Free Republic

[1] http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1545 On this point John CALVIN in his interpretation of Psalm 51 is in AGREEMENT WITH LUTHER. The word "conceived" (yechemathni, derived from yacham or chamam, which mean "to warm7') is interpreted by him literally as "hath warmed herself of me," here with reference to procreation.2 Calvin continues: The passage affords a striking testimony in proof of original sin entailed by Adam upon the whole of humanity. It not only teaches the doctrine, but may assist us in forming a correct idea of it . . . the Bible, both in this and other places, clearly attests that we are born in sin, and that it exists within us as a disease fixed in our nature. David does not charge it upon his parents, nor trace his crime to them, but sits himself before the Divine tribunal,. confesses that he was formed in sin, and that he was a transgressor ere he saw the light of this world.On the basis of Scripture, then, we need to stress that the baby from the time of conception is a sinful human being and thus is born with sin. We need to stress, in the teaching of this doctrine, sin from the time of conception and not only from the time of birth. Sometimes we tend to be unclear on this matter.

[2] http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/believe/abortion.php The Law of God reveals their sin to them and they feel guilt and great sorrow, and they begin to wonder what can be done about it or if there is any hope at all. The woman who has had an abortion needs to hear that for this sin too the blood of Jesus Christ was shed, and that there is in Him now full and free forgiveness.

[3] http://arizonarighttolife.org/userfiles/File/Abortion_and_the_Law_1.pdf "The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being and it is a most monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man's house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light" - John Calvin – Protestant Reformer - (1509-64) - Commentarius in Exodum, 21,22) HINT TO McCain: this is from ARIZONA Right to Life.

[4] http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Psa&chapter=51#v14

[5] http://www.ccel.us/Swindoll.chap1.html One of the most capable linguistic authorities I have ever met — a Hebrew scholar par excellence — is Bruce Waltke (a Ph.D. from Harvard University) and one of my mentors during my seminary years. He writes of this Psalm 51:5 passage rather clearly, first quoting from Edward R. Dalglish's authoritative work on Psalm 51: In Psalm 51:5, the psalmist is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of life; he traces his development beyond his birth . . . to the genesis of his being in his mother's womb — even to the very hour of conception. 8 Dr. Waltke then adds: . . . in tracing his spiritual condition to the time of conception, David goes on to note that already in his fetal state the moral law of God was present in him. http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/cplbo/AbortionandtheXian.Chap4.asp Professor E.R. Dalglish, in his authoritative work on Psalm 51, comments, "In Psalm 51:7 [English v. 5] the psalmist is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of life; he traces his development beyond his birth to the genesis of his being in his mother's womb -- even to the very hour of conception."[9] In confessing his personal guilt for his adultery with Bathsheba, David traces his involvement with sin to the very beginnings of his existence. This application of moral and spiritual categories to David as a conceptus suggests a relationship to God and the moral law even in his embryonic state.  In the next verse David goes on to confess that already in his mother's womb the moral law of God was present with him. According to the King James Version the text of Psalm 51:6 reads, "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me know wisdom." Waltke, following the suggestion of Dalglish, argues that the Hebrew words rendered "inward parts" (tehoth) and "hidden part" (satem) properly refer not to David's body, but rather to his mother's womb.[10] This interpretation is supported by the close connection of verse 6 with verse 5,

[6] Bruce K. Waltke, "Reflections From The Old Testament On Abortion," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 19.1 (1976): 3-13. Finally, Psalm 51:5 f. (7 f. Hebrew) in particular supports the notion that at the time of conception man is in a state of sin and that man’s spiritual, moral faculty is already present in the fetus. If this exegesis of Psalm 51:5 f. is correct, and to the best of my knowledge it is, then it seems an inescapable conclusion that the image of God is already present in the fetus. No evangelical would deny that a baby is a human being and that it is made in the image of God, that is, that it has the capacity for spiritual, rational and moral response. The question, then, is, “Does the fetus have that capacity?” The answer of Scripture is that it does and that this capacity was already present at the time of conception.

[7] J. Carl Laney, "The Abortion Epidemic: America's Silent Holocaust," Bibliotheca Sacra 139: 556 (1982): 342-354. David traces the origin of his sin with Bathsheba to his own conception: “Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps 51:5). The “iniquity” and “sin” referred to here are David’s.31 David is relating his sinfulness to the very inception of his life—before birth. This indicates that the moral law of God was already present and operative in David in his prenatal state. Since Scripture attributes moral guilt to David as an unborn child, a strong likelihood exists that he was human before birth.

[8] http://homepage.mac.com/francis.beckwith/bibsac.pdf A Critical Appraisal of the Theological Arguments for Abortion Rights. Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (July-September 1991): 337-355. Psalm 51:5 does clearly state that it was David who came into existence at conception. Second, even if this passage were claiming that the unborn are potential sinners, this would still imply that the unborn are actual human persons, since only actual persons can be potential sinners, just as only actual persons can be potential violinists, philosophers, basketball players, or deli managers. And third, the passage is not saying that David, as a zygote, performed a sin, but rather, that he was CONCEIVED A SINNER BY VIRTUE OF BEING ADAM’S DESCENDANT. That is to say, Adam’s sin nature is passed on to all who share his human nature. But this supports the pro-life position, for, as Geisler points out, “the very fact that humans are declared sinners from conception reveals that they are human, that is, part of the fallen human race. It is only by virtue of being part of the Adamic human race that we are conceived in sin (see Rom 5:12).”

[9] http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/sanctity.html Psalm 51:5 says, "Behold I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me." David is not suggesting that he was born as the result of a sinful relationship. What he is saying is that from the time he left his mother's womb, even from the moment he was conceived, he was a sinner. David, therefore, was not some amorphous blob of tissue at conception, but a spiritual being with a sin nature. Some may object that I am using a modern day definition of conception and applying it to a 3,500-year-old text. However, conception was recognized as the beginning of life. They understood that the seed of the man needed to be combined with the seed of the woman and out of that union, a new life was brought forth. While our technical knowledge may be more precise, the idea is still the same.

[10] http://www.apuritansmind.com/Apologetics/McMahonHumanBeingsAndAbortion.htm Psalm 51:5 states, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.” King David, in this psalm on penitence, first states that “I” was “brought forth.” The Hebrew word is chuwl in the Pulal, and is in the perfect mood or tense. Literally it refers to being “made” in iniquity, and is first person. David is speaking of himself – that “he” had a relationship with God, in sin, IMPUTED to him, AT THE MOMENT HE WAS CONCEIVED or shapened in the womb. In chet (sin) David was yacham (conceived). He had a relationship with God from the moment the egg was fertilized by the sperm. At that point, David can say “I” apart from both his father and his mother at the point of conception. David is not his mother at the moment he is conceived. From that point the comparison of numeric cells between David’s mother and David himself is irrelevant. David, at conception, is his own person – he is a human being.

[11] http://www.probe.org/content/view/1142/47/ The psalmist states that he was a spiritual being from the point of conception. This isn't saying that he sinned while in the womb, but that he recognizes that from the earliest part of life, he was a sinner.

[12] http://www.bmei.org/brmm/vol09no6.php The Bible is clear that individual human life begins at conception (Genesis 4:1, Psalm 51:5, Luke 1:31) and that it is a special work of God's design (Psalm 139:13-15). God even plans the creation of individuals and their life's work before they are born (Psalm 139:16-18, Jeremiah 1:5).

[13] http://www.l4l.org/library/falassum.html This means that if we are persons with the right to be free from aggression later in life, we are persons even at conception. http://www.l4l.org/library/someinfo.html As libertarians, LFL's interest in the abortion debate is in everyone's unalienable rights. LFL's reasoning is philosophical, not religious. Some LFL associates are religious; others, such as Gordon, are atheists.

[14] http://www.jewsforlife.org/Bonfire-News.cfm Between Two Holocausts, By Bonnie Chernin Rogoff, Founder, Jews For Life

[15] http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/earlychurchfathers/tertullian.html Priests for Life. Tertullian (c. 160 - 240)

[16] http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1973.htm But the idea of a delayed ensoulment did not start with Aquinas. Although the Aristotelian influence on Aquinas led him to entertain the 40-80 day waiting period, Platonic philosophy stemming from St. Augustine also seemed to lend credence to the idea.

