We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)March 4, 2004 To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes. Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the bill in the 108th Congress and needs to be introduced in the 109th Congress.

Friday, January 7

Hearing Before The Subcommittee On The Constitution Of The Committee On The Judiciary

Notes on the Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School, June 24, 2004

Professor Redish is a nationally renowned authority on the subject of Federal jurisdiction. He received his A.B. With honors, with highest honors, in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. Magna cum laude from Harvard law school. He has been described in a review of his book, The Federal Courts in the Political Order, as quote, ''without a doubt the foremost scholar on issues of Federal court jurisdiction in this generation,'' unquote.Professor Redish is the author or coauthor of 70 articles and 13 books, including Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Federal Power. He was recently included on a list of the 100 most cited legal scholars of all time.

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

There are absolutely no federal cases constitutionally excluded from state court jurisdictional authority. The State courts provide an adequate forum to interpret and enforce Federal law, including the Federal Constitution. State courts are empowered and obligated under article VI, clause 2, the supremacy clause, to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The Constitution didn't require Congress to create the lower federal courts (Madisonian Compromise). Congress did create the lower Federal courts immediately, but it is well established in the case law that that power to, from time to time, ordain and establish the lower Federal courts includes the power to abolish the lower Federal courts, and the greater power to abolish the lower Federal courts logically subsumes within it the power to leave the courts in existence, but limit their jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has proceeded on the logical assumption that if Congress possessed discretion not to create lower federal courts in the first place, it also has the power to abolish the lower federal courts. See, e.g., Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850). Since it has been assumed that Congress possesses the authority to abolish the lower federal courts completely, the Court has assumed that it has the logically lesser power to ''abolish'' them as to only certain cases by limiting their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), the Supreme Court recognized the unlimited authority explicitly authorized in the text. There are no internal constitutional limits, no limits in article III on Congress' power. Its power is plenary. There are external constitutional limits on this power; the Due Process Clause, and the equal protection directive in the fifth amendment apply, but are satisfied by state courts which Congress can't affect. The text, and internal logic of the Constitution allows Congress to combine its power over the article III lower courts and the Supreme Court under the exceptions clause, the end result is that it can completely exclude Federal judicial power over pretty much any issue, as long as the State courts remain available. The case law agrees with the Constitution in this respect.

The text and internal logic of the Constitution are the antidote for deceptive arguments claiming Congress hasn't the power which is explicitly stated, and which has been used with no objections of any U.S. Supreme Court. Congress' Article 3 power dosen't violate separation of powers, since the Constitution dosen't provide for Congress to adjucate a case, or dictatate a case, or enforce a decision, or overturn a decision. The states are bound by the Constitution, and not unconstitutional/extraconstitional federal judicial majority opinion.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 81

"The judicial power of the United States is'' (by the plan of the convention) "to be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.''1

The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body.... But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion.

To avoid all inconveniencies, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78 It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Thursday, January 6

Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade

In a December 16, 2004 National Review Online article A Pro-Life Mistake , Attorney Clark D. Forsythe of Americans United for Life recommended that State Legislators cease and desist in the introduction of legislation prohibiting abortion in their States. Attorney Forsythe counseled that since the Supreme Court is not pro-life (despite the fact that Republican Presidents appointed a super-majority, seven out of nine, of those Justices), it would be folly to introduce such legislation at this time. An old proverb comes to mind, "If not now, when?"

On November 2, 2004, the American electorate voted into office a Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate and a majority of Republican Governors. The Supreme Court is made up of a super-majority of Republican appointees. We have, in America, undeniable Republican Party Rule. If the Republican Party is pro-life, now is the best and only time to effectuate any real pro-life legislation.

