Post by TomLine on Jul 25, 2016 10:38:55 GMT -5
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
As President I will, in a proclamation, proclaim Roe v. Wade unconstitutional, to wit: Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional based on the 10th Amendment. To understand this, ask these questions; "Does the Constitution delegate power to the United States to control reproduction?" Also, "Does the Constitution prohibit to the States the power to regulate reproduction?" The answer to both of these questions is "No." Therefore, based on the 10th Amendment, the power to regulate reproduction is reserved to the States, or to the people.
Also, the Supreme Court, and therefore the Federal Court system, does not have the Constitutional authority to strike down State Law. With cases coming from a State, Federal Courts are nothing more than Appellate Courts. As such they should only render an opinion and send it back down to State Courts. That's the way it was in our early history, and it should be again.
In his dissent, Justice White agreed with my assessment...
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
Not only do I believe Roe v. Wade to be an unconstitutional decision, I believe it was unconstitutionally applied. The Supreme Court, according to White, does not have the power to disentitle the people or the legislatures of the 50 States to enact laws regarding the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus. Yet that is how this decision was applied. And that is why I say the Roe v. Wade decision of the Court was unconstitutionally applied, since the Courts decision had nothing to do with reproductive standards, but rather the right of privacy as the majority opinion states,
right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Roe v. Wade violates the Court's own thinking. The Fourteenth Amendment says in part, "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." But the Court made a decision that does just that. The Court's decision in effect forces the States to make law that abridges the privileges of male citizens, which violates the "equal protection" clause. The Court has basically said that women have a right that men don't, which is a violation of the very Amendment they relied on in making their decision.
Having proclaimed Roe v. Wade to be unconstitutional, I'll urge States to enforce the laws regarding reproduction and abortion that were in effect before Roe v. Wade was decided.
To see this Presidential Proclamation become reality...
LET US RESCUE THE UNBORN TOGETHER