Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)
I sometimes wonder if there is hidden text in the Constitution of these United States that is written in invisible ink, or if there were portions of the Constitution that have never been made available to anyone other than the judicial branch.
That would be a charitable interpretation of a recent decision declaring that restrictions on abortion in Arkansas "impermissibly infringes a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability." The uncharitable interpretation would be that the judge was abusing her authority to legislate from the bench.
So let's examine the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. The relevant portion of the text establishes:
- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
- No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
- nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
- nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
You will notice that nowhere in the four provisions quoted above is the "right" to have a child killed in the womb established. The "due process" clause has nothing to do with abortion; it merely requires that a process be followed before the state can act against someone. If anything, the equal protection clause would make legalized abortion unconstitutional by denying unborn persons equal protection under murder laws.
Politically and legally, the Arkansas ban was a risk because it went farther than the bans on abortion at twenty weeks that have been very controversial - though they should not have been controversial at all. I doubt that pro-life legislators in Arkansas had any real expectation that the ban would not be struck down, but that it would instead be another opportunity to legally chip away at Roe v. Wade.
But what it does do is allow us to re-examine the flawed legal argument used to throw out bans on abortion in all fifty states. Much like professional wrestling matches, the outcome of Roe v. Wade was predetermined. The justices twisted and shaped the text of the Constitution to make it fit the result they wanted, instead of allowing the text of the Constitution to determine the legality of state bans and restrictions on abortion. Furthermore, because of the court's absurd obsession with "precedent," the decision was allowed to stand when an intellectually honest reading of the Constitution would see it overturned.
The problem, ultimately, is that the Supreme Court has been packed with "justices" who are rebels against the rule of law. This is why every major decision these days is seen through a political lens instead of a legal lens, establishing this nation as a judicial oligarchy instead of a constitutional republic. That is a much bigger problem for our country in the long run than one terrible decision from forty-one years ago.
Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.
, Mike Newton said...
"I sometimes wonder if there is hidden text in the Constitution of these United States that is written in invisible ink, or if there were portions of the Constitution that have never been made available to anyone other than the judicial branch."
Doubtful, but there are clearly parts that "conservatives" can't read, like the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment and the 14th's provision for slashing congressional representation of any state the obstructs minority suffrage. Wouldn't it be great if those provisions were enforced for once? Then again, they have similar selective blindness when it comes to scripture so, again, no surprise.
, Mike Newton said...
Fascinating that you got all four of your points from the first of five sections in the amendment, carefully ignoring two that "conservatives" constantly harp on and obstruct:
"Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." [As when Republicans manufacture repeated economic crises in Washington.]
"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." [As when "conservatives" claim civil rights legislation is "unconstitutional."
Let the ideological cherry-picking begin!
Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.
- A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.
- This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.
- Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.
- Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.
- All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.
Thank you for your cooperation.