Controversial Doesn’t Begin To Cut It...
Last night I was in a chat room. Inevitably, as it always does—in an uncontrolled, unfamiliar environment—the subject switched to this topic. This is a topic that many have no stomach to bear. They dislike it completely. They have their beliefs regarding it, and I respect; really, I do. However, in regard to this issue, the rule of law is far morepreferable to that of emotion or faith. Both inject into this issue a level of rhetoric I am nowhere close to being able to defend. That is not to say I lack the ability to defend my "faith". But faith is what it is. We take it on that, with no questions asked. That is what faith is all about. To a conservative like myself, that isn’t enough. To me, the rule of law is what is important. Not that I disavow God, but I will answer to him at the pearly gates. Right now, I render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
The issue, if none have you have guessed is Roe v. Wade.
I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and those of my friends know why. It isn’t easy choosing such a topic to write a literal thesis on, but that is what this is, in essence; it is in the form of a blog. This post does not come from superiority, as I do not feel myself to be on the level of a current Supreme Court Justice, nor the very Framers of the Constitution I am about to argue on behalf of.
The debate over abortion has been clouded with the fervor of anti-abortionists that cite God, their faith, and their inherent beliefs. Likewise, those on the other side have cited such, as well. (There is an inherent bias by pro-abortionists for refusing to argue on behalf of faith.) That is why I base my arguments in neither. I base it upon the law of the land; the highest such being the US Constitution.
That law is explicit in it’s meaning. For those that prefer to use mental gymnastics to achieve a decision upon the issue, please do so; you won’t stand up to my scrutiny. In Roe v. Wade, five specific Amendments were named:
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth. The problem with the citation of each amendment is that they fail to address the very issue.
The First addresses nothing in relation, whatsoever, to abortion. It deals with our free political rights to speech, press, assembly, and petition. It also makes the distinction between religion and politics, and say that neither may encroach upon the other; in other words, religion may not have say over the affairs of the state, nor may the state have a say over what religion does. There is no wall. I’m sorry to disappoint those that disagree, but Justice Black got the idea wrong in 1947.
The Fourth deals with the government’s right to search and seize articles of ours. Warrants must be issued, under "Oath or affirmation" by the parties wishing to search or seize. The warrant must make explicit and clear the objects or persons to be searched and/or seized. No mention of abortion there, nor is it a government-mandated doctor performing a non-consensual abortion. We aren’t North Korea here; we have rights.
The Fifth talks about answering for crimes, yet it includes the Due Process Clause within it. The Due Process Clause has nothing to do with abortion. It specifies directly: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without process of law...". Under an issue like abortion, no one other than the child—for you liberals, the fetus—is being denied any of the above. The government is not taking the child, however. It is the decision of the mother to perform this act. In some convoluted way, I suppose a government worker could claim it is the government taking the child. That is not the case in most cases. It is the mother’s decision as has been held up in precedent after precedent—from Roe v. Wade itself to Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000—the court has always ruled on the side of the mother’s decision. (In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey the other spouse’s rights were stripped away in the decision for an abortion.)
The Ninth solely deals with what is available to all the citizens of the United States and what isn’t. To me, this was a throw in. It made sure that if Roe v. Wade were consented to—that the USSC agreed that is should be a protected right—it would encompass all women within the United States. Again, like all the others cited thus far, it doesn’t mention abortion, and therfore shows no merit within the case.
The Fourteenth is another throw-in on the case; particularly the Equal Protection Clause. It, like the Fifth, was designed to make sure that if, by some strange chance, the Court followed their logic, ALL WOMEN would be covered under the law, and they would have the free opportunity to abort at will, within reason. It is only the driving politics of the time that drove the issue further than the initial decision of Roe v. Wade.
