Under the (7-2) SCOTUS decision in Dred Scott vs. Sandford (1850s), blacks were deemed not to have standing to sue in the courts of the United States because they were not citizens, that no black slave or free ever had been a citizen nor ever could become a citizen even if freed or free-born and that Congress has no authority to prohibit slavery in northern states under the Missouri Compromise of 1820. That embarrassment of a SCOTUS decision (rivaled only by Herod Blackmun's Roe vs. Wade) was effectively reversed by the outcome of the War Between the States and by the enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
The Dred Scott decision thus had attempted to irrationally define out of the human race those persons of black African ancestry. Roe vs. Wade attempted to define out of the human race or even out of personhood preborn human beings. Read the Herod Blackmun decision some time in full for his concession that his infamous decision could not stand if the personhood of the pre-born were ever recognized. I have never in my life felt that abortion was morally tolerable but the Roe vs. Wade decision itself convinced me that it was not legally tolerable or even rational. I was in law school at the time and had favored abortion being declared legal since I was then a libertarian. I was eager to see what rationale the geniuses of SCOTUS had found (that I could not as a mere law student have found and had not found) to justify legalizing abortion. Upon reading the decision, I realized that there was no such rationale or rationalization, abandoned any further ambiguity and have fought abortion ever since. Abortion, as crammed down the nation's throat by Roe vs. Wade, is simply mass murder under color of law.
While Roe vs. Wade is not directly involved in the complicity of the dishonorable Canadian judge and his like-minded colleagues in mass murder, the symptoms in Canada are as they are here. A lot of dead babies who, whatever the rationalizations of these enemies of Western Civilization and of mankind, were human beings, persons and entitled to live and to be protected by law from being murdered.
Well after the late unpleasantness between the states, SCOTUS again humiliated itself and our nation by handing down the (7-1) decision in Plessy vs. Ferguson in 1896 which decided in favor of the "legality" of racially motivated Jim Crow laws enforcing racial segregation by the states in spite of the plain language of the 14th Amendment Equal Protection clause. Segregation continued to be allowable under "the law of the land" until Plessy vs. Ferguson was overturned by SCOTUS itself in the unanimous 1954 decision in Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, KS, outlawing segregation by the states and their subsidiaries in compliance with the 14th Amendment.
The Nazis defined Jews out of the human race and acted accordingly just as Herod Blackmun and six of his SCOTUS colleagues and untold numbers of judges, Canadian and American, defined the pre-born out of the human race and even out of the status of persons and acted accordingly to allow and even encourage their mass murder. In neither case were we obliged morally to submit to such absurdity as though it were reality. Common sense, rationality and objective truth ought not be trumped by subjective and usually self-serving crimes of tyrants. Blackmun's crime will not stand. It is not a matter of whether but a matter of when it will be crushed.
I understand that you are addressing only the legal issue and that you do not favor abortion, but, unless and until we actively resist this holocaust (which is said to have killed 54 million in the USA since 1973 by surgical abortion alone) and, as necessary, the government that perpetrates it, the slaughter will continue. Ms. Wagner has taken her stand on behalf of the babies and on behalf of civilized people everywhere. She is willing to defy the judge to his face leading to her incarceration rather than take the easy (probation) way out. She has therefore denied to the court the submission of herself and of the babies to the law's delusions.
In his famous essay on Civil Disobedience, Henry David Thoreau recounted his story of being jailed for refusal to pay some local tax in protest of slavery (in the 1840s). The story is also told elsewhere of how his friend Ralph Waldo Emerson visited him at the jail and urged him to pay his fine, asking Thoreau: "What are you doing in there?" Thoreau's answer was "Ralph, what are you doing out there? Emerson was as abolitionist as Thoreau but Thoreau was willing to translate his ideals into action. Therein lies Thoreau's moral advantage over Emerson and over the government that jailed him. Martin Luther King, Jr., in a similar vein wrote his Letter from the Birmingham, Alabama Jail. It is well worth reading. letter from the
MRS. DON-O:
I am not aware of a specific decision in which necessity might have been used to protect property but I can speculate. If one parked his car (even legally) and had a conceded right not to suffer trespass by someone breaking its windows, but a nearby fire made it necessary for firemen to break those windows to accommodate a fire hose, I would imagine that necessity might well be invoked even if the fire threatened only property.
Likewise, it would be ordinarily unlawful to trespass upon railroad tracks, necessity should relieve firemen from liability for necessarily placing a fire hose over the tracks. Notice should be given to the railroad to prevent catastrophe by derailment. If it were simply a matter of saving an unoccupied mansion on the hill but by means which necessarily threatened a passenger train derailment, this example would not suffice. At the very least, there must be a balancing of the possible harms resulting from acting or not acting. OTOH, if it were necessary to break the car windows to protect the unoccupied mansion on the hill, subject to civil reimbursement of the car owner, the firemen should be protected by necessity defense of any criminal charge.
Your question is a challenging one.
To each of you: God bless you and yours.
Certaibnly if their intent was not to steal the animls in order to enrich themselves, they wouldn't be prosecuted, or at least they wouldn't be convicted, would they?
BlackElk, I do not understand why being libertarian requires being pro-abortion. The principle of not violating the rights of others precludes a “right” to kill children, born or unborn, since they are “others” with their own right to life. Even if one arbitrarily excludes the rights of the child, his or her father also has rights which are violated by the abortion license.
Certaibnly if their intent was not to steal the animls in order to enrich themselves, they wouldn't be prosecuted, or at least they wouldn't be convicted, would they?