- Recently, five black-robed overlords masquerading as
Supreme Court Justices demonstrated an astounding dearth of logic, restraint
and decency. Their flawed ruling has both infuriated and motivated a public
dizzied from a relentless barrage upon their culture.
- In a completely unconscionable move, these disreputable
quints turned their backs on the most innocent and fragile figures of humanity.
Without the slightest nexus to the Constitution, the representative legislative
process of twenty-eight states was summarily dismissed.
- The legislatures involved were conscientiously seeking
to halt a barbarous and medically unnecessary procedure, one that involves
delivering a baby three-quarters of the way into the world, artificially
holding its head back from the natural destination of freedom, and brutally
extinguishing its tender life.
- The High Court,s Dred Scot sequel is a stark departure
from the ideology held by nearly every culture the world over. In addition,
it contradicts the classical view of countless philosophers and theologians
- Thoughtful people who debate the subject of when, in
the gestation process, life begins seldom question the legitimate, sacred
humanness of a baby during the last trimester of pregnancy. As a matter
of fact, history reveals that two primary viewpoints have been dominant
for ages: the Aristotelian view which involves "quickening, or the
idea that a soul is infused into the baby when the mother first perceives
movement in her womb, and the Tertullian view, which contends that life
begins at conception.
- How did we arrive at this perverse place in societal
structure, where judges are allowed to mutilate the very definition of
human life, strip away the clearly recognizable unalienable rights of untold
numbers of our most vulnerable citizens and impose a wanton philosophy
that most individuals in society find abhorrent? This truly is the boulder
that, if allowed to stand, will crush the back of our culture.
- The time has come to revisit a power that Congress explicitly
possesses and has rightly used in the past the constitutional power to
remove jurisdiction of specified subject matter from both the Supreme Court
and the lower federal courts.
- This is the power that was used during Reconstruction
in the nineteenth century and for injunctions against labor unions during
the twentieth century. The authority was acknowledged and upheld by the
Supreme Court itself and is consistent with the intended role of the judiciary.
The judicial branch of government is supposed to first apply the plain
meaning of law and only rely upon interpretation, according to the intent
of the drafters, if and when the given law is ambiguous.
- Perhaps in anticipation of the coming judicial debacle,
Representative Ron Paul introduced HR 3691, the "Partial Birth Abortion
and Judicial Limitation Act, in February of 2000. This legislation provides
that inferior courts of the United States will have no jurisdiction to
hear cases relating to partial birth abortion. It may be, though, that
Representative Paul underestimated the extent to which this Court has degenerated.
How could he have fathomed that presumably intelligent, respectable and
esteemed justices could ever invoke such ethically bankrupt reasoning as
that used in Stenberg v. Carhart?
- Most legal analysts were stunned to find out that the
pronouncements in the Casey and Roe decisions, which allude to the relationship
between the point in time in the gestation process and the rights of the
child in the womb, were cast aside. Furthermore, the Court has now demonstrated
that it has lost any semblance of appropriate judicial discretion by creating
an entirely new sphere of jurisprudence, which selectively disregards the
Bill of Rights whenever the subject of abortion is involved.
- In light of these circumstances, it seems that HR3691
now requires broadening. Jurisdiction needs to be removed, not only from
the inferior federal courts, but additionally from the appellate power
of the Supreme Court, in all cases involving medical efforts to terminate
life after conception.
- This is not some congressional power based upon theory,
interpretation, or even some abstract legal implication. No, it is an express
provision of the text of the Constitution in Article III, Section 2. Its
use would not only help to restore integrity to the separation of powers
principle, but it would also allow representative government to perform
the legitimate and highly effective function of creating laws which reflect
the true will of the people.
- The judicial branch has totally and definitively overstepped
its bounds. It has done so in a manner that threatens the soul of this
great nation. Providentially, our founding fathers provided a clear and
simple remedy. The only question is whether or not our representatives
have the moral character and fortitude to exercise it.
Site Served by TheHostPros