by Daniel Downs
Today, January 22, 2011, America remembers the Supreme Court decision that inaugurated abortion as legally protected privacy right. Pro-abortion supporters celebrate this day while devotees of pro-life oppose its existence.
A majority of Americans believe abortion is a constitutional right. In a Quinnipiac poll, 60% of Americans agreed Roe v Wade established a women’s right to abortion. I noticed most polls present abortion right as an established Constitutional right and proceed asking whether respondents want an amendment to ban it. Interestingly, 70% of Americans believe Supreme Court justices base their decisions on politics and not law according to the above poll. (Quinnipiac National Poll, April 21, 2010)
In a brief speech today, President Obama commemorated the Roe v Wade decision as establishing a women’s constitutional right to abortion. He said, “I am committed to protecting this constitutional right. I also remain committed to policies, initiatives, and programs that help prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption.” (USA Today)
Yes, most Americans believe in abortion as a constitutional right, but where is found in the U.S. Constitution? It is missing in the Supreme Law of the Land.
How then did the majority of Supreme Court justices discover it? They found a woman’s right to abortion in several places. First, natural law states that individuals have an absolute right over their own bodies. Second, they saw this natural law right positively in the 4the Amendment clauses forbidding government intrusion into private matters. Third, and last, they founded a technicality in the disagreement among academics and so-called professionals about when life begins. This technicality was their justification to permit abortions until “society” establishes such a consensus agreement, which they knew was likely to be never. They knew for such a consensus definition to occur secularists and traditionalist or moralists and liberal and conservatives, humanists and religionists would all have to come to an agreement that life begins at conception.
The problems with the Roe v Wade decision are many. Several worth stating are as follows: (1) Roe v Wade violates the law that prohibits individuals from harming their own bodies or others. Our laws allow officials arrest and detain people who seek to destroy their own body parts. (2) Human life is the result of the behavior of two people, not one. The court only recognizes the right of the women. In practice, the man has no right to his body part contributed to the newly conceived person. (3) At every stage, a baby develops as a separate entity apart from the women whose body is made to nourish and nurture the new person. A baby at the blastocyte, fetus, or any other stage is still a developing human being. (4) Lastly, the Constitution is supposed to protect the right to life. That two-letter word has more meaning than most people realize. If the right was a “right of life,” however human life may be defined, all Americans have a right to right possess it. However, the right is to life, which indicates a process of obtaining what human life is. And, human life is a process of becoming as well as a state of entropy. Human life is an inheritance of the past and a development toward a future, and a present state of being.
Because human life is an inherited interrelational, historical, and futuristic process, Roe v Wade should be regarded as a political act of violence against all human life. No way can it be constitutional.
States’ Rights and Nullification?
By Andy Myers
Are you kidding me. Of course I’m for it. Why? Well for one thing it was paramount in establishing limited government so that we could enjoy what so eloquently was stated in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
This of course was just a pretext leading up to even more limitations upon the government as the Constitution outlines in Article I Section 8.
So why then with the supreme law of limited government so expressly written by the founders could so many have such difficulty in understanding limited and government? Granted those two words define irony.
Fortunately though these statesmen came up with these amazing amendments to the Constitution called the Bill of Rights. Now these aren’t your rights. These are restrictions and limitations put upon the government so that you could enjoy the unalienable rights mentioned above. But wait. It gets even better. To make sure, as if it wasn’t clear enough that government was to be limited to the extent that the states and the people were to be sovereign, they included the ninth and tenth amendments which in a nutshell says, Article I Sect. 8 is ALL the powers you are granted and that if it isn’t in that clause..to bad Jack–the power is retained in the States and or the people. You really only need a grade school education and a little common sense to vindicate this side of the rule of law.
But the declaration above cannot survive the atmosphere of big government that we have today.
In his commentary published on Friday in Xenia Daily Gazette’s Opinion section, Steven Conn was correct when he said, “Lincoln was really the first ‘big government’ president.” And he was correct in pointing out the irony of the tea party folks holding a rally in front of a memorial of a president who shredded the “rule of law” which is what the tea party folks are supposedly championing-limited government, states rights, individual liberty, free markets and a limited foreign policy based on our charter documents.
I guess in today’s mental climate the above stated declaration and the rule of law is just some “blank piece of paper” according to a recent executive and too many others. All three branches have been treasonous and both major parties are guilty of crimes against the very documents they swore to uphold.
But, Mr. Conn is wrong in that “states rights” aren’t an avenue worth exploring. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99 proved the threat of nullifying or interposing unconstitutional laws gave the states-and the people the last say-so. Thomas Jefferson put it plain and simple when he said,
“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks of one government upon the other, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from what we separated.”
Folks, what makes America unique is are uniqueness. We are not a one-size fits all people. Human nature will never allow it and until we accept the fact that what may be good for you might not be good for me, government is going to continue to enslave us. States’ Rights and Nullification is a tool that brings power back to the people. It has worked in several states issues such as Real ID, Firearms Freedom Acts, Medical Marijuana Acts just to name three. You as an individual wouldn’t come onto my property and threaten me with force to live and do as you see fit. So why then would you appoint a group of people-government to do what you cannot or would not do as an individual? That is tyranny. Which even a fifth grader understands is the opposite of liberty
Andy Myers is a resident of Jamestown and is a policy analyst for The Ohio Freedom Alliance.
Leave a comment
Posted in politics
Tagged 10th Amendment, 9th Amendement, Abraham Lincoln, Bill of Rights, commentary, Declaration of Independence, Tea Party, U.S. Constitution