[17] http://www.humanlifereview.com/2007_summer/Summer_2007_Review_Horne1.pdf Through all of human history it was always the human DNA that endowed

those who possessed it with their membership in the human species. 15 Human DNA is the component of each human that makes him or her a person, regardless of the many and varied definitions of when life begins.

[18] http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/2187.htm A confession by the principal author of the most infamous decision in this century, and perhaps after Dred Scott, ever, revealing that arbitrary choice -- not discernment of the law of the land -- accounts for the result in Roe. Law, legal history, constitutional allocations of power, all ignored. The abortion right derives not from background principles of common law; not in the first principles of our constitutional republic; not as a result of careful parsing of constitutional text. The application of lethal force to the innocent unborn can be found neither in the records of the drafting of the 14th amendment, nor the accounts of that amendment's ratification. The respect due the structural reservation of health, safety and moral questions to the states under the 10th amendment was forsaken as well.

[19] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058038/posts Ten Legal Reasons to Reject Roe.

[20] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2001/jan01/01-01-19.html Roe v. Wade is a settled case, but it is not settled law. In fact, no law has been passed that makes abortion legal in this country.

[21] http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/titus1-17-05.html Abortion Is NOT Legal!

[22] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.

[23] http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=442 Lincoln on Judicial Despotism, by Robert P. George, 2003 First Things (February 2003).

[24] http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=189 Thus, under my presidency, Roe v. Wade will not be enforced, and the member states of the Union could again open their criminal codes and begin the prosecution of the doctors and parents who would contract for the murder of an unborn child without fear of reprisal from the Chief Executive.

[25] http://media.peroutka2004.com/print/stw_butcher.pdf Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby

[26] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/the_first_100_ways.aspx The First 100 Ways Ending ‘Legal’ Abortions by Herbert W. Titus, J.D., January 21, 2003

[27] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed39.htm The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.

[28] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046068/posts the Framers believed that the true bulwark of liberty was limited government. Few students comprehend the crucial distinction between (on the one hand) the national government as one of delegated and enumerated powers, and (on the other) the states as governments of general jurisdiction, exercising police powers to protect public health, safety, and morals, and to advance the general welfare.

[29] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043615/posts Creation, The Declaration Of Independence, And The History Of "Unalienable Rights" Book Review

[30] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2041235/posts Government has no power, except that which we the people have delegated to government through the Constitution of the United States. If the question of constitutionality of a certain governmental action is at stake, it is not incumbent upon the citizen to say to the government, "Where in the Constitution does it say this can't be done? The responsibility is on the federal official to show where in the Constitution it says it can be done. Unless that power has been delegated to the federal government somewhere in the Constitution, the federal government does not have that power. The Bill of Rights is about individual rights, not state rights.

[31] http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=66440 According to a 2004 survey by the Center for Reproductive Rights, abortion could quickly become illegal -- either through the reanimation of now dormant laws or the rapid passage of new bans -- in as many as 30 states if the Supreme Court were to overturn Roe v. Wade ruling. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion Tuesday, October 05, 2004

[32] http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm

[33] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2048196/posts It is a common mistake to habitually interpret the entire Constitution through four words,[21] “due process” and “equal protection” in the obsolete Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.[22] No former slaves are alive; 2) the 13th Amendment prohibits reinstitution of slavery; 3) blacks who owned slaves were citizens of their respective states prior to the 14th Amendment.[23] : “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."[24] This sound exegetical principal applies to the 14th Amendment. 

[34] http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html First, the Fourteenth Amendment was unconstitutionally ratified. Second, the Due Process clause was never intended to "incorporate" the rights in the Bill of Rights. It simply makes no sense that it would have: the Bill of Rights, as noted above, was simply a safety measure to ensure that the federal government would not exceed its limited powers. The First Amendment itself says "Congress shall make no law…". How could a limitation on Congress’s power be applied to the states? Moreover, the Courts have had to resort to the ridiculous doctrine of "substantive due process," as distinct from "procedural due process." How can due process not be merely procedural? Third, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine that it spawned have eroded the vertical balance of powers between the states and the central government that was put originally in place so that the states would serve as checks on central tyranny.

[35] Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995 (2003) AND http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.,pubID.18112/pub_detail.asp

Constitutional law, in the sense of judicial decisions that are guided--at least in aspiration—by the text, structure, and logic of the written Constitution, is dead. It has been replaced, often as a matter of explicit doctrine, with subjective judicial impressions of popular sentiment or political utility.

[36] “We’re just babies making up a game, if you’re right. But [five] babies playing a game can make a play-world which licks your real world hollow.” --Puddleglum, in C.S. Lewis's Narnia book The Silver Chair.

[37] http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=1464 Five Judicial Myths. Talking Points About the Judiciary. Despite what we hear today . . .

[38]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042168/posts the Sanctity of Life Act (H.R. 2597) and the “We the People Act” (H.R. 300)

1http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0308/030812marc.php This is the “death in the city” of Francis Shaeffer, the “city of the dead “of Jan Marejko’s technocosmos, the “culture of death” of John Paul II. We are not here simply confronted by the immorality of man’s revolt against God’s commandments, nor by an amoral indifference to divine laws. But here we have to do with fixed disorder, the anti-natural structure of a homosexual society which is blindly hurtling towards God’s inescapable judgment.

2http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0186_ZC.html

3http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=59697

4http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987 After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Paperback)

1 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51345 The unalienable right to life in ventre sa mere "An infant in ventre sa mere, or in the mother's womb, is supposed in law to be born for many purposes." – Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Laws of England," Vol. I, p. 126 (1765)

 [1] http://www.peroutka2004.com/schedule/index.php?action=itemview&event_id=236 Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby August 01, 2004

 [2] http://www.amazon.com/Who-Chooses-American-Reproductive-History/dp/0813031990 In 1860, the American Medical Association launched a campaign to convince state legislatures to prohibit abortions. RESOLVED, That, while physicians have long been united in condemning the procuring of abortion at every period of gestation, except as necessary for preserving the life of either mother or child, it has become the duty of this Association, in view of the prevalence and increasing frequency of the crime publicly to enter an earnest and solemn protest against such unwarrantable destruction of human life. Source: Records of the Rhode Island Medical Society, Rhode Island Medical Society Library, Providence, Rhode Island http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=gestation&use1828=on Displaying 1 result(s) from the 1828 edition: GESTATION,n. [L. gestatio, from gero, to carry.] The act of carrying young in the womb from conception to delivery; pregnancy.

 [3] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1290860/posts KRAMER ENDS THE BOOK with a call for ordinary citizens to "lay claim to the Constitution ourselves." He suggests that we must censure judges rather than submissively yielding to whatever the Supreme Court decides. As for more concrete actions, Kramer does note that judges can be impeached, the Court's budget cut, and the Court's jurisdiction curtailed. But, unfortunately, he spends little time developing these themes. http://www.traditionalvalues.org/pdf_files/JudicialSupremacy.pdf The Founding Fathers never meant to give federal courts ultimate power. http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=1464 Five Judicial Myths : Talking Points About the Judiciary:Despite what we hear today . .

 [4] http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.”

 [5] http://www.fee.org/Publications/the-Freeman/article.asp?aid=1138 Judicial Monopoly Over the Constitution: Jeffersons View By Clarence B. Carson. Who, then, does decide constitutional questions? Let us leave to the side for the moment how they may be ultimately decided, so far as they ever are, in order to get to Jefferson’s intermediate answer. So far as the Federal government is concerned, each of the branches—and in the Congress, each of the houses—decides for itself in matters that come before them. “The constitution has,” Jefferson pointed out, “wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”[16] What I have been describing is a system of checks and balances, a system in which no branch has a monopoly of interpretation, in which any branch with a will can work to restrain the others. It is a system of limited government, limited toward the branch which most strictly construes the Constitution. Jefferson hoped that clashes between the branches over the Constitution could be avoided. To that end, he recommended that each branch refrain from approaching too near to the bounds of its powers. That would tend to limit government even more and give room for the liberty of the people, which he thought was the greater end of government.