Those pro-lifers who refused to support the reelection effort of Mr. Bush were told that the election was about the judiciary and the Supreme Court - without good appointments, we'll have another 32 years of Roe v. Wade, we were told. Prior to the election, and since, was there any evidence from the White House that there is any intention to nominate pro-life justices? In fact, has not Mr. Bush nominated several abortion supporting judges to the lower benches, and wasn't his campaigning for Alren Specter (who has promised to block all pro-life Justices) evidence that Mr. Bush has no intention of creating a pro-life judiciary and of eliminating legal abortion in America.

Perhaps we must come to grips with the fact that with Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and majority Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, 4,000 dead babies daily is the best the GOP has to offer. Given the President's remarks in the third Presidential debate, that "reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions," we ought not be looking to the Republican Party as the vehicle by which abortion will be made illegal. All the big-government GOP has to offer is regulations that might reduce the number of abortions. I know from a statistical point, 1,000 puréed babies daily would be "better" than 4,000 diced-up babies, but it is not better for the 1,000 the President has permitted to die on his watch.

I question why the director of Americans United for Life (AUL) would council his fellow colleagues in the pro-life movement to refrain from introducing legislation that would prohibit abortions. I can't help but believe that he shares the opinions of the Republican Party - and the President specifically - regarding minimizing abortions, and he is not committed to ending legal abortion in America. The AUL offers model legislation guides to pro-life lobbyists on Abortion Clinic Regulations, Cloning, Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, Human Embryo Research, Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act, Parental Involvement for Minors Seeking Abortion, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Informed Consent Legislation. Not a one of the AUL eight recommended legislative strategies decries the legality of abortion. If, and frankly since, abortion is immoral and unlawful, it cannot be regulated without us acquiring the same bloody hands that the pro-abortion lobbyists have. Regulating abortion concedes its legality, and assumes that abortion is here to stay as a Constitutionally secured right. Apparently this is the best the Republican-minded pro-lifers have to offer - to concede defeat before the battle begins. Compromise requires that you be willing to accept half a loaf, we are told. Then the GOPers ask for a quarter loaf, and get about an eighth. Why has no one thought to ask for a loaf and a half? Preemptive concession - in this case that abortion is legal and will remain such - is the rule of day.

Additionally, regulating abortion creates new federal regulative programs, requires funding and oversight, and permits the pro-life movement to remain on its high horse demanding more federal intervention in abortion related causes.
Keeping abortion legal for nearly 32 years now is quite possibly the best fund-raising strategy any lobbyist organization could have ever conceived.

It is due to this politically impotent view that I am not a member of the Republican Party. When you belong to the political machine, as Attorney Forsythe and his Americans United for Life, the National Right to Life and other compromisers satisfied with being the reasonable people the President suggested would come together and pass good laws permitting a certain number of abortions, you lose your taste for victory. What Mr. Bush, Attorney Forsythe, the AUL and others have effectively said is that they want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare. But, if every pregnancy resulted in a natural end (either birth or miscarriage), but abortion was still legal, the pro-life movement would have lost the battle, and the pro-abortion "rights" advocates would have won.

The GOP and the pro-life lobbyists have demonstrated their lack of commitment to the unborn, and they must, therefore, be opposed. They are no longer the friend of the unborn, and they are no longer our friends if they are unwilling to expend the political capital we have given them to protect the unborn. Parties and lobbyists are vehicles to advance a cause – if they stop advancing, it is time for us to find or create one that will.

The crux of Attorney Forsythe's argument (I'm not picking on him since in reality the grand majority of these "pro-life lobby" organizations would contend the same as he) is this: Legislatures, don't expend in 2005 the political capital received in 2004 since the courts will oppose you, and you will be slapped with an attorney's fees bill from the ACLU.

Legislators, if I may humbly submit to you an alternative to the preemptive concession of Attorney Forsythe: If you fail to act, you will be slapped with a bill for the blood of the unborn you have permitted to be shed in your State. As State Legislatures,
you can interpose between the Judicial Usurpation of Roe and the unborn babies in the womb. Since Roe was decided unconstitutionally and fraudulently, it is void ab initio and invalid as against the States - but you must be willing to make and stand by that argument.

