Posted on 07/19/2008 5:08:23 PM PDT by Interposition
SCALIA THE ENEMY
by Judie Brown
Released May 28, 2008
It came as no surprise when a dear friend, Andy V. of Minnesota, wrote me concerning a comment Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made during an interview with Leslie Stahl on 60 Minutes on April 27. Since I never watch network programming, which is, I presume, a blessing, I simply had no idea what the Catholic Scalia had said.
Perhaps you did, but in case you are uninformed, the following is from the transcript of that interview:
"What is the connection between your Catholicism, your Jesuit education, and your judicial philosophy?" Stahl asks.
"It has nothing to do with how I decide cases," Scalia replies. "My job is to interpret the Constitution accurately. And indeed, there are anti-abortion people who think that the Constitution requires a state to prohibit abortion. They say that the Equal Protection Clause requires that you treat a helpless human being that's still in the womb the way you treat other human beings. I think that's wrong. I think when the Constitution says that persons are entitled to equal protection of the laws, I think it clearly means walking-around persons. You don't count pregnant women twice."
If this shocks you, stay tuned – there’s more!
Paul Benjamin Linton, an attorney for a preeminent pro-life legal organization, Americans United for Life, pointed out years ago – six years ago to be exact – in an article published in First Things:
No present or past justice has ever taken the position that the unborn child is, or should be regarded as, a "person" as understood in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the late Justice White, perhaps the most eloquent critic of Roe v. Wade. And in the Carhart case, the Court refused even to consider Nebraska’s argument that a partially born child is a constitutional person. That question was rejected for review without dissent. So much for the naive notion of "forcing" the Court to take on the personhood issue.
But there is more than silence to indicate the justice's views. Dissenting in Casey, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "The states may, if they wish, permit abortion-on-demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so."
Clearly the bandied about statement that Justice Antonin Scalia is "pro-life" is not only false but misleading to the core.
Whether we examine Scalia’s stated position in light of his alleged Catholicism or in light of his personal opinion of the yet-to-be-born individual whose life begins at the point he is created – whether through the union of human sperm and human egg or some type of reproductive technology – the justice errs.
One might wonder why it is, then, that legal scholars like Clarke Forsythe, Americans United for Life president, insist that those who support personhood for the preborn are wrong and Scalia is somehow more accurate! Oh yes, my friends.
In his recent article, "A Lack of Prudence," Forsythe writes about those who took issue with Scalia’s agreement in the recent Supreme Court decision dealing with the Partial Birth Abortion law, Carhart v. Gonzales. He suggests that we do not respect the justice nor do we treat him with the charity that is due him. While I guess that might be the perception in some quarters, I have to ask how much respect Scalia is showing the teachings of his own Church when he makes it patently clear that it’s wrong to think that we should treat human beings in the womb in the same way we treat other human beings who, thank God, have escaped the womb!
Where is the respect for those lives that Scalia dismisses as if they were simply unworthy of consideration?
Not only is Scalia’s comment on Sixty Minutes flip and downright ridiculous, as a matter of fact, it is heretical.
Yes, I said his comment was heretical and I do know what that word means. I am not calling the Justice a heretic, I am simply saying that his comment is a stark departure from the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. If you wish to check for yourself and understand what the Church teaches, see this from Pope John Paul II in his May 24, 1996 address to those who attended the symposium "Evangelium Vitae and the Law,"
While distinguishing between the sciences concerned, and recognizing that the attribution of the concept of person is a philosophical issue, we must assume, as our starting point, the biological status of the embryo, which is a human individual having the qualities and dignity proper to the person.
The human embryo has basic rights, that is, it possesses indispensable constituents for a being's connatural activity to be able to take place according to its own vital principle.
