Posted on 05/10/2022 9:00:13 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
Monday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) criticized Democrats for their response to a leaked draft opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, hinting the high court was on the verge of overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Graham told FNC host Sean Hannity the response to the decision was to pass a national law codifying late-term abortions.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I believe that the federal government has no power to prevent a state from punishing murder.
If the Democrats needed Lindsey when Lindsey is not up for re-election, they would get his vote to allow Late-Term Abortions.
“I believe that the federal government has no power to prevent a state from punishing murder.”
I believe that the Dems have shown us that the constitution is a minor inconvenience that can and will be ignored as they see fit.
I say trade him for Honduran banana harvester.
Their problem is their law, even if passed and signed, is unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution.
Row was unconstitutional which is why it is now being overturned.
Row = Roe
The abortion industry preys on Black women
Big abortion’s regime of murder is especially effective in snuffing out the lives of Black and Brown babies
T W Shannon By T W Shannon | Fox News,
OPINION Published May 10, 2022 2:00am EDT
While we await the Court’s final ruling, it is worth noting that Justice Alito wrote in the draft opinion that some supporters of abortion “have been motivated by a desire to suppress the size of the African American population.” He went on to write, “It is beyond dispute that Roe has had that demographic effect. A highly disproportionate percentage of aborted fetuses are Black.”
What Justice Alito spotlighted in his draft opinion is the dirty secret of the abortion industry: Their officially sanctioned regime of murder is especially effective in snuffing out the lives of Black and Brown babies. Big Abortion, led by Planned Parenthood, puts profit over principle, and lies over life.
Consider: Most abortion clinics are within walking distance of minority neighborhoods; more than 33% of all abortions in America are done to Black babies, even though Black Americans only comprise 12% of the overall population.
Every single year since 1973, over 400,000 Black babies have been exterminated by the abortion industry. That’s more than 19 million boys and girls. And Planned Parenthood has received billions in taxpayer dollars from Democrats who control Congress and the White House.
Excerpt:
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/abortion-industry-black-women-tw-shannon
.
Lindsey really wants more Billions for Ukraine laundering.
He can’t spend it fast enough.
.
Schumer gets his law and Mississippi promptly prosecutes an abortionist under its law. The abortionist seeks habeas corpus citing the federal law and the matter ends up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is then asked to decide whether the federal statute preempts the field and to declare the prosecution repugnant to a constitutional federal statute.
First, the court has to determine standing which probably exists and it must consider whether the abortionist can raise the federal statute in defense. Assuming these two hurdles are successfully negotiated by the abortionist, the constitutionality of Schumer's law must be analyzed. Given our recent history of expansion of federal authority over everything, I have not much confidence that the Supreme Court will strike down the law as repugnant to the Constitution for an exercise of an unenumerated power. If we can have Obama care and Covid mandates, why not a law that enacts a liberty to abort?
It is conceivable that the court can get to the same result down another path but then the question arises how will the court behave when the pressure of such litigation will be in order of magnitude greater than it has been since Roe vs. Wade was made the law of the land? If the justices are afraid to go home at night now, imagine the intensity under these circumstances.
Rather than find a workaround to declare the law unconstitutional it is far more likely that a pusillanimous court will find a workaround to avoid the constitutional question entirely, thus leaving Schumer's law intact. Finally, the court can simply decline to accept the case and leave Schumer's law in force.
It is not so easy to say that Schumer's law would be declared unconstitutional just because it is.
I respect your opinion, but based upon the language and opinion Alito used, they are going to strike down a Federal law unless they go through the Amendment process. That’s my ‘take’ on it.
Attorneys in the US are presumed to have constructive knowledge of the US Constitution. It is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any US Attorney that drafts an obviously unconstitutional bill or law should be DISBARRED immediately by the State(s) where they are licensed.
Can we call this ilk rogue yet ?
None of the 3 branches is driving in their own lane.
.
> “If we can have Obama care and Covid mandates, why not a law that enacts a liberty to abort?”
The makeup of the court has changed. It’s not yet strictly constructionist, but it’s trending there, as are the American people. It took freedom restricting pandemic lockdowns to awake the people. The trend is towards regaining the Constitution. Biden read his screen today mentioning “MAGA”, “ULTRA-MAGA”, many, many times. This signals the left to demean and extremize the Trump and America First movements. It indicates panic. It will not work.
Histories of societies do not turn on a dime. A movement takes years to bear fruit. The MAGA/America-1st movements are reaching critical mass, effecting outcomes this and next year. Only a catastrophic false flag can derail or slow these movements.
That's the problem. Alito says that the matter is not one for the court to decide but for the people expressing themselves through their elected representatives. It is by application of the 10th amendment that we can say that it is the people's representatives operating on the state rather than the federal level who may express the people's intentions. But the 10th amendment has less than an impressive history of prevailing.
After all if Schumer's law passes, the people's will is expressed through their elected representatives on the federal level. What part of the Constitution makes that law unconstitutional? Is it because it represents an expression of unenumerated power? Good luck with that.
Remember, Alito went out of his way in his "language" to make it clear that the court was not advocating for or against abortion but for remanding the issue to the legislatures to voice the people's will. In effect they are committed to correcting procedure rather than eliminating abortion.
Alito is saying in this opinion that abortion rights is not a subject for the court to decide but for the people or their elected representatives to decide. Now the question is reduced to at what level should these elected representatives speak, state or federal? Now you have a far less compelling situation than Alito's original task of deciding the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade.
I'm not at all sure that the court is committed to end abortion but it is committed to return the matter to the states, or somehow to the people or their elected representatives.
US Government has no jurisdiction.
I agree 100%.
Also, given the remote possibility that you have not already seen this, please consider the following.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In other words, post-17th Amendment ratification Schumer's proposed murder of unborn children law is just another unconstitutional expansion of the already unconstitutionally big federal government's powers.
But since the very corrupt, alleged election stealing Congress cannot be expected to police itself under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (14A) for making unconstitutional laws, Trump's red tsunami of patriot supporters must do the following.
Excerpted from the 14th Amendment:
"Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof [emphases added]. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
Since Congress refuses to clean up its act, Trump supporters must peacefully exercise their voting power to effectively make Section 3 of 14A work by electing an all new, Trump-endorsed patriot Congress, likewise for all elected officials in all states, in the 2022 midterm elections.
Insights welcome.
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.