Seems to me no one has addressed an issue that, to me, seems to totally dismantle this entire argument.
Let's say that the President does have the ability to "refuse to enforce an opinion by the Supreme Court". Bush sees this thread, and does it tomorrow. Great.
4 years from now a pro death candidate is elected, and the first thing s/he does when in office is to REVERSE what Bush did.
Did that really solve anything?
After reading the replies to many on this thread it doesn't seem as though anyone brought up this point. I think it's a valid one, unless you have an answer to it.
Did that really solve anything? "
Excellent question.
Obviously if something as evil as Dred or Roe could happen then-- with the decomposition of the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic that this Republic was founded on ANYTHING can happen in the future. And that is why in order to have a just government that does not trample it's citizens and it's principle Founding Documents, when one goes off the deep as with Roe it is incumbent upon the other two branches to check that Rogue branch. Obviously, there are NO guarantees, except DEATH and TAXES.
Please see footnote 2 in the article and this as well:
How Roe v Wade can END in 2005
A Life Amendment or Supreme Court opinion banning abortion is nowhere on the horizon. The good news is that neither is necessary.
Two laws, if passed, would have the desired effect of a Life Amendment—with only a simple (NOT SUPER) majority vote in both houses and presidential signature required for each. But first a Pro-Life constituency must become informed and then demand that our elected representatives vote for it. The following overview should be made known to the entire public. Moreover, this legislation would identify which politicians are truly Pro-Life and which politicians manipulate the Pro-Life movement for their own purposes.
The Constitution gives Congress authority to remove appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts [1], which Congress uses regularly. Congress used this authority 12 times in 2001 - 2002 to remove appellate jurisdiction from federal courts on several different matters [2]. In September 2004, the House passed a resolution amending the U.S. Code, to limit Federal court jurisdiction over questions under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It was then sent to the Senate. [3]
Along these same lines Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced the We The People Act, (H. R. 3893) [4], which prohibits The Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim based upon reproduction. If passed, the law would prohibit all federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court from breaking the law of any State restricting abortion, including restrictions that are more severe than those prior to the 1973 case of Roe v Wade.
It is far easier to remove the issue from a rogue judge than the judge from his bench. Congressman Paul explains this further in a recent article:
“The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.” [5]
Subsequent legislation could then be passed. With a simple majority vote in both houses and presidential signature, the U.S. Code could be amended to include unborn human beings as persons, thereby guaranteeing their protection under the Law. With the first piece of legislation in effect, no lawsuits from pro-abortion forces could be presented to the courts.
Ending abortion can actually be this easy, and perhaps that is why the Pro-Life movement is only presented with the near impossible prospects of a Life Amendment and a Pro-Life majority on the Supreme Court.
VALUES VOTERS must be educated about these facts and then must demand this approach NOW for it to be possible in 2005. Only We The People can make this happen.
More details are available at www.KnightsForLife.org and clicking on our new section Ending "Legal" Abortion.
[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html
[2] http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm
[3] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.03313:
[4] http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893.IH:108th%20CONGRESS
[5] http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst100404.htm