Let’s say you are reading this and have little concern about what the Catholic Church teaches on the identity and status of the human embryo. You are of course entitled to an opinion on that, but what about the scientific evidence? As John Shea, M.D. wrote in his article "The Pre-Embryo Question,"
It was first demonstrated in 1980 by Jean Smith of Queen's College, Flushing, New York, that the human body has a shape from the moment of fertilization. This was confirmed by Richard Gardner, an embryologist at Oxford University, U.K., in 2002. Which side of the microscopic embryo will form the back and head are not left to later development as has been believed by embryologists, but are determined in the minutes and hours after the sperm and egg unite to form a new human being. The "newly fertilized egg has a definite top - bottom axis that sets up the equivalent axis in the future embryo." The early mammalian embryo is no longer a "featureless ball of cells."
The scientific verification of the human embryo as human being is available to anyone who has the desire to study the development of the human embryo and understand that he or she has unrepeatable characteristics from the beginning.
Among the many scientific presentations I have read, and understood as a non-scientist, is Professor Dianne Irving’s The Carnegie Stages of Early Human Embryonic Development.
Regardless of your preference – Catholic teaching or scientific fact – when examining the positions taken by a United States Supreme Court Justice who is allegedly pro-life, the above documentation makes it perfectly clear that Justice Scalia does not deserve that title. He may be conservative and yes, he may be a strict interpreter of the Constitution of the United States in the opinion of some, but he is not pro-life.
In fact, having thought about his most recent comments on 60 Minutes, I would venture to say he is one of the preborn child’s worst enemies.
Advocates for life seem to know as much about fetal development as embryologists. They have 3D videos, sonograms, cutaway models and lengthy, emotive dissertations about every facet of fetal development. This forum has one pro-life member dedicated to making embryologists by the time they are ready for college.[6] CLEP out of college and med school, do your residency and become an obstetrician no later than age 21. Anyone mastering this amount of scientific information can understand the Constitution. But too many don’t even try, or prefer “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” but deviant precedent from fictional rants of irrational judges in the formal form of a typical lie.
They know science is on their side. A few Christians among them know the Bible divinely supports their rational case. The majority of states have fetal homicide laws supporting their irrefutable case. Most states still have abortion laws that are on their side.[7] Government officials refusing to enforce those laws are complicit in crimes against humanity. But the great majority of life advocates believe the Constitution is their foe, until converted into friend by an amendment, or by a majority opinion of the Supreme Court.[8] They don’t know, or care to know about the power of executive review. They don’t know, or care to know about Congress’ power to impeach and remove. They don’t know, or care to know about Congress’ plenary power to strip jurisdiction down to the original bones of contention in accordance with Article 3. They don’t know, or care to know about the Tenth Amendment. So, those like Judy Brown criticize one of the two most Constitutionally correct judges on the issue of murder (abortion). If Judy Brown’s criticism is justified, why gamble millions of lives on ostensibly conservative judges?
If every government official adhered to their oath of office and “interpret[ed] the Constitution accurately,” those 30 states would be enforcing their abortion laws via the Tenth Amendment.[9] The President would not enforce those majority opinions, via an E.O. or We the People Act. [10] Judy Brown needs to modify her criticism to accurately describe decades of pro-life political activity: “Clearly the bandied about statement that [many Republican politicians] are ‘pro-life’ is not only false but misleading to the core.” God only knows how many lives have been saved by pro-lifers outside the political arena. But their willful ignorance and appalling naïveté are irresistible temptations for the bloodlust of gladiatorial politicians, beckoning them into the arena for vital assistance and then thrusting them through the heart for the sole pleasure of watching life drain from their disbelieving eyes. Tyrannicide[11] is a just reward for politicians found guilty of complicity in crimes against humanity.[12]
Isn’t problem recognition half of the solution? This problem was recognized by a speaker at the 2004 Republican National Convention and former Senator from Georgia, Zell Miller:[13]
"I yearn for the day," said the former Democratic senator, "when somebody is asked what their position is on abortion, they just look right at the person who asked them and said, 'Abortion is an abomination in the eyes of God, and there's nothing in the United States Constitution that protects it,' and not just dance around, tiptoe around the issue."