 [6] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41802 The federal Department of Education was made a part of the president's Cabinet by new world order facilitator Jimmy Carter. Prior to that, America had the finest education system in the world. In 1980, Ronald Reagan promised that, if elected, he would get this unconstitutional department abolished. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html Cultural Marxism

 [2] http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2002/dec02/psrdec02.shtml The feminist movement has had an immense effect on American culture, laws, education and social relationships. A principal tenet of the doctrine of Political Correctness, feminism is the prevailing dogma on university campuses and in the book industry. The feminists are powerful enough in the media, in schools and colleges, and in politics and government to intimidate most of their opposition, especially men. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2005/11/feminist-trajectory.html I've noticed that feminists tend to follow a certain trajectory over time:18-27 - arrogant and angry 27-35 - confident, but increasingly concerned 36-45 - privately resigned, but publicly chipper 46-55 - brittle and desparate 56+ - openly sad but not always wiser

 [3] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

 [4] http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2006/spring/ “But certainly in the short term, or even in the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to (undergo) illegal and dangerous operations,” said John McCain as reported in the San Francisco Chronicle on August 20, 1999. He justifies abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest, a position requiring abortion remain legal. A Republican victory requires a committed, dedicated, pro-life, philosophical conservative standard-bearer, whose ideas strongly contrast with Hillary’s liberal/socialist world view. John McCain does not fit that description. http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2008/jan08/08-01-16.html John McCain supports abortion for babies conceived through rape or incest and is an outspoken supporter of embryonic stem cell research, having voted to extend federal funding for such experiments.

 [5] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962819/posts McCain is insane and there are many good reasons not to choose him, but I'll list just five: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, the Keating 5, and the Gang of 14. No thanks. McCain is out! http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts John McCain, you treasonous bastard, I challenge you or any of your traitorous cohorts... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994885/posts Attn McCain Apologists: Talk all you want! But he's still a constitution trampling RINO and unless he repeals McCain-Feingold, repudiates amnesty and global warming, drops all support for embryonic stem cell research and stops talking about partnering up with the Democrats and instead swears to fight the evil bastards he won't be getting my support

 [6] http://www.rnclife.org/about/ In addition, we will work to hold Republican lawmakers accountable to the pro-life principles in our platform. It is our desire to see those principles translated into public policy and law. Further, we encourage Republican Party officials to enthusiastically support pro-life candidates and policies consistent with our platform.

[7] http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm A return to a strictly Constitutional form of federal government will automatically repeal and abolish all unconstitutional federal involvement in states issues such as: crime, health, education, welfare and the environment. The Tenth Amendment will again be in effect, which will bar all federal attempts at legislating social issues. This will also require that social programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare be repealed. So too, will most federal subsidies.

 [8] 19th century theologian R. L. Dabney Reprinted in The Forecast, December 1996, p. 9).

 [9] http://stiffrightjab.com/about-2/

 [10] http://centerformoralliberalism.wordpress.com/about/ Present projects include Liberty Letters (quotes from America’s Founding Fathers with commentary from Center for Moral Liberalism, President, Steve Farrell, Out of the Best Books (featuring nearly daily readings from the Great Books of Western Civilization and a well organized, all in one place access point, to our selection of the best liberty books in the world), Stiff Right Alerts (daily legislative alerts from an array of political action groups - this project is now rolled in to Stiff Right Jab), Stiff Right Jab (daily political commentary from the most unique, principle centered, politically independent group of political commentators in the country.

[i] http://www.wallbuilders.com:80/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63 (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

 [2] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1962819/posts  January 31, 2008 | Jim Robinson

 [3] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts  March 22, 2006 11:58:42 PM by Jim Robinson

 [4] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994885/posts Monday, March 31, 2008 11:57:22 PM by Jim Robinson

 [5]  http://www.republicansforchoice.com/ We do support Rudy Giuliani's contention that given the folks left in the race after Rudy's withdrawal, McCain would be the best one for the Republican nomination.

 [6] http://www.rnclife.org/reports/2006/spring/ A Republican victory requires a committed, dedicated, pro-life, philosophical conservative standard-bearer, whose ideas strongly contrast with Hillary’s liberal/socialist world view. John McCain does not fit that description

 [7] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2008/jan08/08-01-16.html

 [2] http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BorkAbortion.php Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception.

 [3] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion, Tuesday, October 05, 2004.

 [4] Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78  Notre Dame L. Rev. 995 (2003).

 [5] http://www.covenantnews.com/russyoung060125.htm  Abortion Has Killed Millions More Than War

 [6] http://www.freerepublic.com/~cpforlifeorg/

 [7] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/the_first_100_ways.aspx In many states, statutes prohibiting abortion remain unrepealed and available to local prosecutors to bring criminal actions against abortion providers. While such laws may very well provide for an exception to protect the life of the mother, they afford statutory authority to a prosecutor who takes seriously his duty to “support” the Constitution’s high regard for the right to life.The problem today is that state prosecutors assume that their duty to support the Constitution means obedience to Supreme Court opinions, even when they were never parties to the cases. Rightfully understood, their duty is to interpose their office between Roe v. Wade, a constitutionally erroneous opinion, and the people whose rights they are duty bound to protect.

  [8] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/the_first_100_ways.aspx Since Roe v. Wade, pro-life strategies have been based upon the premise that the Supreme Court’s opinion in that case is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, short of a constitutional amendment or Court reversal, it has been assumed that federal, state, and local officials - executive, legislative, and judicial - must conform their actions concerning abortion to rules handed down by the courts. This working premise is erroneous. It is both unwise and unconstitutional.

 [9] http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr5.html The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual.

 [10] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042168/posts What Congress Can Do for This American.

 [11] http://hnn.us/articles/29235.html John Cooke and the King’s judges were tyrannicides, who pushed England to where logic (“right reason”) led, where law (Magna Carta) pointed and where God (the first book of Samuel) approved. It was a point that no other nation at the time or for another century would reach: a proto-democratic republic with constitutional safeguards for civil liberties.

 [12] http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/7_1_1950.pdf Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. 1950

 [13] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872 Lies and fraud of Roe v. Wade. Posted: January 22, 2007. In "The Marketing of Evil," I explain many sophisticated and powerful manipulation techniques used to market evil. But when it comes to abortion, one technique shoots right to the top of the list: It's called lying. To make killing little unborn babies sound good, you have to lie about it.

  [14] http://www.humanlifereview.com/2001_spring/mckenna_s2001.php Why They Help Them Lie

 [15] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2001/jan01/01-01-19.html Many respected legal authorities think that, like the Dred Scott decision and others, Roe v. Wade is a settled case, but it is not settled law. In fact, no law has been passed that makes abortion legal in this country.

 [16] http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html

 [17] http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/1787%20Soceity%20Website/site_flash/1787.pdf

 [18] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/696464/posts God's Justice and Ours [Antonin Scalia on capital punishment] First Things ^ | 5/02 | Antonin Scalia Posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 4:08:47 PM by Caleb1411

 [19] http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ----Lord Acton. Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.----This Web Site

[20] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-830P.ZD1 I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child— one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child— proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion. Today’s decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by a firestorm of criticism— as well it should. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people— where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it— and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.

 [21] http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/052405_graglia.html The essential irrelevance of the Constitution to contemporary constitutional law should be clear enough from the fact that the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law; and nearly all of them purport to be based on a single constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment -- in fact, on only four words in one sentence of the Amendment, "due process" and "equal protection." The 14th Amendment has to a large extent become a second constitution, replacing the original.

[22] http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/berger_fourteenth_am_bill.pdf  The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (1989).

 [23] http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/Curtis.asp At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free nativeborn inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established. http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/23000/article/23018 Black Americans continued to hold slaves through the Civil War. In 1860, some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves. In South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 blacks were owned by black slaveholders. [See also "Black Slaveowners."] Born a slave in 1790, William Ellison owned 63 slaves by 1860, making him one of Charleston's leading slaveholders. In the 1850 census for Charleston City, the port of Charleston, there were 68 black men and 123 black women who owned slaves. In Louisiana's St. Landry Parish, according to the 1860 census, black planter Auguste Donatto owned 70 slaves and farmed 500 acres of cotton fields. Black slaveholders were the exception to the rule, but so, too, were white ones. Only a small minority of Southern whites owned slaves, little more than five percent of the white population if calculated by individual owner, or some 20 to 25 percent if all the members of the slaveowners' families are included. This means that 75 percent or more of Southerners neither owned slaves themselves nor were members of families who did. -- Roger D. McGrath, in "Slavery's Inconvenient Facts," Chronicles magazine, November 2001.