As a party to the Contract of the United States Constitution, you have an absolute right to insist upon compliance to it from the other Party, namely the Federal Government. Go right ahead, declare abortion illegal - you have, after all, also taken an Oath to the United States Constitution. To submit to Roe in your jurisdiction is to commit perjury of your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The only question left is this: If the Republicans elected into office are willing to make that stand, will the leaders of the Party and the pro-life movement support it? If not, and frankly my hopes are not very high, or if they are not even willing to raise Interposition as a remedy against a Federal usurpation of power, it is time to conclude that neither the Republican Party, nor the pro-life lobbyists, are committed to ending legal abortion in America.

Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade, December 17, 2004, by Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.

The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury .pdf file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader (free), or can be read in online @ The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury


Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison,1 the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.

As befits the name of the court from which the doctrine emanates, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review - the power, in Chief Justice John Marshall's famous words in Marbury, "to say what the law is"2 - is supreme. The Congress, the President, the states - indeed, "We the People" who "ordain[ed] and establish[ed]"3 the Constitution - are all bound by the Supreme Court's pronouncements. Thus, the decisions of the Supreme Court become, in effect, part of the Constitution itself. Even the Supreme Court is bound by its own precedents, at least most of the time. Occasionally the Court needs to make landmark decisions that revise prior understandings, in order to keep the Constitution up to date with the times. When it does, that revised understanding becomes part of the supreme law of the land. Other than through the adoption of a constitutional amendment, however, the Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional change.

Judicial review (the myth continues) thus serves as the ultimate check on the powers of the other branches of government, and is one of the unique, crowning features of our constitutional democracy. The final authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution has withstood the test of time. It has survived periodic efforts by the political branches, advanced during times of crisis (the Civil War and the Great Depression) or out of short-term political opposition to initially unpopular or controversial rulings (like Brown v. Board of Education4 and Roe v. Wade5), to undermine this essential feature of our constitutional order. Through it all - Dred Scott6 and the Civil War, the New Deal Court-packing plan, resistance to Brown, the Nixon Tapes case,7 the Vietnam War, the quest to overrule Roe v. Wade - the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution has stood firm. Indeed, the Court's authority over constitutional interpretation by now must be regarded, rightly, as one of the pillars of our constitutional order, on par with the Constitution itself.

So the myth goes.

By Michael S. Paulsen, Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law

Very long article that is a must read for the pro-life constituency that dosen't understand Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade

Wednesday, January 5

Rabbi Yehuda Levin,Speech to National March for Life, Washington, D.C., January 22, 2004

Three decades ago, in 1973, a decadent Supreme Court, in this city of Washington, D.C., issued a shameful decree—the ROE vs. WADE ruling that empowered the abortion establishment to murder and mutilate tens of millions of G-D’s children in cold blood.

Today, 31 years later, ROE vs. WADE is still the law of this great country. So, we have come here today to dramatize this appalling condition.

When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they made a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this guarantee, as far as her unborn children are concerned.

So, we have come to demand that America’s leaders make good on this guarantee. We have come to demand that President Bush act immediately, together with the leaders of the House and Senate, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the subject of Abortion, and to change the law to protect America’s unborn children.

They have the right to do this, under the Constitution of the United States.

This is no time to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.

Now is the time to open the doors of life to all of G-D’s children. It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the consequences of the continued murder of millions of unborn children.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."

I have a dream that one day our political leaders will liberate themselves from the tyrannical rule of the pollsters and political gurus, and stand up for what is right and decent.

I have a dream that one day, very soon, no child will be murdered or mutilated in this great country—that all of America’s children will have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of freedom.

But not only that—let freedom ring from the abandoned abortion clinics of Planned Parenthood--From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

Let us speed up the day when all of G-D’s children: White, Black, Brown, Gentile, Catholic, Protestant, and Jew alike will be able to sing the words of that old Negro spiritual: "Born at last! Born at last! -- Thank G-D Almighty, we are born at last!"

