Posted on 06/26/2022 1:10:55 PM PDT by gattaca
The Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling on June 24 and returned the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives. The justices ruled 6-3 to uphold the specific Mississippi abortion ban being challenged and 5-4 to overturn Roe v. Wade altogether. The majority opinion was written by Justice Samuel Alito, and it argues that the right to abortion is not deeply rooted in America’s history and is not protected by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
In other words, those who want abortion to be a legally protected right need to pass a law. They cannot rely on judicial activism to enforce a faux-right that the elected representatives of the people refuse to endorse.
Fifteen states banned abortion as soon as the Supreme Court announced they could do so, while three other states re-enacted previous restrictions on abortion superseded by the Roe v. Wade ruling. So, women in these states will now have to travel to one of the 32 states where abortion is still legal if they want to kill their unborn child.
Many conservatives are elated with the Supreme Court’s ruling. President Donald Trump called the ruling “the biggest win for life in a generation,” while Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has declared June 24 an annual holiday for his agency. But the radical left is seething with rage. Former President Barack Obama slammed the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it an attack on “the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.”
Washington, D.C., police are mobilizing in anticipation of riots, while lawmakers are sounding alarms about more violence at Republican Party offices and pro-life organizations. The David Horowitz Freedom Center called the Supreme Court decision a “Fort Sumter moment,” comparing it to the spark that lit the Civil War. Yet conservatives are not likely to let threats of left-wing violence cow them into submission. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion that the same constitutional originalist rationale that allowed the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade should allow it to correct rulings that protect same-sex “marriage” and contraception access.
Overturning the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling that made same-sex “marriage” a legal right would make the radical left even more furious, but America may already be passed its Fort Sumter moment. Last December, Trumpet executive editor Stephen Flurry wrote that the Supreme Court was likely to start pushing back against the radical left’s ongoing coup—that is what the Supreme Court is doing—despite the threat of riots gripping the nation. In “Supreme Court Abortion Decision Could Lead to Much More,” he wrote:
For five years, my father, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry, has taught that President Donald Trump is a modern fulfillment of the ancient Israelite King Jeroboam ii. He has repeatedly stated that 2 Kings 14:26 shows us that God used Mr. Trump to save America from the radicals and pointed to Amos 7:13 describing the king’s chapel and the king’s court.
My father explained in “Is America’s Supreme Court in Bible Prophecy?” that “the king’s chapel” is “a place of worship that belongs to the king,” and “the king’s court” (better translated “the kingdom’s court”) is a “non-religious entity … referring to the United States Supreme Court.” He wrote, “I believe this prophetic account in Amos 7 implies that there is a conservative advantage in the Supreme Court, one that favors Jeroboam. … The fact that [Justice Brett] Kavanaugh was actually confirmed, despite all the protests, shows that to be true. Radicals want to control the courts, especially the Supreme Court, and God upset those plans. He has a plan of His own. I believe Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation indicates God will likely see that President Trump has a second term.”
Roe v. Wade could never have been overturned without the three justices that President Trump appointed: Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But now that these justices have joined with Justice Alito and Justice Thomas to undo Roe v. Wade, the floodgates are open to undo many more immoral and unconstitutional rules made over the past half-century. So, keep watching for the Supreme Court to make rulings regarding the fraudulent 2020 election, by which Barack Obama seized power using the Joe Biden regime. And keep watching for the “king’s chapel” and “kingdom’s court” to develop a relationship with President Trump.
God has revealed that He will restore the rule of law in America—temporarily—so that the American people have one final chance to choose to repent of their grievous sins! This astounding fact is fully explained in our new, significantly expanded America Under Attack, by Gerald Flurry.
The Tale of Two Cases:
The Dobbs (abortion) case: The US Supreme Court decision is constitutionally sound. The Court has jurisdiction over the unconstitutional Court decision in Roe v. Wade and finally overturned it. Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional because 1) the feds have no constitutional authority regarding abortions and 2) the feds have no jurisdiction over state abortion laws.
The Bruen (gun) case: The US Supreme Court decision is constitutionally unsound because the Court has no jurisdiction over NY State gun laws. This appears to be a victory for our Free Constitutional Republic, but it in not because it strengthens more unconstitutional federal power over the states. The greatest threat to our lives and wellbeing is the unconstitutionally unlimited and totalitarian power of the federal government.
Mark Levin said, with much disappointment, that he was quite sure Pelosi, Schumer and the rest of them have never read the Constitution. He gave his opinion that the Democrats are continually lying to the American people to promote their agenda.
Well if they intend to push back against the radical left's coup d'état, they had better agree to examine the massive evidence of well co-ordinated fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election! If they don't, they are complicit in the stolen 2020 Election and in the ongoing coup d'état.
A Constitutional victory.
You’re incorrect. The constitution enumerates no right to abortion. Therefore it’s an issue for the states to decide. It DOES, however enumerate the right to keep and bear arms. The Sullivan laws in New York infringed on those rights, and as a consequence were unconstitutional.
CC
Obola wouldn’t know freedom if it bit him in the ass. And how exactly is the “right” to kill an unborn child an “essential freedom”? One might argue that being allowed to be born is a pretty essential freedom - the rest of someone’s freedoms don’t mean much if they don’t get to be born in the first place.
Read his post again. Jim said that exact thing.
The only thing the Left and DEMONocRATS care about is getting rid of the Constitution because they know it legally limits government and they DESPISE limited government.
I.e. the Left DESPISES individual freedom (AKA limited government). Hence, the Left DESPISES America, the American People, and what they stand for.
