The only reason that RvW still stands is that Congress wants it to stand. Congressional statesmen with an eye toward their duty, by the mere offense to the power of their office, would have knocked down that judicial tyranny the very year it was birthed. It is by their consent that Roe v Wade stands to defy them, Democrat and Republican alike.
Then we are back to the states. MOST states will be opposed to abortion on demand. A few—New York, California—may go the other way. Then we can fight the good fight on the state level.
I do not agree with you. Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort, which the court will then nationalize, and then here we go again.
One cannot ignore the plain words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically take Life beyond the reach of ALL branches of government, and lay it only in the hands of the Creator. Until that (Conservative) ideal is fully recognized and protected, there will be no end to the perversions that will occur, with 50 different states to use as legal testbeds.
It is not a matter for the federalists to resolve. It is beyond their right to claim. It is an unalienable right, one upon which our federal government is established, as a protector thereof, and without which, our sovereign government has no business to conduct, or moral right to stand.
roamer_1 replies: I do not agree with you. Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort, which the court will then nationalize, and then here we go again.
One cannot ignore the plain words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically take Life beyond the reach of ALL branches of government, and lay it only in the hands of the Creator. Until that (Conservative) ideal is fully recognized and protected, there will be no end to the perversions that will occur, with 50 different states to use as legal testbeds.
roamer_1, thank you ever so much for your eloquent essay/post, and the ping!
Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.
The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that every human being has an unalienable right to life because life is the direct endowment of the Creator. From this “self-evident” truth follows another: In order for government to be legitimate under our Constitution, it must honor and defend life.
And that’s what makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional: It does neither.
The DoI’s declaration of the dignity and sanctity of human life is indispensable to a proper reading of the Constitution. The Constitution itself is silent on life issues; it makes no grant of power regarding life issues to the federal government. For the Founders understood that the proper authority regarding such matters is the sovereign states, for at least two reasons.
First, the Framers absolutely did not want to consolidate excessive power in the federal government; the several states had to have sufficient power to counterbalance the national government, and to check its excesses. This is part of the Framer’s “separation and balance of powers” doctrine that is often overlooked.
But what greater power could there be to vest in government than the power over life and death? The Framers would have had a collective stroke at the mere suggestion of such a monstrous idea.
One would think this is the very power you'd want to avoid vesting in the federal government! Jeepers, it ought to be obvious that the gummint already has it — though it took a flagrant usurpation of power to get it. And that was Roe v. Wade; and even more fundamentally, I’d argue, the Fourteenth Amendment. [which I also regard as a usurpation, on the grounds that there’s nothing in the Constitution that warrants the nationalization of citizenship. The Framers envisioned the United States as a republic, an association of sovereign states with a national government empowered to discharge very limited powers on behalf of all the states and the people. The Constitution intends that the people of the several states are citizens of the state in which they reside. But I digress....]
Second, state governments are closer to the people than the federal government. The people tend be well informed about the goings on of their state and local governments, and so are in a position to hold them accountable, while that would be impossible for most people vis-à-vis the national government. Thus state and local governments tend to be more responsive to citizen concerns. Put it this way, on the life issues, would you rather deal with Leviathan than with your own state legislature? Where are you more likely to get actual results?
I was troubled by your remark, “Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort.” But then you’ve seen that I think the Constitution invested that power in the states from the very beginning. So giving it “back to them” is simply a restoration of the status quo ante. It would not be an unconstitutional act; it would be a restoration of the original Constitution. (I confess I’m of the “constitutional originalist view” of the Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia school.)
What really troubled me about your statement is that it seems to imply that you simply don’t trust the people with life issues. Do you really think it better to trust the federal government, with its disgraceful, abominable record on this matter?
I say, bring it to the states and then, bring it on! Then maybe we’ll get to start arresting and prosecuting abortionists again.
Thank you for your beautiful post roamer_1 — beautiful, even though I did disagree with it a tad, here and there.
That is a straw man. It is the authority to make laws that goes back to the states not the "power of Life" which is a bogus phrase anyway. The government at both the federal and state levels has the authority to "deprive of life" under certain specific conditions that are spelled out in the Constitution. Since abortion could not possibly fit those conditions under a fair reading of the Constitution this paranoia about states being able to legalize abortion without redress or remedy is just the handwringing of sheep and would-be statists.