Miller, a former Marine and history professor, offers the solution that pro-lifers reject, whenever they vote for politicians refusing to acknowledge that fact and commit to do everything permitted by the Constitution to restrain mass-murder.
The political arena has an overflow crowd of professional liars.[14] They will lie, even when they know that you know they are lying. Billy Clinton, a professing Christian, may be the best known political example in that vast crowd of congenital liars; but he isn’t the only one. John Ashcroft, another professing Christian, lied when he stated Roe v.Wade was “settled law of the land.”[15] Ashcroft knew that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….” “All” means nothing less than all! He also knew that Article VI, Clause 2 explicitly omits anything that could be construed to make majority opinion equal to or greater than “the supreme Law of the Land.” The same clause that makes “Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…the supreme Law of the Land” fails to do same with court majority opinion. The next clause in that same article binds government officials “to support this Constitution,” not majority opinion. Why did Ashcroft lie, when The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the U.S. Courts states, “The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies?”[16] Why did Ashcroft lie, when he knew that law binds everyone under its jurisdiction; and majority opinions, which are only evidence of law, bind only the parties to the case? It should go without saying that ignorance is not a very good strategy against professional liars. James Madison put it this way: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” [17]
On the other hand saluting millions about to die, Judy Brown’s righteous indignation is warranted. Imagine federal, state and local governments permitting terrorists to kill at will, after local, state and federal officials confiscated all weapons. Officials have the military and police to protect them; but they decide to allow terrorists to do as they please. If you were subject to being murdered at any moment, you may not be interested in an ongoing academic debate about the Constitution that has done nothing to stop decades of terror. Your rallying cry might be expressed like this: “Stop the murderous madness; or give us the means for defense or escape!”
According to Romans 13 government exists to restrain evil. If murder is not evil, what is? After quoting Romans 13:1–5, Scalia made these comments several years ago:[18]
This is not the Old Testament, I emphasize, but St. Paul. One can understand his words as referring only to lawfully constituted authority, or even only to lawfully constituted authority that rules justly. But the core of his message is that government—however you want to limit that concept—derives its moral authority from God. It is the “minister of God” with powers to “revenge,” to “execute wrath,” including even wrath by the sword (which is unmistakably a reference to the death penalty). Paul of course did not believe that the individual possessed any such powers. Only a few lines before this passage, he wrote, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” And in this world the Lord repaid—did justice—through His minister, the state.
These passages from Romans represent the consensus of Western thought until very recent times. Not just of Christian or religious thought, but of secular thought regarding the powers of the state.
Professor R.J. Rummel’s observations[19] should convince all but the most die-hard Christian secularist to prefer the rule of law over the rule of tyrants, or dictates from an equally evil judicial oligarchy. Unlike the vast majority of Christians today, Scalia and the American Founders did not fear mentioning the Bible in a political context. Future historians should argue that Scalia was a man of towering integrity, whose brilliance exposed the dark deeds[20] of corrupt judges and petty politicians in a society that didn’t know the meaning of integrity.
Scalia is mistaken on one point. It is a common mistake to habitually interpret the entire Constitution through four words,[21] “due process” and “equal protection” in the obsolete Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.[22] No former slaves are alive; 2) the 13th Amendment prohibits reinstitution of slavery; 3) blacks who owned slaves were citizens of their respective states prior to the 14th Amendment.[23] The Fourteenth Amendment begins with this phrase: “All persons born….” Judy Brown’s copy omits “born.” Worship of the Fourteenth Amendment includes homage to the word “born” and the obvious exclusion of the unborn. The purpose of the 14th Amendment did not include obstruction of justice for the unborn. Scalia isn’t the only one to ignore Jefferson’s sound advice: “On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."[24] This sound exegetical principal applies to the 14th Amendment.[25] [26] [27] [28] [29]
Consider Article IV, Section 4, without reference to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Can a state be said to have a “Republican Form of Government” when domestic violence (abortion) occurs on that large of a scale? In Federalist 51, Madison equates that state with anarchy.[30] Federalist 55 explains why the Founders valued a Republic: “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.” The candid Christian must admit “depravity” exists alongside those “other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.” This point makes that point unmistakably clear: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” - Federalist 51.