[24] http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm

[25] http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/curtis_no-state.pdf

[26] http://www.constitution.org/col/np/aas/050710_gra-lev.htm Because most of the Supreme Court's activist rulings of unconstitutionality purport to be based on a 14th Amendment that it has deprived of specific meaning, the problem can be very largely solved by simply restoring the 14th Amendment to its original meaning, or by giving it any specific meaning. The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to provide a national guarantee of basic civil rights to blacks. If a constitutional amendment could be adopted reconfining the 14th Amendment to that purpose or, better still, expanding it to a general prohibition of all official racial discrimination, the court's freehand remaking of domestic social policy for the nation would largely come to an end. If the justices lost the ability to invalidate state law on the basis of their political preferences, their ability and willingness to invalidate federal law on this basis would likely also diminish.

[27] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0391_0145_ZD.html I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States. [n2] They were wont to believe rather that the security of liberty in America rested primarily upon the dispersion of governmental power across a federal system. [n3] The Bill of Rights was considered unnecessary by some, [n4] but insisted upon by others in order to curb the possibility of abuse of power by the strong central government they were creating. [n5] The Civil War Amendments dramatically altered the relation of the Federal Government to the States.. In my view, often expressed elsewhere, [n8] the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant neither to incorporate, nor to be limited to, the specific guarantees of the first eight Amendments. The overwhelming historical evidence marshalled by Professor Fairman demonstrates, to me conclusively, that the Congressmen and state legislators who wrote, debated, and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not think they were "incorporating" the Bill of Rights [n9] and [p175] the very breadth and generality of the Amendment's provisions suggest that its authors did not suppose that the Nation would always be limited to mid-19th century conceptions of "liberty" and "due process of law," but that the increasing experience and evolving conscience of the American people would add new "intermediate premises." In short, neither history nor sense supports using the Fourteenth Amendment to put the States in a [p176] constitutional straitjacket with respect to their own development in the administration of criminal or civil law.

  [28] http://www.extremeink.com/appendix.htm How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing: A History of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, Why It's a Problem, and How to Fix It By Susan Shelley.  

[29] http://www.covenantnews.com/davidnew050209.htm  It should be obvious that there is a strong link between judicial activism and the Fourteenth Amendment. When conservatives complain about judicial activism in the courts, in many cases they are really talking about the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has become a 'wild card' at the courthouse. For example, to date, the Supreme Court has never said that there is a Fifth Amendment right to an abortion! The way the Court interprets the word "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment is a hopeless contradiction. There can be no question that the Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment for political purposes. The Fifth Amendment proves that the Supreme Court is engaging in judicial activism.

 [30] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger

[31] http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5101 Nihilism and the End of Law, Phillip E. Johnson.  1993 First Things (March 1993).

 [32] http://www.ccomcor.org/republic_v_democracy_Titus.pdf In Federalist numbers 10, 14, and 48, Madison insisted that the new Constitution established a republic, not a democracy, emphasizing in Federalist No. 10 that a “Republican” form of government protected the people from the dangers of tyranny of the majority. although the state constitutions affirm that all power is inherent in the people, they did not establish state governments to obey the will of the people, but to ensure that all individuals enjoy their pre-existing rights of life, liberty, and property with which they have been naturally endowed. It is certainly arguable that some states have approved some democratic procedures that depart from the pure republican form. For example, the initiative and referendum, whereby the people of some states, by constitutional amendment, have reserved to themselves the power to propose and enact laws independently of the legislative assembly, as well as to approve or reject any act of that body, thereby making it possible for public policy to be made directly by a majority without the political accountability of a representative assembly. (See Federalist No. 10.) Such powers are, however, limited by law to “single subjects” and to legislative and executive implementation. To date, no state has substituted a system of direct democracy in which the people “assemble and administer the Government in person.” (Federalist 10)

 [33] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/rule_of_law/edward_coke_and_righteous_inte.aspx Because of Coke’s uncompromising, unrepentant stance against unconstitutional judicial tyranny, the rule of right was officially recognized as the rule of law. Since the days of Sir Edward Coke, the legislative body of England has been recognized as holding an essential constitutional check against excessive executive and judicial power, a check that was later written into Article III of our own Constitution of the United States of America (1787).

[34] http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm Jefferson, concerned about the future, wrote: "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction." "They" that he refers to are " we." And the future is now. Freedom, Jefferson knew, would produce "plenty," and with "material abundance" it's easy to forget the responsibility the citizens of a free society must assume if freedom and prosperity are to continue. The key element for the Republic's survival for Jefferson was the "character" of the people, something no set of laws can instill. The question today is not that of abundance, but of character, respect for others, their liberty and their property. It is the character of the people that determines the proper role for government in a free society. Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to "good manners" as the vital ingredient a free society needs to survive. Adams said: "Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." The message is clear, if we lose our love of liberty and our manners become corrupt, character is lost and so is the Republic. But character is determined by free will and personal choice by each of us individually. Character can be restored or cast aside at a whim. The choice is ours alone and our leaders should show the way.

  [35] http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.

[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZS.html

[2] http://www.constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm In modern jurisprudence, however, it has come to take on a life of its own, with all precedents being presumed to be well-founded, unbiased legal decisions, rather than political decisions, and presumed to have both the authority of the constitutional enactments on which they are based, plus that of the precedents on which they are based, so that later precedents are presumed to be more authoritative than earlier ones.

[3] http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~hwatson/sources.html The point is, there are occasions when old precedent is not only non-binding, but to follow it would be stupid, illegal and unconstitutional, and just plain un-Godly.  With all that banters about regarding the strict following of the decisions of the higher courts coming from both the left and the right, aren’t you suspicious that you are are not getting the whole story on Stare Decisis?

[4] http://www.catostore.org/index.asp?fa=ProductDetails&method=cats&scid=15&pid=144966 Central to the history of trial by jury is the right of jurors to vote "not guilty" if the law is unjust or unjustly applied. When jurors acquit a factually guilty defendant, we say that the jury "nullified" the law. The Founding Fathers believed that juries in criminal trials had a role to play as the "conscience of the community," and relied on juries' "nullifying" to hold the government to the principles of the Constitution. Yet over the last century and a half, this power of jurors has been derided and ignored by American courts, to the point that today few jurors are aware that an important part of their role is, in the words of the Supreme Court, to "prevent oppression by the government." Published by Carolina Academic Press.

1 http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?page=ho0003 As Professor Greenberg, who betrays no inclination toward religious belief writes, "When the word toevah ("abomination") does appear in the Hebrew Bible, it is sometimes applied to idolatry, cult prostitution, magic, or divination, and is sometimes used more generally. It always conveys great repugnance" (emphasis added). Moreover, the Bible lists homosexuality together with child sacrifice among the "abominations" practiced by the peoples living in the land about to be conquered by the Jews. The two are certainly not morally equatable, but they both characterized a morally primitive world that Judaism set out to destroy. They both characterized a way of life opposite to the one that God demanded of Jews (and even of non-Jew --- homosexuality is among the sexual offenses that constitute one of the "seven laws of the children of Noah" that Judaism holds all people must observe). Finally, the Bible adds a unique threat to the Jews if they engage in homosexuality and the other offenses of the Canaanites: "You will be vomited out of the land" just as the non-Jews who practise these things were vomited out of the land. Again, as Greenberg notes, this threat "suggests that the offenses were considered serious indeed."

2 http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/An-Assessment-of-Pagan-Sexual-Morality Paul writing to Christians in first century Corinth was writing to young believers just saved out of paganism, and they were all too familiar with the belief system that supported pagan sexual morality. Corinth was dedicated to the worship of Aphrodite the goddess of sex, and men of the city patronized prostitutes who served in the temple of Aphrodite believing they were uniting with the goddess herself and directing her power in their favor when they did so. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=790 One of the common characteristics of a cult is a distortion (in one way or another) of sexual morality. For some, it is the denial of any sexual pleasure, while for others it is the indulgence in all sorts of sexual encounters. http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/363/ It thus became one of the most dominant cultural centers of its day: materially prosperous, intellectually alert, and morally corrupt. Even in the pagan world the city was known for its moral corruption. ("Corinth" came to imply licentiousness; korinthiazesthai, "Corinthianize," meant to live in debauchery.) It was Hollywood, Las Vegas, and New York all rolled into one. As the "worldly church," Corinth certainly becomes increasingly relevant to us in our own day of materialism, moral decay, and church controversies.

