Posted on 01/19/2005 9:54:17 AM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
SCOTUS has no power to legislate from the bench, which it did in Roe v. Wade. I would recommend you read the ruling, which stretched the Fifth Amendment protections and the Fourteenth Amendment into a “right to privacy,” thus, argued that there is also a “right to abortion.” It doesn’t take an “expert” on constitutional law to understand that there is in fact no right and if anything the matter would have delineated to the states of which 46 had outlawed it and 4 had laws restricting it. If you want to make abortion legal or a constitutional right, there is a way to go about it and that is amending the Constitution, which takes three-fourths of the states and two-thirds of Congress. Perhaps you would rather have unelected justices on the court hand down decrees and subvert the legislature as well as the will of the people, hence, what Patrick Buchanan called the “Judicial Dictatorship.”
Why didn't we have a constitutional amendment making abortion a right in 1973, but instead a judicial fiat and you're telling us that you support the judicial fiat of 1973 (Roe v. Wade), that you would uphold the fiat as a judge, and that for us opposed to abortion or the fiat: we must amend the Constitution. Why must we amend to undo the judicial activism when the burden to pass such an amendment should have fallen on those that support abortion?
The problem is that you do support an "activist judiciary" as this thread proves. I can quote Madison all day long on the General Welfare, which wasn't a power...just a summary of the 20 enumerated specifics, however, SCOTUS in all the glory of judicial activism ruled that Social Security was in fact Constitutional using the General Welfare Clause..."to promote the general welfare."
For right now I plan to exercise my right to speak out against such a horrible abuse of power, protest the government forcibly taking money from citizens, and forcing them into a program that operates like an illegal pyramid scheme. I hope to rally my fellow citizens...
Then let supporters of Social Security amend the Constitution! That's the way it should be done. I'll oppose Social security on other grounds, of course, but an amendment would deprive me of any objections on constitutional grounds.
I bet you would have been one of those individuals that thought the American patriots fighting for independence from Great Britain were “farmers with pitchforks” that didn’t stand a chance against the greatest military power on the face of the earth at the time.
I’ve done the exact same thing. Direct Taxation, taking people’s money against their will, (non-voluntary) in effect constitutes involuntary servitude. It is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
That's why people like the editor of World Net Daily, Joseph Farah, who I greatly respect, have refused to be called "conservative" simply because they feel that conservative has just become just another way of saying "statist."
I don't know if I always respect WorldNetDaily, but Farah has definitely written some nice essays.
FA Hayek, advocate of individual liberty and critic of socialism has his own essay "Why I am not a Conservative," you may be familiar with it.
Thanks for the informative Madison quotes (ignored by many of the posters on this thread).
Just to keep my hand in the thread till I have time to get back to the discussion, I thought I'd drop this into the mix. It is from a question/answer session following a speech, On Interpreting The Constitution, Justice Scalia delivered in 1997 before The Manhattan Institute For Policy Research. If you have time, take a look. Try to decide whether or not he was making a joke. Plenty in there to agitate both liberals and conservatives.
MALE VOICE: No, I'm talking about the power; the legitimacy of the Federal Government to undertake actions to say control how your children are raised.
I would suggest the Federal Government does not have that power because that power is not enumerated in The Constitution. And that's why the framers (talking away from microphone)
JUSTICE SCALIA: Okay. I mean, yes. I mean, another reason why some things can't be done by the Federal Government is that there is no proper Federal power.
But I suppose the Federal Government could fund, under its power; its welfare power, could fund Federal schools. And prescribe the programs for Federal schools. And then say you must go to Federal schools.
Put simply, much if not all of Art. I, 8 (including portions of the Commerce Clause itself) would be surplusage if Congress had been given authority over matters that substantially affect interstate commerce. An interpretation of cl. 3 that makes the rest of 8 superfluous simply cannot be correct. Yet this Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has endorsed just such an interpretation: the power we have accorded Congress has swallowed Art. I, 8.
Indeed, if a substantial effects test can be appended to the Commerce Clause, why not to every other power of the Federal Government. There is no reason for singling out the Commerce Clause for special treatment.
Accordingly, Congress could regulate all matters that substantially affect the Army and Navy, bankruptcies, tax collection, expenditures, and so on. In that case, the clauses of 8 all mutually overlap, something we can assume the Founding Fathers never intended.
Our construction of the scope of congressional authority has the additional problem of coming close to turning the Tenth Amendment on its head. Our case law could be read to reserve to the United States all powers not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Taken together, these fundamental textual problems should, at the very least, convince us that the substantial effects test should be reexamined.
-- Justice Clarence Thomas
"The Road to Serfdom," arguing Fascism is a socialist creature (which it is). Yes, I'm aware of Hayek.
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.