Abortion in the State of Israel

Abortionists kill more children than terrorists

"He who destroys his own children…who wrecks the handiwork of G-D…brings hunger, plague, and the sword upon the world." —Zohar, Shemos (Exodus)

"Abortion is murder, plain and simple." —Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Da Ma Shetoshiv

The Ex-abortionists: Why They Quit

As a young doctor in the early 1970s, Paul E. Jarrett, Jr., did a number of legal abortions. He began having doubts, though, after the urea-induced abortion of a mental patient. The child, weighing two pounds, was born alive, and the mother screamed, "My baby's alive! My baby's alive!" Dr. Jarrett later said, "I often wondered what we did for her mental status. That baby lived several days."

But it was a 1974 operation that "changed my mind about abortion forever." While doing a suction abortion, Jarrett found that the suction curette was obstructed by a torn-off fetal leg. So he changed techniques and dismembered the child with a ring forceps:

And as I brought out the rib cage, I looked and I saw a tiny, beating heart. And when I found the head of the baby, I looked squarely in the face of another human being–a human being that I'd just killed. I turned to the scrub nurse and said, "I'm sorry." But I just knew that I couldn't be a part of abortion any more.

The Ex-abortionists: Why They Quit by Mary Meehan - 2000 Spring/Summer - The Human Life Foundation, Inc.

Whose Justice?

Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has been a problem in America since well before the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. Many federal judges have become de facto legislators in recent decades, substituting their self-presumed wisdom for the will of Congress. In the process, the American people have lost more and more power to influence the laws under which they must live.

Activist federal judges often view the Constitution as an anachronism that stands in the way of their visions for "social justice." They usually view European socialism very positively, and unconditionally believe in the United Nations and international law. Accordingly, activist judges increasingly are looking outside the US for guidance when deciding cases.

This latest brand of judicial activism has a name: "transjudicialism." Transjudicialism means that American federal judges consider foreign and international legal sources when deciding cases, even though such sources often conflict directly with our own Constitution.

As Robert Bork explains, six of the nine Supreme Court justices have either written or joined opinions that favorably cited foreign authorities. These justices have considered the European Court of Human Rights, various United Nations conventions, international human rights treaties, and even judicial decisions from India, Jamaica, and Zimbabwe when writing their opinions! Simply put, these justices are making the incredible argument that American federal courts should consider sources other than US law when deciding cases. In the words of one justice, the Court "cannot afford to ignore the rest of the world."

It’s not hard to see the grave danger posed by this new trend. Anti-gun judges could cite restrictions on gun ownership in other countries approvingly when disregarding our Second amendment. Hate speech laws in other nations could be used as authority to weaken the First amendment. Our wholly domestic tax, labor, environmental, and family laws could be influenced by United Nations edicts, foreign court judgments, and international treaties which have not been ratified by the United States.

The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land in America. Congress needs to exercise its constitutional power over federal courts and send judges a strong message that Americans will be governed by American law only. I recently introduced legislation that forbids the Supreme Court and lower federal courts from citing any foreign or international laws, rules, policies, or court decisions as authority for their opinions. Federal judges take an oath of office promising to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution and US federal law. Those judges who insist on considering foreign law and foreign opinions should be removed from their positions for violating that oath, pure and simple. Justice Scalia warns that "Day by day, case by case, the Court is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." Congress needs to act quickly before Mr. Scalia’s fears are fully realized.

April 12, 2004- Congressman Ron Paul of Texas

The Imperial Judiciary

Last week’s debate over the constitutional marriage amendment brought even greater attention to the issue of activist judges. From gay marriage to Boy Scouts to frivolous lawsuits to the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans have grown increasingly distrustful and suspicious of our federal courts- and rightfully so. Never in our history have unaccountable federal judges wielded more power over our lives.