3 http://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/JBL1233.pdf the Pozo Moro relief is not limited to connections with the feasts of Thyestes, Tereus, and Harpagus. It may touch on other aspects of Greek legend as well. With its depiction of a bullheaded creature wielding a sacrificial knife, it appears to be related also to the legend of the Minotaur, which recalls bull-masked priests who slaughtered young children in sacrificial ritual. http://www.tecmalta.org/tft301.htm Evidently child sacrifice was practised in various ancient cultures and even in more recent cultures. Archaeologists, among them Stager and Wolff, have convincingly demonstrated that child sacrifice was practised in Phoenician Carthage. At the sanctuary called Tophet, children were sacrificed to the goddess Tanit and her consort Baal Hammon. A pillar, half a metre high, with upraised hands and a disk and crescent has been discovered at Hazor in northern Israel. These symbols seem to indicate the same deities found in Carthage. http://timothyministries.org/theologicalDictionary/references.aspx?theword=Carthage Carthage under the Phoenicians was notorious to its neighbors for child sacrifice. Plutarch (c. 46–120) mentions the practice, as do Tertullian, Orosius and Diodorus Siculus. Livy and Polybius do not. The Hebrew Bible also mentions child sacrifice practiced by the Caananites, ancestors of the Carthaginians, and by some Israelites. According to Diodorus Siculus, "There was in their city a bronze image of Cronus extending its hands, palms up and sloping toward the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire."

4 http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/october_2000_5.html Allen Ginsberg, a member of the North American Man/Boy Love Association, took "off his clothes at every opportunity" and once warned America, "We will get you through your children." Upon his death, an assortment of Ginsberg’s belongings (including old sneakers and smoked marijuana joints) were purchased for more than $1 million by Stanford University. Shouting dirty words and stream of consciousness prose passed for literature among the beats. Anyone who didn’t like their work, their familiar refrain went, just didn’t appreciate "art."

5 Federalism: Reconciling National Values with States' Rights and Local Control in the 21st Century, American Bar Association Symposium, Spring of 2001,

6 http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=63 (Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

7 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/veto/ajveto01.htm The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. http://www.law.northwestern.edu/mainpages/curriculum/colloquium/Michael%20Paulsen.pdf It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the executive

department to say what the law is. Those who apply the law to particular instances — and execution of the law is a quintessential example of applying the law to particular cases — must of necessity expound and interpret the law in the course of performing such duties.57 The President applies the law. The Constitution is a rule for the governance of the President (and his subordinates58), as well as for the courts and for Congress. Indeed, as noted, that instrument commands the President to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed.”59 The laws of the nation include its Constitution, which is listed first in Article VI’s description of the “supreme law of the Land.” As Marbury correctly holds, the Constitution is the “paramount law of the nation,” and is thus of superior obligation to other sources of law, like statutes and even judgments of the courts. The President is specifically assigned the sworn duty to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It follows that, in carrying out his executive duties as President, the President must give effect to the Constitution in preference to a statute, or judicial decree, in cases where they conflict. http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=442 Lincoln on Judicial Despotism, by Robert P. George, 2003 First Things (February 2003). In office, Lincoln gave effect to his position against judicial supremacy by consistently refusing to treat the Dred Scott decision as creating a rule of law binding on the executive branch. His administration issued passports and other documents to free blacks, thus treating them as citizens of the United States despite the Court’s denial of their status as citizens. He signed legislation that plainly placed restrictions on slavery in the western territories in defiance of Taney’s ruling. For his critics, these actions, combined particularly with his suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, revealed him to be a lawless and tyrannical ruler, one who had no regard for the constitutional limits of his own power. But none can say that he had not made his opposition to judicial supremacy clear before assuming office.

8 http://www.ccomcor.org/Judges%20and%20Impeachment.pdf So any judge that persists in office to claim that he has the authority to make law is violating the standard of good behavior under the Constitution of the United States and therefore, is subject to forfeiture of office under the Common Law procedure of a civil action for the forfeiture of office. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/794205/posts Clearly, Marshall believed that Justices could be removed for rendering opinions that Congress considered to be unconstitutional. Marshall held this opinion, despite Jefferson's political witch-hunt and Marshall's fear that he was also likely to be a target. http://www.lsb.state.ok.us/house/news6358.html Prof. James McClellan, referring to liberal Justices, said, “We call them Justices; the Founders would have called them tyrants.” The real problem is not a defective Constitution, but tyrannical judges.

9 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042168/posts What Congress Can Do for This American

10 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods44.html In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to "interpose" between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term "nullification" – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws. http://ohioabortionban.com/commentary/standingbetween What does the Tenth Amendment mean if not that a State can interpose itself as a legitimate determiner of the Constitution to which it is a consenting party? Once a contract is formed, both parties have the right to ensure the proper enforcement of the terms of the contract and are not bound by the illegitimate breaches of that contract, absent a waiver. Is a Supreme Court decision "law of the land?" The delegates to the Constitutional Convention limited the "Supreme Laws of the Land" to the Constitution first and subsequent "Laws of the United States made in Pursuance thereof," Art. VI, § 2. Court orders are conspicuously absent from the Supremacy Clause. If "all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void," Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1801) at 176-177, how much more so judicial orders? The "judiciary of the United States are not the masters of the Constitution but merely its interpreters. Pro-lifers like to make a comparison between the Dred Scott decision and Roe v. Wade to demonstrate the fallibility of the Supreme Court. Why not use the same tactics to overcome the pernicious Roe decision as did 22 states after Dred Scott? Wisconsin "denounced the Supreme Court for 'assumption of power' and declared 'that the several States have the unquestionable right' to exercise 'positive defiance' in behalf of their interpretation of the powers reserved to the States by the Constitution."[25]

11 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1601416/posts You can take your fascist campaign finance laws and the jackbooted FEC anti-free-speech enforcers you are empowering and put them where the sun don't shine. And if this post is in violation of your unconstitutional law, shove it too! John McCain, you treasonous bastard, I challenge you or any of your traitorous cohorts...Posted on Wednesday, March 22, 2006 11:58:42 PM by Jim Robinson

12 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994885/posts Attn McCain Apologists: Talk all you want! | 03/31/2008 | Jim Robinson

 {1}http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html A nontheistic and nonreligious opposition to the life-denying horror of abortion. I'm James Matthew (Matt) Wallace, aka The Compleat Heretic. I'm both a Secular Humanist atheist and a pro-life advocate. All too often, I fear that I'm the only nonreligious person who opposes the genocide of abortion used as a birth control substitute.

{2}  http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/wallace2.html

{3} http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1150&context=uvalwps I conclude that a more robust interpretation of the Rule is one which is advanced by some natural law philosophers and which offers a philosophical justification for the proposition that doing to others as one would have done to oneself is necessarily a case of doing good towards others. The article ends with some reflections on the implications this version of Golden Rule reasoning for legal policy-making, and in particular for the abortion debate. Luke 6: 32-5: ‘If you love only those who love you…. If you do good only to those who do good to you…. And if you lend only where you expect to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners’ do these things. ‘[Y]ou must love your enemies and do good; and lend without expecting any return’. Samuel Clarke’s Rule of Equity: ‘[w]hatever I judge reasonable or unreasonable, that another should do for me, that by the same judgment I declare reasonable or unreasonable, that I in the like case should do for him’. Clarke’s formulation is important not only because it makes explicit something that we have observed is implicit in the Golden Rule – that we are to treat others as we would have them treat us in similar instances (instances which, though they may differ on their facts, demand from the agent a similar attitude or disposition) – but also because it suggests that the Rule requires us to do to others the good that we would have them do to us (and to avoid doing to them the harm that we would have them avoid doing to us). That this is what Clarke understands reasonableness to mean is absolutely clear: ‘that which is good is fit and reasonable, and that which is evil is unreasonable to be done’.102 The Nazi who desires that all Jews be exterminated might just discover that he is a Jew. By universalizing his moral judgement in this instance, he reveals his extreme fanaticism: as Hare puts it, ‘nobody but a madman would hold’ that, on this discovery, they too should be sent to the gas chambers. Yet, Hare concedes such fanatics may well exist, and ‘golden-rule arguments seem powerless’against them….Most people – leave aside the genuine fanatic – are prevented from accepting certain moral judgements because those judgements entail logical consequences which they cannot accept. Unless we are prepared to disregard anyone’s desires, even our own, we are compelled to give weight to the desires of our neighbours. I have argued already that following the Golden Rule is distinguishable from good samaritanism. A separate question is whether the Golden Rule compels good samaritanism when a potential recipient is in need. Academic lawyers sometimes express dismay over the absence from the common law of a general duty to rescue.212 In civilian systems, such a duty is often set down in the national penal code. But the common law limits the duty to special relationships (parents to children, police officers to the public, and so on). It is difficult to say why this should be the case. =========Golden Rule is itself proof of that there are universally valid natural laws because it is by following the Rule that we grasp that justice requires: 1) respect for fellow citizens and their property; 2) ‘treatment of equals equally and unequals unequally’;258 and 3) ‘[a] shared language’ which, ‘combined with the gift of imagination [Vorstellungsgabe]’, enables us ‘to put ourselves in another’s place.’259 The problem with this argument is that, as we know from the ground covered already in this study, ‘treat others as you would have them treat you’ does not – certainly absent serious philosophical elaboration – serve as a principle for distinguishing between morally right and wrong action. Whereas post-Kantian defenders of the Golden Rule have generally tried to show that there is no necessary connection between our following the Rule and our particular tastes and preferences, Augustine was of the view that there is a connection but that we must distinguish the will, i.e., the open-ended (never fully realized) pursuit of the good,263 from cupidity, i.e., inordinate and unreasonable desire. A former colleague of Dworkin’s is very clearly committed to the premiss. If one accepts that abortion is deliberately killing the unborn, John Finnis argues, and that deliberate killing is wrong, then abortion is a denial of the unborn’s right to the equal protection of the laws against homicide.305 The unborn are others, and since the Golden Rule requires that we treat others as we would have them treat us, the unborn should have the same right not to be intentionally and unjustly killed as the rest of us.