But worst of all above the initial ineptitude of the high court in 1973 is that the current court—it’s majority made up of those that do not abide by the rule of law, or the proper interpretation of the Constitution, but rather their own prejudices—flat-out REFUSES to reexamine Roe v. Wade. Time and again, with each case that is presented, the United States Supreme Court refuses to revisit Roe v. Wade and prefers the "keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest" idea of jurisprudence.
That is not what the judiciary is about; indeed, that mentality has no business on the high court. It’s whole and precise job is to interpret the law. With that duty defined comes a level of personal responsibility to do just that. As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out in several numerous decisions, the Court refuses to accept that responsibility. In abortion cases the Court, much like the liberals of today, tends to move the goal-posts, and ignores the precedent previously set. It makes this issue not only extremely controversial—filled with emotion, which ultimately clouds the issue at hand—but it makes the issue at whole unsolved, and undefined. Both are equally unacceptable.
In Roe v. Wade, to abide by the Constitution, the Court at the time need only cite the Tenth Amendment to be done with it. Had they done so, it would have sent the matter back into the hands of the States. Now, I was savaged over this point, and called everything but a conservative over such a statement, but trust me, I am. Research shows that at the time that pre-Roe, twenty-eight states had determined the issue for themselves. The Tenth is a oft ignored amendment in the Constitution that states: "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."
In the case of Roe v. Wade, the States should’ve had the ultimate decision, and the court shouldn’t have been driven by a purely political issue. But that is what happened. And it will be a very long time before the actions of a Supreme Court will be reversed. That isn’t to say I won’t see it in my lifetime, but the issue must be addressed by those that properly interpret the Constitution. As long as that job relies in the purview of the current Supreme Court, I don’t hold my breath. Those on the high court now are already reluctant to revisit such a hot issue. Those that do chastise others for moving the goal-posts go unheeded, as in the case of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.
Until this issue is reexamined by the high court, and it is either remanded back to the States where it belongs, or defined—precisely—by the Court, it will remain as it has since 1973; undefined, unrepresented properly, and allowed to be played with by the judiciary.
Publius II
Last night I was in a chat room. Inevitably, as it always does—in an uncontrolled, unfamiliar environment—the subject switched to this topic. This is a topic that many have no stomach to bear. They dislike it completely. They have their beliefs regarding it, and I respect; really, I do. However, in regard to this issue, the rule of law is far morepreferable to that of emotion or faith. Both inject into this issue a level of rhetoric I am nowhere close to being able to defend. That is not to say I lack the ability to defend my "faith". But faith is what it is. We take it on that, with no questions asked. That is what faith is all about. To a conservative like myself, that isn’t enough. To me, the rule of law is what is important. Not that I disavow God, but I will answer to him at the pearly gates. Right now, I render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.
The issue, if none have you have guessed is Roe v. Wade.
I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and those of my friends know why. It isn’t easy choosing such a topic to write a literal thesis on, but that is what this is, in essence; it is in the form of a blog. This post does not come from superiority, as I do not feel myself to be on the level of a current Supreme Court Justice, nor the very Framers of the Constitution I am about to argue on behalf of.
The debate over abortion has been clouded with the fervor of anti-abortionists that cite God, their faith, and their inherent beliefs. Likewise, those on the other side have cited such, as well. (There is an inherent bias by pro-abortionists for refusing to argue on behalf of faith.) That is why I base my arguments in neither. I base it upon the law of the land; the highest such being the US Constitution.
That law is explicit in it’s meaning. For those that prefer to use mental gymnastics to achieve a decision upon the issue, please do so; you won’t stand up to my scrutiny. In Roe v. Wade, five specific Amendments were named:
The First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth. The problem with the citation of each amendment is that they fail to address the very issue.
The First addresses nothing in relation, whatsoever, to abortion. It deals with our free political rights to speech, press, assembly, and petition. It also makes the distinction between religion and politics, and say that neither may encroach upon the other; in other words, religion may not have say over the affairs of the state, nor may the state have a say over what religion does. There is no wall. I’m sorry to disappoint those that disagree, but Justice Black got the idea wrong in 1947.