Judicial activism, the practice of judges ignoring the law and deciding cases based on their personal political views, has intensified in the decades since Roe v. Wade. This practice is now standard for many federal judges. They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as hopelessly outdated, instead treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired outcome in any given case. For judges who see themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more important than the letter of the laws they are sworn to interpret and uphold. With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social agenda than upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly governed by men they did not elect and cannot remove from office.

But what is to be done? Since many citizens lack basic knowledge of our Constitution and federalist system, they are easily manipulated by media and academic elites who tell them that judges are the absolute and final arbiters of US law. But the Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches of government; it is supreme only over lower federal courts. If Americans wish to be free of judicial tyranny, they must at least develop basic knowledge of the judicial role in our republican government. The present state of affairs is a direct result of our collective ignorance.

The ultimate solution to the problem of unbridled judicial activism at the federal level is clear: Congress must reassert its constitutional authority to define and restrict the jurisdiction of federal courts. This power is plainly granted in Article III, and no constitutional amendments are required. On the contrary, any constitutional amendment addressing judicial activism would only grant legitimacy to the dangerous idea that social issues are federal matters. Remember, when social issues are federalized, conservatives always lose. Giving more authority over social matters to any branch of the federal government is a mistake, because a centralized government is unlikely to reflect local sentiment for long. If anything, the marriage amendment would have given the secular left an excuse to impose gay marriage on all of us in future years, as the issue would have been irrefutably federalized.

Congressional cowardice enables judicial activism. Just as Congress ceded far too much legislative authority to presidents throughout the 20th century, it similarly has allowed federal judges to operate wildly beyond their constitutional role. In fact, many current members of Congress apparently accept the false notion that federal court judgments are superior to congressional statutes. Unless and until Congress asserts itself by limiting federal court jurisdiction, judges will continue to act as de facto lawmakers.

The political left increasingly uses the federal judiciary to do in court what it cannot do at the ballot box: advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove. As a society we should reconsider the wisdom of lifetime tenure for federal judges, and pay closer attention to the judicial nomination procedure. It’s time for the executive and legislative branches to show some backbone, appoint judges who follow the Constitution, and remove those who do not. It’s also time for Congress to start establishing clear limits on federal judicial power.

October 4, 2004 - Congressman Ron Paul of Texas

Tuesday, January 4

Objective Of This Blog

In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The relevant portions of Article III are a mere 200 words, involving the first sentence of Section 1 and the first two clauses of Section 2. The essence of those 200 words can be reduced to the following, which reveals the enormous power Congress has over the federal courts:

"The judicial power of the United States shall be vested...in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

"....the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Congress has plenary authority to regulate and even abolish all jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and it has near plenary authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court. The State courts are explicitly bound to uphold federal law under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause to interpret and enforce the Constitution, and they are more than adequate to protect individual rights. The State courts aren't bound to uphold unconstitutional federal judicial majority opinion found in deviant precedent, and neither are any other Federal or State officials whose oath of Office requires them to uphold the Constitution.

Article III has enormous implications for numerous issues, such as abortion, sodomy and 'establishment clause' cases, where the federal courts routinely issue nothing but unconstitutional majority opinions. The State courts, strictly interpreting the Constitution according to fixed rules, could begin to reverse the severe damage done by federal courts over the past half-century.

Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, acknowledged the source of Rights and expressed the fundamental purpose of government:"....all Men are created equal...endowed by their Creator with...unalienable Rights, that among these are Life....to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted...."

Science and rational demonstration prove that a human being exist from the moment of conception. The ethic of reciprocity compels one to consider others, as he desires to be considered by others. The combined effect of science and ethics indicates that the only way a living human being can't be fully human is by broken law. Roe v Wade and progeny broke the law; for, among the fundamental purposes of government is the security of the right to life.

Combining scientific & medical facts with Biblical & ethical principals to form arguments which save lives by persuasion is of inestimable value - however - these victories for life haven't succeeded in terminating the unconstitutional opinions, commencing with Roe v Wade which have broken the rule of law.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress to let the States begin to mend their broken laws.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?