{4} http://www.universalmoralcode.com/code.html The Universal Moral Code was created by Kent M. Keith in 2003 while writing a book about morality and ethics. Dr. Keith believes that there is remarkable agreement around the world regarding basic moral principles. The Universal Moral Code is a list of these basic principles regarding how we should live and how we should treat each other. Following these principles can provide each of us with the meaning that comes from living our values and doing what's right.

{5} http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html

[1] http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual.  But, if we look further, we see that this proposition is not logical.  In fact, it is self refuting. http://www.probe.org/worldview--philosophy/truth-decay.html Postmodernism is built upon the belief that truth doesn’t exist except as the individual wants it to exist. Not only is this used in English classes on high school and college campuses, it is being applied to biblical interpretation. http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5662 There is no truth," there must be at least 14 things that are true before you can even make the statement. They must, in fact, be necessarily true, given the statement itself. When I say necessarily true, I mean there's no way they can be false, given the statement, "There is no truth," uttered in English. If there's such a statement uttered in English, then all these other things must be true. It's impossible for them not to be true. http://www.leaderu.com/aip/docs/geuras.html [Postmodernism] affirms that whatever we accept as truth and even the way we envision truth are dependent on the community in which we participate . . . There is no absolute truth: rather truth is relative to the community in which we participate.

 [2] http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idisnotcreationism.htm I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God."

 [3] http://www.apologeticspress.org:80/articles/123 The “image of God” simply means that MAN REFLECTS HIS CREATOR IN THOSE CAPACITIES AND CAPABILITIES WHICH SEPARATE HIM FROM THE REST OF THE CREATION.

 [4] http://www.icr.org/radio/view/63/ Animal Rights and Evolution http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_3_urbanities-animal.html Properly understood, the concept of a right—and the attendant ideas of duty, responsibility, law, and obedience—enshrines what is distinctive in the human condition. To spread the concept beyond our species is to jeopardize our dignity as moral beings, who live in judgment of one another and of themselves. Meanwhile, Princeton University's Center for the Study of Human Values has appointed the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, author of the seminal Animal Liberation (1975), to a prestigious chair, causing widespread disgust on account of Singer's vociferous support for euthanasia. (Defenders of animal rights not infrequently also advocate the killing of useless humans.) Singer's works, remarkably for a philosophy professor, contain little or no philosophical argument. http://www.icr.org/article/432/ For three decades, Holmes brought his distinctively Darwinian bias to the Court. He spoke candidly: "I see no reason for attributing to man a significance different in kind from that which belongs to a baboon or a grain of sand." http://74.255.56.30/blog/?p=72 So what would be Dershowitz’s substitute for the God-language of the Declaration and countless other official government documents that mention God and Jesus Christ? For Dershowitz, Nature is our god.

 [5] http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=805 Thomas Jefferson, reputedly a deist, but nevertheless a believer in God and special creation. Some of his testimonies are actually inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial, in Washington, D.C. For example: Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion . . . .

 [6]http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/vol20no3/Sandoz_Republicanism.pdf  Indicative is the fact that Congress declared at least sixteen national days of prayer, humiliation, and thanksgiving between 1776 and 1783; and Presidents Washington and Adams continued the practice under the Constitution. The onset of the so-called Second Great Awakening conventionally is dated from around 1790, but in fact it seems to have begun earlier. New Side and New Light evangelism stirring personal spiritual experience continued throughout the period, and the political sermons often were extraordinary in power and substance. Religious services were routinely held in the newly completed Capitol itself in Washington, in the House and Senate chambers as these became available. President Thomas Jefferson and his cabinet attended, along with the members of Congress and their families, inaugurating a practice that continued until after the Civil War. http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/vol20no3/Berman_ReligionandLiberty.pdf  Of the roughly 3200 religious congregations that existed in the thirteen English colonies of North America in 1776, roughly two-thirds were either Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Baptist, or Quaker; German and Dutch Protestant congregations constituted about fifteen percent, and Anglican congregations constituted another fifteen percent. Fifty-six of the roughly 3200 congregations were Roman Catholic and five were Jewish. Thus, in 1776 and later, Protestant Christianity predominated, but there was a wide pluralism within it, and Catholicism and Judaism were tolerated. In several of the seceding colonies a particular Protestant denomination was “established” with substantial political and financial prerogatives—for example, in Massachusetts the Congregational church—but even in those colonies other denominations were permitted to exist, and by the mid-1830s establishment of a particular denomination no longer existed in any state of the Union.

[7] http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/influences.html Source: Donald S. Lutz, "The Relative Importance of European Writers on Late Eighteenth Century American Political Thought," American Political Science Review 189 (1984), 189-97.

 [8] http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/state.html  & http://www.nd.edu/~dnordin/Pages/works/papers/Junior%20Year/American%20Founding.htm Mr. Lutz summarizes the political reality of the Puritan-Judaic parallel in these words:In almost every significant detail the church covenants written in early colonial America resemble Jewish covenants . . .the radical Protestant return to biblical sources for ordering their lives led to their becoming, to a far greater extent than they realized, precisely what they saw themselves as metaphorically--a modern version of the Jewish people.[33]

[9] http://www.belcherfoundation.org/wallace_v_jaffree_dissent.htm UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUSTICE REHNQUIST'S DISSENT IN WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)

 [10] http://www.otago.ac.nz/chaplain/resour/DJCMCLG.pdf Moses was born in Egypt about 3,500 years ago, at a time when the Hebrew people were enslaved and oppressed. After the Exodus he ascended Mt. Sinai and God gave him the Torah to deliver to the Children of Israel. Jews, Christians and Muslims all revere him as a prophet. The Torah is the Law that was revealed by God at Mt. Sinai. The term usually refers to what Christians call the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible). In Jewish literature and worship the word is sometimes used to denote certain other things but one cannot go wrong in applying it solely to these books. The Torah, written in Hebrew and on a single Scroll, is read in Jewish synagogues and is central to Jewish faith and practice. http://www.answering-islam.org/Intro/replacing.html The footnote in the King Fahd edition of the Qur’an reads as follows: There exists in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), even after the original text has been distorted, clear prophecies indicating the coming of Prophet Muhammad, e.g. Deut 18:18; 21:21…. http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1999ii/J23-99b.htm In Paul’s interpretation of Deuteronomy, Christ is God’s present revealed truth given to all people in the gospel. Justification through faith in the heart and divine help for obedience to Christ (sanctification) are readily available to all, not just the Jew. Gentiles too can believe in the Lord Jesus and call on Him for help of all kinds. After all, Christ is rich to all that call on Him for deliverance. But first, one must believe in Him before he can call on Him.

