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
An interesting idea. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it. However, I see the following scenario being played out:
After a long hard battle (probably extending through the 2006 elections) Bush and other Republicans get such legistlation passed.
Some pro death group or groups challenge such legistlation passed by Congress as "unconstitutional". Now, of course, the very nature of the new law isn't unconstitutional, as you showed. However, this doesn't matter in today's soundbyte, single issue world. It simply doesn't. IOW, we can't expect our country to suddenly revert to the principles of what it was SUPPOSED to be, overnight. If that were the case, then an astute, committed lawyer could simply challenge Roe v Wade on the basis that it takes away the States' Rights to govern themselves, which is also in the Constitution.
No, the fact that we are in the situation that we are in now should prove to anyone that strict constitional means to end abortion simply won't do. The challenge I spoke of at the beginning of the last paragraph will be there, and it WILL be heard by the courts. When I originally started writing my reply to you I had intended to say at this juncture that it would probably be overturned, but now I'm not even sure about that! After thinking about it even just writing this post! You and I both know that this country is HARDLY what the founding fathers envisioned. Why should we think that a strict interpretation of Constitutional Law will get us out of the baby killing mess we're in now? Besides, even if the challgenge were overturned (or dismissed) it'd take years, at least another 1 or 2, and by that time, we really can't hazzard a guess as to the make up of the Congress, or even the Presidency. By after all this time (at LEAST 3 years), the Congress and Presidency could all be Dem again, and then, as I said in my original post to you, there wouldn't really be any motivation anymore to "limit judicial opinion or authority".
Now contrast that, with the strategy the President (seems to) have now. Nominating 2 (possibly 3) justicies to the SC during his 4 years of presidency, thus ASSURING that any new anti-abortion law that's challenged by these baby killing groups WILL be supported. Slowly whittling away Roe V Wade until it becomes nothing but the paper on which it's written. In 4 years we could be in a position to completely stop virtually all abortions. Contrast that with your plan, where in 4 years we've spent countless man hours and money battling in courts for a law that ultimately could easily be REVERSED by the very same process you describe.
It seems pretty clear to me which is the most reasonable plan. And as far as ANY charge goes that Bush has done very little to stop the murder of babies, I would point you and everyone to Mr. Silverback's extensive list which Planned Parenthood compiled. I think if PP is worried about something, they more than anyone should know if it REALLY is a threat to the abortion industry.
Besides, to think that Congressman Paul, as esteemed and intellegent I'm sure he is, is any more intelligent and/or savvy than the President and his team of researchers/legal advisors, is, IMO, more a statement of faith from a loyalist, rather than an objective view of the facts.