7th postscript, February 1995, Moral Security. Our nation began its existence, under our Constitution, with a moral compromise. Slavery would be permitted. This travesty became the law of the land, under what would be the most stringent means of expressing the will of We the People. Id est, as a part of the initial Constitution, it had to be ratified by 3/4s of the States.

The word slavery, per se, was not used in the Constitution. And the clauses, pertinent thereto, were far from definitive as to the future of this abominable institution, after the year 1808. The law of the land did not state that the slave was not a human being; it only defined the "all other persons" (the synonym used for slaves), as less than human by 40% (for purposes of apportionment of Representatives and taxes).

Slavery was a thorn in the side of the new nation from day one. The security, the integrity, of the less than united States was constantly threatened, while this institution was permitted to exist. The slave States insisted that they had a right to the control of their bodies. The free States, under constant prodding by the abolitionists, strove to limit, restrain, and ultimately fight for the demise, of this obviously immoral practice.

The insecurity of the nation was held in check until 1857. In that year the Supreme Court violated the checks and balances. It, in effect, amended the Constitution by judicial decree. The Court read into that document a finding that "property rights", in the Bill of Rights, permitted slave owners to practice slavery in the free states, as well as their own states. There would be no further restraints on slavery; States could have control of their bodies, to choose or not to choose slavery, as they willed.

In December 1860 and early 1861, a number of States seceded from the United States, in expectation that the incoming Lincoln administration would not recognize the "States' rights" to control their bodies. To try to hold the nation together, and in fear of the economic security effects on the manufacturing States of the north, the Congress and the outgoing President took a desperate action that few Americans today are aware.

The Congress (2/3s of both Houses concurring) proposed the following Amendment to the Constitution: "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State."

Although not required to do so by the Amendment provisions of the Constitution, the President took the unprecedented (and never done again) action of signing the document, before it was submitted to the States for ratification as the law of the land. Would this "surrender" have saved the nation? Given time, would 3/4s of the States have ratified? We will never know.

The extreme act of the Congress and the President to save the nation, to over compensate for the Supreme Court error of Dred Scott, was overtaken by the firing on Fort Sumter, and the devastating Civil War. A war, the consequences of which the descendants of the former slaves, and the nation as a whole, are still recovering.

Note, that the proposed Amendment would have introduced the first (and only) element that could not be amended. Slavery, and the other "States' rights" to control their bodies, would be perpetual, deniable only through scrapping of the Constitution.

The United States of America has been in a mini civil war since 1973. In that year the Supreme Court "amended" the Constitution to give women "the right to control their bodies". Therewith it denied We the People, of each State, the right to preclude the immoral act of abortion.

It did this, not through proposals made by 2/3s of the Congress or States, nor ratification by 3/4s of the States, as prescribed by the Constitution.

It did it by inferring such a right, from vague and non-definitive clauses of the Constitution. It did it, based on the then Chief Justice's, and a number of the other eight Justices', sense to be the political will of society. It did it through majority vote of the nine Justices.

These nine Justices did not necessarily have any greater legal or judging qualifications, of what is good for the nation, than a great many of the 100 Senators, 435 Representatives, and thousands of State legislators, 2/3s and 3/4s of which are required to propose and ratify Constitutional Amendments.

The Supreme Court did it through internal procedures, that are at best questionable, for achieving justice. After hearing oral arguments (generally limited to 30 minutes each, interrupted by questions from the Justices) of the lawyers representing each of the sides of the appellate question, the Court takes a vote, and makes its decision.

Decisions are usually final, but are sometimes reversed. After the decision is made, an opinion writer is designated from among the Justices by the senior Justice of the majority. That opinion writer, through his own efforts, and those of his law clerks (who are often just out of law school), then build the case to support the majority opinion.

Granted that iterations, of the opinion writing within the offices of the Court, may help assure justice. But any test or trial is subject to bias, when conclusions are reached, and then the case is built or supplemented, to support them. Findings, from trials conducted under such a procedure, would immediately be tossed out by scientists, engineers, social scientists, et al. Indeed, mistrials would be called in the inferior federal courts, and in jury trials.

In Roe v. Wade, the Court made its decision, that a woman had a right to the control of her body, by inference from the vague and indefinite articles of the Constitution. In doing so it, in effect, amended (added to, subtracted from, altered) that document in a manner distinct from its provisions. In doing so it transgressed, the checks and balances of the States' rights and responsibilities, to protect the lives of persons within their jurisdictions. Right to life is definite (not inferred) in the Bill of Rights, which responsibilities to respect were extended to the States by an early Supreme Court decision.

The Court having made its decision, the majority opinion writer labored hard over two sessions and a summer recess, to build the case to support it. His difficulty lay in resolving the conflict, between the sought after right of a woman to control her body with the existing right (which States' laws sought to continue to protect) of the right to life of unborn babies. Having run up against the barrier, that authorities in all appropriate fields were unable to specify when "life" begins, he punted. He wrote in the opinion that the Court "need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins".

But, surely, that was the crux of the appellate question. Like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade would lead to a civil war. Avoiding the issue, the majority of the Court took on the roles of Congress and the States; it "legislated" an Amendment to the Constitution.

In an attempt to placate the polar positions of the women's liberation movement, and the moral majorities that had made the State laws on abortion, the Court took a political action. It defined an arbitrary formula to decide which unborn babies would be permitted to live, and which could be killed at the will of the mother.

Under the Constitution, the latter action was prescribed for the Congress in the writing of a bill (or the formulation of a Constitutional Amendment) reflecting the will of the people, or as a function of an Executive agency in carrying out a law passed by the Congress.

As a result of Roe v. Wade to date, of the order of, 30 MILLION lives of developing human beings have been terminated. As a result of that judicial error, and other Supreme Court "Amendments", the nations' moral security has been degraded, perhaps beyond the point of no return. The forces of evil are now so great, that only a few Republicans and Democrats, will jeopardize their careers, by unequivocally standing up for our innocent babes in the wombs.