What standard is used for distinguishing good from evil? How do you measure something without a standard, or frame of reference? Ask any postmodern, whose only absolute is the lack of demonstrable absolutes. They write books based on evidence explaining why you can’t use evidence to make a case; and the fools don’t even realize they are refuting the case they attempt to make. They prove Yale Law Professor Arthur Leff’s contention:[31]
I want to believe—and so do you—in a complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions about right and wrong, findable rules that authoritatively and unambiguously direct us how to live righteously. I also want to believe—and so do you—in no such thing, but rather that we are wholly free, not only to choose for ourselves what we ought to do, but to decide for ourselves, individually and as a species, what we ought to be. What we want, Heaven help us, is simultaneously to be perfectly ruled and perfectly free, that is, at the same time to discover the right and the good and to create it.
Faced with this irreconcilable tension, a choice must be made. This republic will never be resurrected by continued rejection of those complete, transcendent, and immanent set of propositions expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In a Republic[32] the good rule of law[33] has the best chance of trumping the rule of evil men!
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.[34]
Obviously, this view is passé; because even the alternative conservative media prefer the rule of federal judges over the rule of law. Do any of the conservative media have the goals of F.R. explicitly stated somewhere in their publications? [35] Do they have the slightest clue where they want to go? Will their reactive bipartisan commentary ever transition to proactive partisan movement with some sense of the right direction?
[1] http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htmNational Conference of State Legislatures
[2] http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/BorkAbortion.php Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception.
[3] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion, Tuesday, October 05, 2004.
[4] Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995 (2003).
[5] http://www.covenantnews.com/russyoung060125.htm Abortion Has Killed Millions More Than War
[7] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/the_first_100_ways.aspx In many states, statutes prohibiting abortion remain unrepealed and available to local prosecutors to bring criminal actions against abortion providers. While such laws may very well provide for an exception to protect the life of the mother, they afford statutory authority to a prosecutor who takes seriously his duty to “support” the Constitution’s high regard for the right to life.The problem today is that state prosecutors assume that their duty to support the Constitution means obedience to Supreme Court opinions, even when they were never parties to the cases. Rightfully understood, their duty is to interpose their office between Roe v. Wade, a constitutionally erroneous opinion, and the people whose rights they are duty bound to protect.
[8] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/life/the_first_100_ways.aspx Since Roe v. Wade, pro-life strategies have been based upon the premise that the Supreme Court’s opinion in that case is the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore, short of a constitutional amendment or Court reversal, it has been assumed that federal, state, and local officials - executive, legislative, and judicial - must conform their actions concerning abortion to rules handed down by the courts. This working premise is erroneous. It is both unwise and unconstitutional.
[9] http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/yardstick/pr5.html The Federal government is a delegated-power Republic which possesses only the comparatively few and limited powers granted to it by the people as enumerated in the United States Constitution, as amended--chiefly the powers concerned with "war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce" (quoting The Federalist, number 45 by Madison. It is in sharpest contrast that each State government is a full-power Republic which possesses the vast and varied powers needed to administer intra-State affairs--"all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State" (again quoting number 45). The full-power Republic of each State is subject to the State Constitution, as well as to the united States Constitution as the "supreme Law of the Land." Neither the Federal, nor any State, government therefore possesses legal sovereignty--the unlimited power of sovereignty--while the people's political sovereignty is limited in favor of preserving inviolate the God-given, unalienable rights of each Individual.
[10] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2042168/posts What Congress Can Do for This American.
[11] http://hnn.us/articles/29235.html John Cooke and the King’s judges were tyrannicides, who pushed England to where logic (“right reason”) led, where law (Magna Carta) pointed and where God (the first book of Samuel) approved. It was a point that no other nation at the time or for another century would reach: a proto-democratic republic with constitutional safeguards for civil liberties.