 [11] http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=904 The American Revolution is the best place to begin the exploration, because the American Revolution was the first modern, democratic revolution. If it can be demonstrated that the American revolutionaries turned to the Hebrew Bible - to the Torah - for inspiration and guidance, then this would indicate that the commonly held view about the conflict between Judaism and democracy might be mistaken. Why did Franklin and Jefferson see the American emancipation from England in light of the emancipation of the nation of Israel from Egypt? And where did Franklin get the strange notion that, “Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God?” All laws must be justified before God's Law, and one can refuse to comply with man-made law upon the grounds that God's Law is superior.

 [12]http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LAL/is_1_32/ai_94331932/print?tag=artBody;col1 Covenants and criticism: Deuteronomy and the American founding. Biblical Theology Bulletin, Spring, 2002. In short, the biblical text upon which the American founders relied for their constitutionalism would have been vastly different without the hand of the Deuteronomist. http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/oct03nl.html "It very quickly became apparent where the focus of interest was concentrated in the minds of the Founding Fathers. Of the thousands of citations quoted to support their ideas, 34% came from one source -- the Bible. Most of these were from the book of Deuteronomy which is the Book of God's Law. In 1639, the first written Constitution in America was prepared for Connecticut by Rev. Thomas Hooker and his friends. It was based on the first chapter of Deuteronomy. Later, the settlers of Rhode Island copied it for their own constitution. http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2068&Itemid=27 These volumes provide a selection of seventy-six essays, pamphlets, speeches, and letters to newspapers written between 1760 and 1805 by American political and religious leaders. Many are obscure pieces that were previously available only in larger research libraries. But all illuminate the founding of the American republic and are essential reading for students and teachers of American political thought.

. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45486 The most quoted source was not Locke, not Montesquieu, not Voltaire, but the Bible – specifically the book of Deuteronomy. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2068&chapter=156128&layout=html&Itemid=27 Anyone attempting to read comprehensively the newspapers published in America between 1760 and 1805 runs into several problems. An estimated four thousand political essays and letters were examined in the newspapers from the era. Because it was the practice in even the most sophisticated publications to reprint pieces from papers in other colonies, in some instances a political essay was encountered four or five times in various newspapers, from South Carolina to New Hampshire. In the list below, those newspapers that were consulted comprehensively for the period 1760-1805 are marked with an asterisk. The rest are listed to show which major papers were not so examined, and to help provide a reasonably complete list of newspapers for the period.

 [13] http://www.thruthebible.org/atf/cf/%7BFEA5B386-48F1-4797-9023-5F77EED319B7%7D/Deuteronomy.pdf  These notes, prepared by J. Vernon McGee, are for the purpose of giving assistance to the listeners of the THRU THE BIBLE RADIO program.

 [14] http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1402 Israel’s Covenant Renewal

 [15] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration.html & http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_history.html The committee consisted of two New England men, John Adams of Massachusetts and Roger Sherman of Connecticut; two men from the Middle Colonies, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and Robert R. Livingston of New York; and one southerner, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. In 1823 Jefferson wrote that the other members of the committee "unanimously pressed on myself alone to undertake the draught [sic]. I consented; I drew it; but before I reported it to the committee I communicated it separately to Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams requesting their corrections. . . I then wrote a fair copy, reported it to the committee, and from them, unaltered to the Congress." (If Jefferson did make a "fair copy," incorporating the changes made by Franklin and Adams, it has not been preserved. It may have been the copy that was amended by the Congress and used for printing, but in any case, it has not survived. Jefferson's rough draft, however, with changes made by Franklin and Adams, as well as Jefferson's own notes of changes by the Congress, is housed at the Library of Congress.) Jefferson's account reflects three stages in the life of the Declaration: the document originally written by Jefferson; the changes to that document made by Franklin and Adams, resulting in the version that was submitted by the Committee of Five to the Congress; and the version that was eventually adopted.

 [16] http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776. http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/vol20no3/Hassell_Evolution.pdf Virginia’s first constitution and Declaration of Rights served as models for the Federal Constitution and the Federal Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of Virginia, which predates the United States Supreme Court, served as a model for that Court. During discussions about the judiciary, United States Chief Justice John Marshall noted: “[T]he greatest curse an angry heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and a sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent judiciary. Will you call down this curse on Virginia?”42

 [17] http://home.wi.rr.com/rickgardiner/primarysources.htm

 [18] http://www.icr.org/article/218/ Foundation of Christology. http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=5438 The Preincarnate Son of God. http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/sonship/sonsh06.htm An examination of the Scriptural evidence  showing that the Second Person of the Trinity existed as the Son prior to the incarnation, yes, even in eternity past! http://www.valleybible.net/Adults/ClassNotes/TheologySurvey/Christ/PreincarnateChrist.pdf Positively Stated: In His essential being Jesus Christ never began to be; He existed from eternity as the Second Person of the Triune Godhead. Negatively Stated: In His essential being, Jesus Christ did not begin to exist when He was conceived in the womb of His mother, Mary. Practically Stated: The Second Person of the Triune Godhead made a conscious and gracious decision to lay aside the glories and reputation of deity to take upon Himself the nature of man and the form of a servant (Philippians 2:5-11). http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume3/theoph.htm I think it is abundantly clear from scripture that the theophanies of the Old Testament are clearly the preincarnate Christ. It is, in my opinion, the only satisfactory conclusion we can make given the evidence. http://www.answering-islam.org/Who/theos.html This Fourth Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends (20:28), and the Prologue to this Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends (1:18), with an unambiguous assertion of the deity of Christ: "The Word was God" (1:1); "the only Son, who is God" (1:18); "my Lord and my God!" (20:28).[18] In his preincarnate state (1:1), in his incarnate state (1:18), and in his postresurrection state (20:28), Jesus is God. For John, recognition of Christ's deity is the hallmark of the Christian. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5867 Protestants bring all doctrinal statements, even Conciliar creeds, before the bar of Scripture. In this case one has to say honestly that nothing in Scripture warrants us in thinking that God the Son is begotten of the Father in His divine, rather than in merely His human, nature. The vast majority of contemporary New Testament scholars recognize that even if the word traditionally translated “only-begotten” (monogenes) carries a connotation of derivation when used in familial contexts--as opposed to meaning merely “unique” or “one of a kind” as many scholars maintain--nevertheless the biblical references to Christ as monogenes (John 1.1, 14, 18; cf. Revelation 9.13)do not contemplate some pre-creation or eternal procession of the divine Son from the Father, but have to do with the historical Jesus’ being God’s special Son (Matthew 1.21-23; Luke 1-35; John 1.14, 34; Galalatians 4.4; Hebrews 1.5-6). I John 5.18 does refer to Jesus as ho gennetheis ek tou theou (the one begotten of God), which is the crucial expression, but there is no suggestion that this begetting is eternal or has to do with his divine nature. Rather, Christ’s status of being the Only-Begotten has less to do with the Trinity than with the Incarnation. http://www.wscal.edu/clark/splendor.php A second strand of Trinitarian revelation in the Old Testament is the revelation of the Son in the history of redemption in the person of the Angel of the Lord (Malak Yahweh). When the Angel of the Lord appeared he was treated not as a mere heavenly representative of God, but as God himself; he did not reject worship, but accepted it as only God can. (Typically it is only after one has had an encounter with the Angel of the Lord that one realizes that, in fact, it was no mere angel but God himself; see Gen. 16:9-13; 22:11-18; 32:28-30; Ex. 3:2-6; Judges 6:11-14, 22; 13:22.) Both Augustine and Calvin interpreted these manifestations as wonderfully cryptic revelations of God the Son in a pre-incarnate state. http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2003gieschen.pdf Paul states that the Son is “the image of the invisible God” (Col.1:15). This understanding of the son as the image of God does not apply only to his incarnate state, but also his pre-incarnate state; he has been the image of God seen by sinful man since the Fall in Eden. Does this mean that since the Father is unseen, he is somehow unknown in the OT? Absolutely not. What Jesus said about his incarnate state also applies to the OT: “The one who has seen me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9) Our primary understanding of Christ in the OT is one of prophecy, not presence. Oh, we do show some boldness by stating that that the use of the plural in the creation narrative— “Let us make man in our own image”(Wnmel.c;B. ~d'a' hf,[]n: ; Gen 1: 26)—indicates the presence of the Son in creation and that the appearances of the Angel of the Lord are appearances of the pre-incarnate Christ.

