One of the major issues infesting this country, even in 2023, is that very few people have a clue as to what's actually IN the Constitution.
Oh, most adults may have some passing acquaintance with the first ten Amendments, AKA The Bill of Rights, but for the most part it's from watching shows like "Law and Order" or "The Good Wife" or TV of that sort.
But schools these days spend far more time socially engineering children into little fringe-left automatons than they do into knowledgeable adults that understand both what the Constitution is and how it works.
Far more time is wasted on pronouns and grooming than on the academics concerning the founding of this country and the framework of the laws in this country.
We hear a great deal concerning rights. The definition of a right has many parents. Simply stated,
- Rights the U.S. Constitution provides to American citizens, especially the first ten amendments to the Constitution, a.k.a. the Bill of Rights.
In short, if it can't be found or enumerated in the Constitution?
Then it's not a right.
(Enumerated rights are those specifically listed in that document. For Example: the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress (and, as the Supreme Law of the Land through the Supremacy Clause (Art 4 Sec 2) lesser governments, such as state legislatures, etc.) cannot "abridge" freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It says so in the Constitution.)
Abortion was wrongly determined by the past Supreme Court (1973) as being a "right." What enabled that determination was legal reasoning breathtakingly tortured to support a nonsensical conclusion absolutely political in nature as opposed to Constitutional. Subsequently, that decision was overturned roughly a year ago.
The primary reason it was overturned is simple: there is nothing in the Constitution that provided or enumerated such a "right."
And, as I stated, if it's not in the Constitution, it's not a right.
Those supporting abortion immediately insisted that it is, in fact, a "right." but they offered nothing to suggest, legally, that it meets that standard. of a right.
It DOES, however, meet the standard of a "want".
1. Desire unfulfilled. 2. Detrimental lack of a life necessity. See need.
Neither "wants" or "needs" are defined in the Constitution. Since for abortion supporters generally, abortion is "wanted." It is not frequently needed, (medical needs, as rare as they are, notwithstanding)
This is a generalized statement of the case. Books have been written addressing this subject, but in sum, this pretty much covers the highlights.
Much has been said and made of polling that shows R v. W should be allowed to stand. And I get that.
My thoughts here are based entirely on the legal/Constitutional aspects of this decision as I understand them.
The Supreme Court has lifetime appointments to avoid that very issue, the issue of politicization. Their job is mainly to interpret the Constitution vis the issues of laws which confront it. They are not supposed to concern themselves with the politics of a given issue or, for that matter, the polling of an issue.
If, for a ludicrous example, polling indicated that slavery should be reinstated, should the Supreme Court allow it or enable it because of a set of numbers? Their job does not include ferreting out conflicting moralities. They take a law, they scrutinize it and they determine, through that scrutiny, whether or not that law, or rule, or policy, or regulation, or whatever other restriction is typically placed on the citizenry by government meets Constitutional criteria.
It must always be remembered that the entire purpose of our Constitution is to restrict government and the actions of government. It does not involve “inferred” rights. Our founders wrote it to be clearly and easily understood, without hidden rights that are only brought forth under certain extraneous circumstances.
Had they wanted a “right” to privacy, they would have included it. Had they, specifically, wanted a right to abortion, they would have included it. No one would have had to seek it out, or look for it with some sort of legal magnifying glass.
As a result, we have in place a series of enumerated rights that make us the envy of most of the world.
All other factors aside, the question boils down to one of substance. Does Roe V. Wade meet the criteria as a “Constitutional” right?
I’ve read the Constitution, repeatedly. It was a substantial part of my college education and also my 6 years as a legislative staffer. And try as I may, I simply could not find it.
The Supreme Court makes mistakes. The 1857 decision concerning Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1857) where all 9 justices ruled, in one form or another, that slavery was still legal. (the actual decision was 7-2, but the dissenter’s position, essentially, was a formality in that they never should have considered the case in the first place due to Scott’s lack of what was then considered citizenship, i.e., blacks were not accorded citizenship status and therefore, had no standing.)