[12] http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft%20articles/7_1_1950.pdf Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nürnberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal. 1950
[13] http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53872 Lies and fraud of Roe v. Wade. Posted: January 22, 2007. In "The Marketing of Evil," I explain many sophisticated and powerful manipulation techniques used to market evil. But when it comes to abortion, one technique shoots right to the top of the list: It's called lying. To make killing little unborn babies sound good, you have to lie about it.
[14] http://www.humanlifereview.com/2001_spring/mckenna_s2001.php Why They Help Them Lie
[15] http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2001/jan01/01-01-19.html Many respected legal authorities think that, like the Dred Scott decision and others, Roe v. Wade is a settled case, but it is not settled law. In fact, no law has been passed that makes abortion legal in this country.
[18] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/696464/posts God's Justice and Ours [Antonin Scalia on capital punishment] First Things ^ | 5/02 | Antonin Scalia Posted on Friday, June 07, 2002 4:08:47 PM by Caleb1411
[19] http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/ Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ----Lord Acton. Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely.----This Web Site
[20] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-830P.ZD1 I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court’s jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child— one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child— proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion. Today’s decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by a firestorm of criticism— as well it should. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people— where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it— and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.
[21] http://www.utexas.edu/law/news/2005/052405_graglia.html The essential irrelevance of the Constitution to contemporary constitutional law should be clear enough from the fact that the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law; and nearly all of them purport to be based on a single constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment -- in fact, on only four words in one sentence of the Amendment, "due process" and "equal protection." The 14th Amendment has to a large extent become a second constitution, replacing the original.
[22] http://www.stephankinsella.com/texts/berger_fourteenth_am_bill.pdf The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (1989).
[23] http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/scott/Curtis.asp At the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, all free nativeborn inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, though descended from African slaves, were not only citizens of those States, but such of them as had the other necessary qualifications possessed the franchise of electors, on equal terms with other citizens. It has already been shown that in five of the thirteen original States, colored persons then possessed the elective franchise, and were among those by whom the Constitution was ordained and established. And as free colored persons were then citizens of at least five States, and so in every sense part of the people of the United States, they were among those for whom and whose posterity the Constitution was ordained and established. http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/23000/article/23018 Black Americans continued to hold slaves through the Civil War. In 1860, some 3,000 blacks owned nearly 20,000 black slaves. In South Carolina alone, more than 10,000 blacks were owned by black slaveholders. [See also "Black Slaveowners."] Born a slave in 1790, William Ellison owned 63 slaves by 1860, making him one of Charleston's leading slaveholders. In the 1850 census for Charleston City, the port of Charleston, there were 68 black men and 123 black women who owned slaves. In Louisiana's St. Landry Parish, according to the 1860 census, black planter Auguste Donatto owned 70 slaves and farmed 500 acres of cotton fields. Black slaveholders were the exception to the rule, but so, too, were white ones. Only a small minority of Southern whites owned slaves, little more than five percent of the white population if calculated by individual owner, or some 20 to 25 percent if all the members of the slaveowners' families are included. This means that 75 percent or more of Southerners neither owned slaves themselves nor were members of families who did. -- Roger D. McGrath, in "Slavery's Inconvenient Facts," Chronicles magazine, November 2001.
[26] http://www.constitution.org/col/np/aas/050710_gra-lev.htm Because most of the Supreme Court's activist rulings of unconstitutionality purport to be based on a 14th Amendment that it has deprived of specific meaning, the problem can be very largely solved by simply restoring the 14th Amendment to its original meaning, or by giving it any specific meaning. The 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War to provide a national guarantee of basic civil rights to blacks. If a constitutional amendment could be adopted reconfining the 14th Amendment to that purpose or, better still, expanding it to a general prohibition of all official racial discrimination, the court's freehand remaking of domestic social policy for the nation would largely come to an end. If the justices lost the ability to invalidate state law on the basis of their political preferences, their ability and willingness to invalidate federal law on this basis would likely also diminish.
