Stripping the Power from Renegade Courts
Recently, five black-robed overlords masquerading as Supreme Court Justices demonstrated an astounding dearth of logic, restraint and decency. Their flawed ruling has both infuriated and motivated a public dizzied from a relentless barrage upon their culture.
In a completely unconscionable move, these disreputable quints turned their backs on the most innocent and fragile figures of humanity. Without the slightest nexus to the Constitution, the representative legislative process of twenty-eight states was summarily dismissed.
The legislatures involved were conscientiously seeking to halt a barbarous and medically unnecessary procedure, one that involves delivering a baby three-quarters of the way into the world, artificially holding its head back from the natural destination of freedom, and brutally extinguishing its tender life.
The High Court,s Dred Scot sequel is a stark departure from the ideology held by nearly every culture the world over. In addition, it contradicts the classical view of countless philosophers and theologians throughout time.
Thoughtful people who debate the subject of when, in the gestation process, life begins seldom question the legitimate, sacred humanness of a baby during the last trimester of pregnancy. As a matter of fact, history reveals that two primary viewpoints have been dominant for ages: the Aristotelian view which involves "quickening, or the idea that a soul is infused into the baby when the mother first perceives movement in her womb, and the Tertullian view, which contends that life begins at conception.
How did we arrive at this perverse place in societal structure, where judges are allowed to mutilate the very definition of human life, strip away the clearly recognizable unalienable rights of untold numbers of our most vulnerable citizens and impose a wanton philosophy that most individuals in society find abhorrent? This truly is the boulder that, if allowed to stand, will crush the back of our culture.
The time has come to revisit a power that Congress explicitly possesses and has rightly used in the past the constitutional power to remove jurisdiction of specified subject matter from both the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.
This is the power that was used during Reconstruction in the nineteenth century and for injunctions against labor unions during the twentieth century. The authority was acknowledged and upheld by the Supreme Court itself and is consistent with the intended role of the judiciary. The judicial branch of government is supposed to first apply the plain meaning of law and only rely upon interpretation, according to the intent of the drafters, if and when the given law is ambiguous.
Perhaps in anticipation of the coming judicial debacle, Representative Ron Paul introduced HR 3691, the "Partial Birth Abortion and Judicial Limitation Act, in February of 2000. This legislation provides that inferior courts of the United States will have no jurisdiction to hear cases relating to partial birth abortion. It may be, though, that Representative Paul underestimated the extent to which this Court has degenerated. How could he have fathomed that presumably intelligent, respectable and esteemed justices could ever invoke such ethically bankrupt reasoning as that used in Stenberg v. Carhart?
Most legal analysts were stunned to find out that the pronouncements in the Casey and Roe decisions, which allude to the relationship between the point in time in the gestation process and the rights of the child in the womb, were cast aside. Furthermore, the Court has now demonstrated that it has lost any semblance of appropriate judicial discretion by creating an entirely new sphere of jurisprudence, which selectively disregards the Bill of Rights whenever the subject of abortion is involved.
In light of these circumstances, it seems that HR3691 now requires broadening. Jurisdiction needs to be removed, not only from the inferior federal courts, but additionally from the appellate power of the Supreme Court, in all cases involving medical efforts to terminate life after conception.
This is not some congressional power based upon theory, interpretation, or even some abstract legal implication. No, it is an express provision of the text of the Constitution in Article III, Section 2. Its use would not only help to restore integrity to the separation of powers principle, but it would also allow representative government to perform the legitimate and highly effective function of creating laws which reflect the true will of the people.
The judicial branch has totally and definitively overstepped its bounds. It has done so in a manner that threatens the soul of this great nation. Providentially, our founding fathers provided a clear and simple remedy. The only question is whether or not our representatives have the moral character and fortitude to exercise it.
Reproduced with the permission of