|
Responsibility #17
(written prior to July 1992)
To the People of the United States of America:
Abortion is rampant in our land. Over 26 million developing human beings have been killed since the Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Over one million babies are being executed each year.
Roe v. Wade is the most known, and most notorious, case name in the history of our country, exceeding even that of the Dred Scott pro-slavery travesty that triggered our Civil War. It is the most divisive issue facing our nation. It is the most unjust action, in the history of the world, since Pontius Pilate released Barabbas to the mob.
It has and will continue to cause disunity, and lack of domestic tranquility, throughout our land. It threatens the demise of our country, more than any foreign power or ideology. The welfare of our families, and each and every one of us, hangs in the balance, so long as this lack of regard for human life persists.
We do not deserve the blessings of "Nature's God", when we abort our innocents. The millions of our posterity, that have been denied the light of day, will never taste of these blessings, that we proclaim we intend to secure for ourselves and them.
How could this happen in our "land of the free and home of the brave"? Many books, and much other literature, have been written concerning abortion, and the inner workings of the Supreme Court. In the final analysis, our Supreme Court is a miniature legislature of nine men and women subject to majority rule, requiring only the partial or full concurrence of 5 to place its will on We the People.
In contrast, notwithstanding their political and moral weaknesses, for any legislation our Senate must have agreement of up to 51 of its 101 members and Senate President; our House must convince up to 218 of its 435 Representatives; and in addition they must have or gain the concurrence of the Executive branch (the President plus whatever advisors he relies upon for the particular issue at hand). When controversial measures are deemed by the President to be ill-advised, and of such import to justify his veto, the fifty percent rule is replaced by the 2/3s criteria for the two houses to enact laws over the President's head. Similarly, in the vital area of treaties, 2\3s of our Senators present must concur with the action of the President.
When the Constitution is found wanting, or when We the People find that mere revision of laws is insufficient to override distasteful findings of the Supreme Court, a Constitutional amendment is required. Then pulling teeth is really requisite! 2/3s of both houses shall deem it necessary to propose amendments; or legislatures of 2/3s of the States shall call for a convention for proposing amendments. In either case, 3/4s of State legislatures (or conventions), now meaning 38 of the 50, must ratify amendments for them to become valid as part of the Constitution.
This comparison makes it quite clear that unless the Supreme Court sticks to JUDGMENT, and dutifully avoids legislative and executive roles, it can permit 5 of 9 Justices to cause the will of one or more of them to be foisted on We the People. The results can be more devastating than the worst perpetrations of the vilest Dictators, Tsars, or Slavers. Indeed, the abortions since Roe v. Wade exceed the carnage of the Holocaust, any pogrom, and no doubt many times the deaths of all slaves in America due to mal-treatment and over-work.
With this danger apparent, one would hope that the manner in which the Court arrives at findings would provide confidence, that final justice in the nation is in good hands. Not so, not so! Our vulnerability is even more evident when we look at the internal workings of the Court. For a complete understanding, among others, please refer to: (1) Harry H. Wellington's "Interpreting the Constitution"; and (2) Bob Woodward & Scott Armstrong's "The Brethren".
A few extracts from (1) above will suffice in the interest of brevity for these essays:
" .... in adjudication various groups interpret the Constitution in accordance with the understandings of their membership. Their lawyers argue to establish and through governmental power to impose on the nation that understanding, the understanding of their clients. Other lawyers, representing other interests, argue for a different interpretation, one shared by their clients. Constitutional principles and legal sanctions emerge from this dynamic, adversarial process; in this methodological sense, the process itself is a SOURCE OF LAW.
This process, resulting as it does in the imposition of sanctions, is different from most interpretive processes. Indeed where else does an interpretive process bestow authority on officials to take away property and even life?"
" .... before [a Justice] is selected to write, the members of [the] Court must vote on the case." "In the contest for votes, it would appear that in addition to reasoned arguments Justices have used personal flattery and emotional appeals, and have even traded votes. Evidence also suggests that a Justice may vote with the majority even while disagreeing with its treatment of the case, and then bargain to influence the Court's opinion. Justices also may threaten to write dissenting or concurring opinions or try to form voting blocks to influence opinions."
"The ability to assign the opinion is itself a sometimes powerful opportunity to influence the eventual outcome. For example, the opinion may be assigned to a Justice who does not hold firm views, but who has a vote that is needed for a majority. The task of writing often persuades an equivocal author ...."
"What all this means is that in the voting and writing processes, negotiation plays a role in formulating Constitutional principles. In a methodological sense, then, negotiation too is a SOURCE OF LAW."
So we see that the opportunity for judicial mistake by the Supreme Court is extremely high. In the next paper, we will further examine the tragic judicial error of Roe v. Wade. We will then go on to discuss immediate corrective action, and how we can avoid future episodes.
Publius IV
|