Time to sweep these snakes off the landscape of our government and our lives.
no abortion amendment
2a amendment
big difference
no natural right to abortion
natural right to self defense
=
The Constitution delegates no enumerated right to the feds to regulate or interfere with abortions or abortion issues.
Actually the Constitution delegates no enumerated right to the feds to regulate or interfere with healthcare AT ALL!!!.
He was incorrect insofar as the comments on the 2nd amendment. Apologies if it was unclearly worded.
CC
Gotcha. I apologize for misinterpreting your reply.
14th amendment imposed 2nd on states. In fact, at the time just after the civil war, the 14th was originally written to only impose the 2nd. (Democrats and their night riders in Southern states was the impetus.) Then debates started, the political process happened, and it was decided to do the whole BOR list instead of just the 2nd.
Something as badly written (intentionally) and ambiguous as the 14th Amendment requires one to look to the intention of the RATIFIERS (not the authors). When a portion of the Constitution is as ambiguous and confusing as the 14A, the intention of the ratifiers - those that turned the proposed amendment into law - is mandatory authority for interpreting and applying the 14A.
The key is this: if the ratifiers intended to give the federal government such new, greatly expanded and sweeping powers they never had before, there would have been some record of a debate about this in Congress. But no record of any such debate exists. The fact is, the ratifiers simply treated the 14A for what it was or should have been - a Post-Civil-War Reconstruction Amendment meant to put blacks on an equal footing as whites as citizens. NOTHING MORE.
What argument can you make for the counterfeit and heretical doctrine of incorporation that gives the feds sweeping new powers without a peep from the ratifiers of the 14A? Incorporation was refuted by the Supreme Court in “the Slaughterhouse Cases” few years after the 14A was ratified.
The 14A was treated by the ratifiers for what it is or should have been: a Post-Civil-War Reconstruction Amendment to make blacks full citizens and NOTHING MORE.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds the right to enforce the first ten amendments upon the states. The first ten amendments are pointed directly at the feds and nowhere else.
This is a huge power grab by the Totalitarian Left via the counterfeit and debunked “Incorporation Doctrine”. Judge Bork, the recognized leading constitutional scholar of his time who would have been maybe the best Supreme Justice ever, deals with this subject in his very worthwhile book, “The Tempting of America.”
May we on the Patriotic Right see through the lies that have been used to bring us to the brink of America’s extinction via the totalitarian federal government. As you mentioned, every lie perpetrated by these snakes has ALWAYS been a means of EXPANDING federal government power, never contracting their power. The Left and their corrupt government have never cared about limited Constitutional government. In fact act they HATE the Constitution and want it destroyed forever.
And if we Patriots don’t wake up and fight the good fight however we can, they will do just that
It was, 18 years after ratification. The Southern states were threatening to continue the Civil war as a guerrilla movement, in the disputed election of 1876. The Congress became controlled by Democrats, and the Supreme Court capitulated. After another 75 years, the Supreme Court started incorporating the rights which should have been done, but were not (by military necessity) 75 years previously.
The Second Amendment, contrary to what you state, was directly mentioned in the debates about the Fourteenth Amendment, by a Co-Sponsor of the Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard. Here is a transcript of part of his remarks:
“Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the states are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions, which may be altered from year to year. The great object of this amendment, is therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees. How will it be done under the present amendment? As I have remarked, they are not powers granted to Congress, and therefore it is necessary, if they are to effectuated and enforced, as they assuredly ought to be, that additional power should be given to Congress to that end. This is done by the fifth section of this amendment, which declares that “the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article.” Here is a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees, a power not found in the Constitution.”
Here is the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
That is a difference. But, of course, the debates of the ratifiers, being in the states, are not documented nearly as well.
You: It was, 18 years after ratification.
Well, Mark, you're flatly wrong right out of the gate. The "Slaughterhouse Cases" were decided FIVE years after 14A ratification. Hope your books are more accurate than your replies here on FR.
The "Slaughterhouse Cases" (1873) was the first Supreme Court case that challenged 14A (ratified 1868) "incorporation" and the Supreme Court struck down incorporation for what it was and is - a sweeping and unconstitutional expansion of federal government power. The Court found evidence the ratifiers ONLY intended the 14A to be a Civil War Reconstruction Amendment making blacks full citizens - nothing more. Although it is pretty clear the drafters of the 14A wanted this vile "incorporation", the Court found NO evidence of any intent of the ratifiers to give the feds the sweeping expansion of power incorporation grants and stuck down incorporation as unconstitutional.
Why do you want to err on the side of Leftist expansion of unconstitutional federal government power just as the Left has violated stare decisis AND the Constitution for the last 100+ years?
Co-author Senator Jacob Howard of the badly-worded and confusing text of the 14A wanted incorporation. His remarks notwithstanding, the new and invented sweeping expansion of powers incorporation gave to the feds would have caused a debate, and most certainly a very lively debate in Congress. But no record of any such debate exists.
Again the Constitution is to be interpreted and applied as written and (if the text is ambiguous, like the 14A) originally understood and intended by the RATIFIERS.
Maybe you're sincere and were brainwashed (not really educated) at some Leftist law school somewhere. I went to law school, but I was 60 years old and knew better about some of the lies they taught. Most youngsters in law school take it in hook, line, and sinker.
If you're a Leftist on this Patriot site, then I'm wasting my time and you are wasting my time. If you are simply misinformed, then please study what I'm saying and review "The Tempting of America", by Judge Robert Bork, considered the leading constitutional scholar of his time.
Why the personal attacks?
Are your arguments that weak?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.