[27] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0391_0145_ZD.html I believe I am correct in saying that every member of the Court for at least the last 135 years has agreed that our Founders did not consider the requirements of the Bill of Rights so fundamental that they should operate directly against the States. [n2] They were wont to believe rather that the security of liberty in America rested primarily upon the dispersion of governmental power across a federal system. [n3] The Bill of Rights was considered unnecessary by some, [n4] but insisted upon by others in order to curb the possibility of abuse of power by the strong central government they were creating. [n5] The Civil War Amendments dramatically altered the relation of the Federal Government to the States.. In my view, often expressed elsewhere, [n8] the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant neither to incorporate, nor to be limited to, the specific guarantees of the first eight Amendments. The overwhelming historical evidence marshalled by Professor Fairman demonstrates, to me conclusively, that the Congressmen and state legislators who wrote, debated, and ratified the Fourteenth Amendment did not think they were "incorporating" the Bill of Rights [n9] and [p175] the very breadth and generality of the Amendment's provisions suggest that its authors did not suppose that the Nation would always be limited to mid-19th century conceptions of "liberty" and "due process of law," but that the increasing experience and evolving conscience of the American people would add new "intermediate premises." In short, neither history nor sense supports using the Fourteenth Amendment to put the States in a [p176] constitutional straitjacket with respect to their own development in the administration of criminal or civil law.
[28] http://www.extremeink.com/appendix.htm How the First Amendment Came to Protect Topless Dancing: A History of the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment, Why It's a Problem, and How to Fix It By Susan Shelley.
[29] http://www.covenantnews.com/davidnew050209.htm It should be obvious that there is a strong link between judicial activism and the Fourteenth Amendment. When conservatives complain about judicial activism in the courts, in many cases they are really talking about the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment has become a 'wild card' at the courthouse. For example, to date, the Supreme Court has never said that there is a Fifth Amendment right to an abortion! The way the Court interprets the word "liberty" in the Fourteenth Amendment is a hopeless contradiction. There can be no question that the Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment for political purposes. The Fifth Amendment proves that the Supreme Court is engaging in judicial activism.
[30] http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed51.htm Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger
[31] http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5101 Nihilism and the End of Law, Phillip E. Johnson. 1993 First Things (March 1993).
[32] http://www.ccomcor.org/republic_v_democracy_Titus.pdf In Federalist numbers 10, 14, and 48, Madison insisted that the new Constitution established a republic, not a democracy, emphasizing in Federalist No. 10 that a “Republican” form of government protected the people from the dangers of tyranny of the majority. although the state constitutions affirm that all power is inherent in the people, they did not establish state governments to obey the will of the people, but to ensure that all individuals enjoy their pre-existing rights of life, liberty, and property with which they have been naturally endowed. It is certainly arguable that some states have approved some democratic procedures that depart from the pure republican form. For example, the initiative and referendum, whereby the people of some states, by constitutional amendment, have reserved to themselves the power to propose and enact laws independently of the legislative assembly, as well as to approve or reject any act of that body, thereby making it possible for public policy to be made directly by a majority without the political accountability of a representative assembly. (See Federalist No. 10.) Such powers are, however, limited by law to “single subjects” and to legislative and executive implementation. To date, no state has substituted a system of direct democracy in which the people “assemble and administer the Government in person.” (Federalist 10)
[33] http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/rule_of_law/edward_coke_and_righteous_inte.aspx Because of Coke’s uncompromising, unrepentant stance against unconstitutional judicial tyranny, the rule of right was officially recognized as the rule of law. Since the days of Sir Edward Coke, the legislative body of England has been recognized as holding an essential constitutional check against excessive executive and judicial power, a check that was later written into Article III of our own Constitution of the United States of America (1787).