[19] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1994885/posts Can't see America going for either of those two useful idiots.

 [2] http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=uvalwps Since the content of a judicial opinion was not seen as the equivalent of law but only as evidence of law’s application to a particular case, the practice of stare decisis was qualified: whatever presumption lay in favor of following established “case law” needed to be understood as capable of being overcome once that “case law” was determined to be demonstrably erroneous. http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/subsites/gmulawreview/files/14-2/documents/SINCLAIR.pdf Yet judges were not infallible. Their decisions did not make law, forof mundane institutions, only a legislature could do that.82 Judicial decisions were evidence of law, authoritative, but not preemptive. “[I]ndeed these judicial decisions are the principal and most authoritative evidence, that can be given, of the existence of such custom as shall form a part of the common law.”83 Yet a subsequent judge could find that his predecessor had been mistaken, that in the precedent case the court had misperceived the moral blueprint in the sky. The prior decision was not “bad law, but . . . itwas not law. . . .”84 On the declaratory theory a court did not and could not absolutely bind its successors.85 BLACKSTONE, supra note 38 at *69 (“[I]n such cases the subsequent judges do not pretend to make a new law but to vindicate the old one from misrepresentation.”). See Swift v. Tyson, 41 U.S. 1(1842) (Story, J.): In the ordinary use of language it will hardly be contended that the decisions of courts constitute laws. They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws. They are often re-examined, reversed, and qualified by the courts themselves, whenever they are found to be either defective, or ill-founded, or otherwise incorrect. Id. at *18.84 BLACKSTONE, supra note 38, at *70.85 Blackstone:Yet this rule [to abide by precedents] admits of exception, where the former determination is most evidently contrary to reason; much more if it be clearly contrary to the divine law. But even in such cases the subsequent judges do not pretend to make a new law, but to vindicatethe old one from misrepresentation. http://www.lonang.com/conlaw/4/c45.htm The role of the judge is to declare what law already exists. The standard legal maxim is, Jus dicere, et non jus dare. That is, the province of a judge is to declare the law, not to make it. [U.S. v. Butler.] case precedents are binding in moral force only, that is, as a matter of persuasion, not as a matter of obligation. Prior opinions are not to be followed if plainly absurd. Thus, judicial opinions are not "law," they are only evidence of it. http://www.lonang.com/foundation/3/f36b.htm Supreme Court Opinions Are Only Evidence of Law, Not Law Itself and Not the Supreme Law of the Land. http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/7_1_1.pdf Roe v. Wade: A Scandal Upon The Court. Part I: The Unsettling of Roe v. Wade Chief.  Justice Mansfield, in the English case of Jones v. Randall (1774), observed: The law would be a strange science if it rested solely upon cases; and if after so large an increase of commerce, arts and circumstances accruing, we must go to the time of Rich. 1 (1189-1199) to find a case, and see what is law. Precedent indeed may serve to fix principles, which for certainty’s sake are not suffered to be shaken, whatever might be the weight of the principle, independent of precedent. But precedent, though it be evidence of law, is not law in itself, much less the whole of the law. Whatever is contrary, bonos mores est decorum [literally: whatever is against good manners (or customs)] and seemliness (or propriety) [freely: whatever is against public morals], the principles of our law prohibit, and the King’s Court as the general censor and guardian of the public manners, is bound to restrain and punish.60

 [3] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed78.htm The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

1 http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/home.asp Representative Ron Paul reintroduced the We the People Act (H.R. 300) on January 5, 2007 with cosponsors Rep. Walter B. Jones, Jr.; and Rep. Ted Poe to "limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, in certain cases."

Are you fed up with activist federal judges telling our children that they can't say the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you want federal courts telling you that there is a right to pornography in schools but God must be kept out of the classroom? That's what some courts are saying, but Congress can stop them.

Do you want federal courts forcing partial-birth abortion on America as a "constitutional right" by striking down state laws duly enacted by the people to ban that gruesome procedure? Do you want federal courts declaring that homosexuals have "special rights" that you and I don't have, or forcing racial quotas and affirmative action on jobs and higher education? If not, then do something about it.

2 http://www.washtimes.com/news/2003/oct/06/20031006-085845-5892r/ Article III, Section 2, updated 12:00 a.m., October 7, 2003.

3 http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/jefferson_airplane/white_rabbit.html Jefferson Airplane

White Rabbit lyrics. “When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead”

4 http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2006/jan06/06-01-25.html Can Congress Limit Federal Court Jurisdiction?

5 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, et al., PETITIONERS 91-744 v. ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc. ROBERT P. CASEY, et al., etc., PETITIONERS 91-902. Justice Scalia, with whom the Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice Thomas join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

6 http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#45

7 http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#21

8 http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM

9 http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5358 That They May Have Life, 2006 First Things (October 2006). A Statement of Evangelicals and Catholics Together. Thus the most basic commandment of neighbor-love is “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17). “You shall not kill” is rightly understood as “You shall not murder.” The direct and intentional taking of innocent human life in abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, and embryonic research is rightly understood as murder. In the exceedingly rare instance of direct threat to the life of the mother, saving her life may entail the death of the unborn child. Such rare and tragic instances are in sharpest contrast to the unlimited abortion license created by the Supreme Court, resulting in more than forty million deaths since 1973.

10 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm Currently, at least 36 states have fetal homicide laws. The states include: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. At least 19 states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or "post-fertilization"), indicated below with an asterisk (*).

11 http://www.l4l.org/library/someinfo.html As libertarians, LFL's interest in the abortion debate is in everyone's unalienable rights. LFL's reasoning is philosophical, not religious. Some LFL associates are religious; others, such as Gordon, are atheists.

12 http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm The Federalist Papers : No. 51

13 http://www.prolifealliance.com/sanctity%20of%20life%20act.html Members of the National Pro-Life Alliance are putting heat on politicians to bring an end to pro-abortion judicial tyranny by passing the Sanctity of Life Act.

14 http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom78.htm By Tom DeWeese, March 21, 2007. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by Congress.

15 http://www.newswithviews.com/Pratt/larry51.htm THE IMPERIAL JUDICIARY, By Larry Pratt

December 3, 2005. Does the Constitution provide for judicial supremacy through the process of judicial review? Attorney Edwin Vieira, J.D. answers with an emphatic “No!” in his book Imperial Judiciary. A look at Article III of the Constitution does not reveal a heavy work load for the Supremes: the court has original jurisdiction in cases involving states as well as diplomats. All other cases are brought on appeals, and if the lower courts are eliminated by Congress which has that authority, that ends the discussion.

16 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48319 Call it the 10th Amendment Restoration Act.

17 http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2673 One of TVC’s primary goals during the next several years is to take back our federal courts from radical leftwing activist judges who have no respect for the Constitution or the laws passed by state legislatures or Congress.

18 http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2004/jan04/04-01-21.html Republican National Coalition for Life. Pro-life Republicans should expect candidates to have a consistent position on the right to life.

Too many politicians get away with splitting the difference. On the one hand, they say they are pro-life, and on the other, send a signal to the pro-abortion crowd that they are really no threat to legal abortion after all.

But then Mr. Ryan sends a different signal. He says, “Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Henry Hyde share my system of beliefs that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.” The glaring inconsistency of this position is amazing, and unfortunately, it is an inconsistency that is commonly expressed by politicians and often accepted as sufficient by pro-life voters! It is impossible to believe in the “sanctity of human life from conception until natural death,” and at the same time justify abortion for rape or incest or any other reason.

We must send a loud and clear message to candidates that we will not grant them pro-life status unless they earn it with a publicly stated position that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed—no exceptions—no compromise!

If legal protection of the right to life is to be restored in the United States it will take a majority of Members of the U.S. House and Senate who will exercise their powers under the U.S. Constitution to withdraw jurisdiction from the Courts over these matters. If legislation is to be enacted recognizing that unborn babies are persons under the law, it will take Congressmen and Senators and state legislators who are unconditionally pro-life to do it. If men and women with the dedication and commitment necessary to make these things happen are to be elected it will take pro-life leaders and individual voters who will no longer settle for second best.

19 http://www.texasgop.org/site/DocServer/2006_Plat_with_TOC_2.pdf?docID=2022 Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.