Post by TomLine on Jul 29, 2016 10:26:19 GMT -5
ROE V. WADE VIOLATES ARTICLE THREE, SECTION TWO OF THE CONSTITUTION
by Tom Lineaweaver
by Tom Lineaweaver
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
I have already shown in other articles how Roe v. Wade violates several amendments to the Constitution. And I have already touched on Article 3 here: line2016.freeforums.net/thread/16/roe-wade
In this article I intend to show that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case whatsoever. They should have never heard the case. The case should have ended with the Texas Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court did not even have a appellate jurisdiction.
My first point is with the phrase, "arising under this Constitution." Keep in mind, when this was written, there were not as yet any amendments. So the word "Constitution" was only referring to the seven articles of the Constitution. It did not include any amendments. Yes, I realize Article Five does give an amending procedure. Amendments are not included in the term, "this Constitution." However, even if it does include amendments, the U.S. Supreme Court still had no jurisdiction in this case because the case did not arise under the U.S. Constitution. The Texas Law being challenged had arisen under the Texas Constitution.
Next, when you look at the list of cases the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction, not one the list are cases between citizens of a State and the same State. Roe was a citizen of Texas. She wanted an abortion in Texas. Texas Law prevented the abortion. The District Attorney in the case had no choice, he had to follow the Law as it was. So, in my opinion, Roe should not have been able to sue Wade. If she wanted to sue, she should have sued the State of Texas where the Law was originated. You can get an understanding of this here: tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/jrr02
The U.S. Supreme Court simply had no jurisdiction in Roe v. Wade, as they have no jurisdiction in cases within a State. However, there is one possiblity where the U.S. Supreme Court could have had jurisdiction, and it's found in Article 6...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi
In each State, judges are bound by the "supreme law of the land." Also, "members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution." So the question is, was the Texas Law passed by the Texas Legislature, and signed by the Governor, a violation of the Constitution? How could it be? The Constitution nowhere prohibits States from passing Laws about reproduction and abortion. And since the case was originally filed in Federal District Court, the Texas Courts were not involved.
Again, nowhere does the Constitution prohibit States from passing laws regarding reproduction and abortion. See the Tenth Amendment.
The original Court should have turned down the case due to lack of Constitutional support. But, of course, they didn't do that which eventually led to this Supreme Court decision. The decision was based on the Fourteenth Amendment which says in part, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." So, without any foundation whatsoever they created a new privilege. And it is based on that new privilege determine the Texas Law in question to be unconstitutional. In so doing they have violated the very Constitution they claimed to be protecting. It's quite obvious they violated what came next in the Fourteenth Amendment, "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." The Court decided that it was okay to deprive the life of an unborn person without due process of law. They also ignored the "Equal Protection" clause.
I have written about this "Equal Protection" clause before. Here is what I wrote...
The 14th Amendment states that no person within the jurisdiction of a State may be deprived of the equal protection of the laws. But the Court did this very thing in Roe v. Wade. They allowed women a right, but did not allow men the same right, so men do not have equal protection of the laws. If women should be allowed an abortion, under this equal protection clause, so should men. After all, women can't become pregnant on their own. Some how they must be inseminated. Most often that takes a man. Suppose a man would decide having a child at this time would too much of a burden, why can't he instruct the woman to have an abortion? But he doesn't have that right. Therefore, Roe v. Wade violates the very clause the Court used to establish this right of a woman to have an abortion, because men don't have the same right, therefore men do not have the equal protection of the laws.
Read more: line2016.freeforums.net/thread/16/roe-wade#ixzz4FnDRMHxy
Read more: line2016.freeforums.net/thread/16/roe-wade#ixzz4FnDRMHxy
Whether Article Three and the jurisdictional issue, or the Tenth or Fourteenth Amendments, Roe v. Wade is so unconstitutional it needs to be ignored, and when I am President, my Adminstration will ignore it. I will take the oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution. I will faithfully execute all Constitutional Laws.
Regardless of the decision by the 1973 Supreme Court, I must enforce Constitutional Laws, and I believe abortion is the taking of a life without due process of law, which violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. When I become President, States must end abortion or I will order they be fined for violating the Constitution. I believe that is within the powers of the President as chief law enforcement office in the Country.
If I am to keep my oath to "preserve, protect and defend," the Constitution, I must ignore unconstitutional laws and Supreme Court decisions.
If you want a President that will uphold the Constitution regarding this or any issue...
LET US MAKE AMERICA FREE AGAIN