guide the evolution of the Constitution, Langdell introduced the case law study method under which students would study the wording of judges’ decisions rather than the wording of the Constitution

>>'Does America have the goodness to repudiate this horrific topsey turvey abomination to our founding principles?' <<

Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution:Jefferson's View The President can refuse to enforce court orders he believes in conflict with the Constitution. (The courts have no enforcement machinery, i. e., prosecuting attorneys, police, armies, prisons, or electric chairs, of their own.) As Andrew Jackson is alleged to have said, "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution(first excerpt) why must the Court rather than the Congress be the states' defender?

Congress, the Court, and the Constitution (2nd & 3rd excerpt) If one has trouble imagining judicial review so confined in its scope, it is probably because the modern American mind, conditioned by at least a half-century of judicial supremacy, can hardly help but regard the judicial branch as a co-equal partner in the public policy making process. But it was doubtless to prevent such participation by judges in policy-making that the Founders circumscribed the jurisdiction and power of courts so narrowly in the first place.

Lincoln on Judicial Despotism I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.