[34] http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm Jefferson, concerned about the future, wrote: "Yes, we did produce a near-perfect republic. But will they keep it? Or will they, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without character is the path of destruction." "They" that he refers to are " we." And the future is now. Freedom, Jefferson knew, would produce "plenty," and with "material abundance" it's easy to forget the responsibility the citizens of a free society must assume if freedom and prosperity are to continue. The key element for the Republic's survival for Jefferson was the "character" of the people, something no set of laws can instill. The question today is not that of abundance, but of character, respect for others, their liberty and their property. It is the character of the people that determines the proper role for government in a free society. Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to "good manners" as the vital ingredient a free society needs to survive. Adams said: "Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt." The message is clear, if we lose our love of liberty and our manners become corrupt, character is lost and so is the Republic. But character is determined by free will and personal choice by each of us individually. Character can be restored or cast aside at a whim. The choice is ours alone and our leaders should show the way.
[35] http://www.freerepublic.com/about.htm We at Free Republic are determined to return the Constitution to its rightful place as the Supreme Law of the land as the Founders intended.
Are you as serious as you are footnoted?
This weenie is perfectly correct on the broader pro-life philosophy but is to Constitution scholarship what Algore is to climate science. Scalia is the best we can get in promoting a pro-life culture. He is perfectly correct on interpretation of the Constitution. The more we try to infer values in the Constitution that aren’t there the more we endorse the efforts of those who would mold the Constitution into a leftist screed.
he is pro life, but he is also pro constitution.
You’re definitely in the running for the longest posts in history.
Having said that, this nation is founded upon the United States Constitution. Not based on the say-so of the Pope in Rome.
I have no doubt that Scalia would rule in favor of the original intent of laws whenever it allowed. He can be against abortion and not interpret some things in a “pro-God” way and still be following God. This is what Joseph did with Pharaoh's land. Pharaoh was anything but a man who followed God, leading a land of idol worshipers. Joseph was compelled by God to help this ungodly country in a unique way. Joseph didn't make Pharaoh give all the country's money to God's people, or even attempt to do so, with his power. Wouldn't a godly man use the government to help God's people survive, rather than idol worshipers? Think about it.
If the Catholic church said that “1 + 1 = 3” and a teacher was hired to teach “1 + 1 = 2”, then he must teach that.
I have no problems with a man of God saying he doesn't use the Bible or the Catholic church's teaching to interpret cases. It must be down to original intent or literal interpretation, in the end.
Scalia is not the enemy. Stupid people who don't know their bibles and can't understand sense are.
Nope, it doesn't shock me. What shocks me is people who thing that killing unborn babies is just fine and dandy, apparently that includes who ever wrote this article.
So is the ALL hoping Scalia can be replaced on the court by somebody appointed by a President Obama? What a bunch of Drivel. Talk about not knowing a good thing when you have one.
Whoa, the amount of links in that post just might be more than any AliVeritas has ever posted in one post! That is saying sumptin! :0)
This is the dumbest statement I have ever seen in print, outside of the so called Penumbra the court finds to justify killing babies.
The Constitution says nothing in particular against abortion; just, as originally written, it said nothing against slavery. Scalia is perfectly correct in interpreting the Constitution as written, it’s the limit of what he can do as a judge and the teachings of the Catholic Church are only tangentially interesting, because our laws are not based on the teachings of any church.
All I expect of the Court is the overturning of the abominable RvW, the eventual protection of all unborn will have to come via a Constitutional amendment - something which already be a reality if we lived in a better society.
*Scalia Ping*
Judie Brown needs to take a chill pill. Seriously, the gal means well, but she has about as much tact as a flame thrower.
Those who suggest that the unborn are not people are contemptible.
Scalia should be denied communion like any other baby-killing liberal.
States rights is all I got out of what little I read. Oh well.
Let’s get an amendment that guarantees abortion can’t be ruled on capriciously one way or the other.
Let’s settle it in favor of life.
And we need a case that speaks to the RVW travesty.
Any ‘pro-life’ person that attacks Anthony Scalia has rocks in their head and bear watching.
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.