The Fourth deals with the government’s right to search and seize articles of ours. Warrants must be issued, under "Oath or affirmation" by the parties wishing to search or seize. The warrant must make explicit and clear the objects or persons to be searched and/or seized. No mention of abortion there, nor is it a government-mandated doctor performing a non-consensual abortion. We aren’t North Korea here; we have rights.
The Fifth talks about answering for crimes, yet it includes the Due Process Clause within it. The Due Process Clause has nothing to do with abortion. It specifies directly: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property without process of law...". Under an issue like abortion, no one other than the child—for you liberals, the fetus—is being denied any of the above. The government is not taking the child, however. It is the decision of the mother to perform this act. In some convoluted way, I suppose a government worker could claim it is the government taking the child. That is not the case in most cases. It is the mother’s decision as has been held up in precedent after precedent—from Roe v. Wade itself to Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000—the court has always ruled on the side of the mother’s decision. (In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey the other spouse’s rights were stripped away in the decision for an abortion.)
The Ninth solely deals with what is available to all the citizens of the United States and what isn’t. To me, this was a throw in. It made sure that if Roe v. Wade were consented to—that the USSC agreed that is should be a protected right—it would encompass all women within the United States. Again, like all the others cited thus far, it doesn’t mention abortion, and therfore shows no merit within the case.
The Fourteenth is another throw-in on the case; particularly the Equal Protection Clause. It, like the Fifth, was designed to make sure that if, by some strange chance, the Court followed their logic, ALL WOMEN would be covered under the law, and they would have the free opportunity to abort at will, within reason. It is only the driving politics of the time that drove the issue further than the initial decision of Roe v. Wade.
But worst of all above the initial ineptitude of the high court in 1973 is that the current court—it’s majority made up of those that do not abide by the rule of law, or the proper interpretation of the Constitution, but rather their own prejudices—flat-out REFUSES to reexamine Roe v. Wade. Time and again, with each case that is presented, the United States Supreme Court refuses to revisit Roe v. Wade and prefers the "keep-what-you-want-and-throw-away-the-rest" idea of jurisprudence.
That is not what the judiciary is about; indeed, that mentality has no business on the high court. It’s whole and precise job is to interpret the law. With that duty defined comes a level of personal responsibility to do just that. As Justice Antonin Scalia has pointed out in several numerous decisions, the Court refuses to accept that responsibility. In abortion cases the Court, much like the liberals of today, tends to move the goal-posts, and ignores the precedent previously set. It makes this issue not only extremely controversial—filled with emotion, which ultimately clouds the issue at hand—but it makes the issue at whole unsolved, and undefined. Both are equally unacceptable.
In Roe v. Wade, to abide by the Constitution, the Court at the time need only cite the Tenth Amendment to be done with it. Had they done so, it would have sent the matter back into the hands of the States. Now, I was savaged over this point, and called everything but a conservative over such a statement, but trust me, I am. Research shows that at the time that pre-Roe, twenty-eight states had determined the issue for themselves. The Tenth is a oft ignored amendment in the Constitution that states: "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."
In the case of Roe v. Wade, the States should’ve had the ultimate decision, and the court shouldn’t have been driven by a purely political issue. But that is what happened. And it will be a very long time before the actions of a Supreme Court will be reversed. That isn’t to say I won’t see it in my lifetime, but the issue must be addressed by those that properly interpret the Constitution. As long as that job relies in the purview of the current Supreme Court, I don’t hold my breath. Those on the high court now are already reluctant to revisit such a hot issue. Those that do chastise others for moving the goal-posts go unheeded, as in the case of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist.
Until this issue is reexamined by the high court, and it is either remanded back to the States where it belongs, or defined—precisely—by the Court, it will remain as it has since 1973; undefined, unrepresented properly, and allowed to be played with by the judiciary.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home