In Scott, Justice McLean stated the “majority’s ruling was ‘more a matter of taste than of law.’”
Legally, the arguments persist to this day that the decision made by the Court in Roe was based in large part by the same mentality of Scott v. Sandford… although the Roe majority’s case was geometrically weaker.
In Scott, the Court used, among other elements, the 5th Amendment prohibition against taking of property, the reality that blacks were not accorded citizenship (a neat bit of legerdemain: if blacks WERE citizens, then they could not be slaves) and that, as a result, the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional as, therefore, the idea that transporting a slave to, or through, conferred freedom on them by the act of transport.
In Roe, the Court found things in the 14th Amendment that simply are not there. In its entirety, the 14th Amendment says this:
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
There is precisely nothing in the 14th Amendment that addresses any of the elements listed as justification for Roe. Nothing about abortion. Nothing about “privacy.” The claim that it’s “implicit” is fatuous at best and fantasy at worst, an effort to twist a Constitutional Amendment to fit a desired outcome… a classic “…matter of taste and not law.”
The irony that Roe (Norma McCorvey) did not get an abortion may have played a small roll in this outcome.
But the Constitution does not infer “rights” which can stand the test of strict scrutiny and black letter law.
I have not and will not address the issue of morality in this matter. It is not germane to this issue or its outcome from a legal perspective. Both sides will claim the moral high ground and as I have said, the issue rests with Constitutionality and not morality.
My take: the decision was the right decision based on the legal principles involved. Those who oppose this outcome make a stand on stare decisis but have only a crumbling legal foundation from which to rely upon: if that perspective was set in concrete, then several now unthinkable laws and policies would still be in effect. The Supreme Court has reversed itself well over 300 times in our nation’s history.
For those who see “abortion” as a right; for those who have no problem with assigning children adult responsibilities such as a 12-year-old getting an abortion without parental permission while at the same time, for example STILL requiring parental permission forgetting her ears pierced... without their permission or knowledge but with their total responsibility for the outcomes... for those who see partial-birth abortion as one of the aspects of that right, the solution is simple: Have Congress pass an amendment to that effect and get 38 state's legislatures to agree with you and spell it out.
Words have meaning. But those who advocate for that sort of thing hide behind catch-all, non-descriptive phrases such as “women’s reproductive health.”
I’m reminded of other verbal word tricks: calling illegal aliens (which is, after all, the legal terminology used in federal law) “undocumented immigrants” or some other phrase that avoids the reality of what those here illegally are called by law. How is it so bad to call them what they actually are?
The issue here is abortion. Yet, those opposed to Dobbs seem to do their best to avoid that word like it’s the plague. Why? Call it what it is. Be honest. Stand up for what you believe.
You won’t be cancelled for it. No one will make any effort to assassinate you because of it, or burn down your Planned Parenthood shop or anything of the kind.
Disagree. You have that freedom. But you also have the tools available to you to once again make abortion; or for that matter, any act of any kind the law of the land, an actual “right” if that is the desire of the people of this country as almost everyone to the political left, including the President, wants us to believe.
But it’s as if that option doesn’t really exist. I’ve read a great deal about a great many options, all unconstitutional, to attempt to overturn this Supreme Court decision. But what I HAVEN’T heard is ANYONE suggest that a Constitutional amendment would resolve this issue once and for all. Instead, now, I fear, the leftists in Congress will drop a variety of bills from impeaching those justices to expanding the Court to dissolving it altogether.
Riots will likely be the order of the day: leftists don’t typically need a reason to loot, burn, assault and murder. Attacks on churches, crisis pregnancy centers and, likely, the homes of the justices… if not the justices themselves… will likely become the standard.
The question now is what will the cities impacted by those rioters do? Are they ready? Will they respond?
Probably not. It’ll likely be another free rioter holiday. And the left… as we head into the presidential election… wouldn’t have it any other way.
If supporters of abortion practices want that to actually BE the law, then make it the law through Amending the Constitution. Simple, really.
But don't violate the law or the sanctity of the Constitution merely because you didn't get your way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
No comments:
Post a Comment