Legal Law

Abortion decree by precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States? As wrong as "Separate but equal"

Have you ever stopped to think about the strange twist of the supposedly established precedent of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education (1954), by a unanimous vote of the nine very differently minded justices of the Earl Warren Court? That was the first time in the history of the American republic that something so amazing was done to overturn a long-standing judicial precedent, and the only reason it happened was that each of the nine justices was personally courted by the president of the Supreme court. Earl Warren to see the existing precedent, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 as simply wrong, if not unconstitutional.

You see, the 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established in that year by decree that racial segregation based on the doctrine of “separate but equal” was constitutional; but although it was “constitutional”, many jurists considered it morally incorrect, applied and imposed on the States. However, the powers granted to the states by the drafters in the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights were deliberately intended to be very broad and generalized, while the powers granted to the federal government over the states were deliberately intended to be very restricted. There were no, and still are not, powers granted to the federal government in the United States Constitution to allow the creation of any “social” legislation, or laws governing race relations in or between states. The “Equal Protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, 1865, which was created by a vengeful and coerced northern sectional congress on the southern states (formerly the Confederacy) in 1865, is the closest thing to a “federal power.” to legislate social laws. and regulations, but does not evoke, add to, or diminish the specific federal powers set forth in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. The honorable drafters intended that federal law be standardized in the states according to the powers specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution, but the Constitution allowed the states to be very different in law and appearance according to the tenth. Amendment. If a person did not like legislation created by a particular state legislature, it was the right of that person to seek a change in that law at the state level of the state legislature, or to move to another state where the law was in effect. different. Only if the State did not conform to the standardized laws imposed on all States by the federal government in accordance with the powers assigned to the national government by the Constitution, could the federal government impose its federal will on the State in accordance with Supremacy. Clause of the United States Constitution.

Perhaps, in 1954, the eight associate justices of the United States Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative, were persuaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren that Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was not a true judicial precedent because the “separate but equal” doctrine should not have been imposed on the states by the federal government. Perhaps Warren could have regarded the Plessy ruling as a matter that originally should have been declared in 1896 as exclusively a state matter, that should not have been tried and resolved by a US district court and appealed through the courts. However, Warren was a liberal jurist and a progressive Wilsonian (who mistakenly believed that the United States Constitution was not set in stone by the framers, but was highly changeable) and probably considered Plessy v. Ferguson as a socially deplorable, if not immoral, failure. Warren probably also believed that the only way to rectify an “immoral” sentence, applied to all states, would be to completely ignore it as precedent. For liberals seeking judicial activism, Brown v. The Board of Education’s decision was a blessing. For most conservatives it was a curse and a vile mark on the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Although he did not, Warren could have chosen to climb into a soap box and declare aloud that, “if the people, or the states, wanted the federal government to have the power to legislate social rules and regulations in the states “. , the U.S. Constitution would have to be properly amended to give that power to the federal government. I don’t know if Earl Warren had come to believe that the 14th Amendment had been improperly or properly intended in 1865 to nullify the power of the States under the Tenth Amendment Bill of Rights. Since he had been a liberal defender of judicial activism and not a vocal defender of the first ten amendments, I sincerely doubt it. Earl Warren did not clarify before he died why he assiduously courted the vote of each of the eight associate justices, culminating in the unanimous decision to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and dismissing it as a precedent. I believe that the ruling was for Warren an act of judicially supplanting what he thought was vile with a questionably constitutional ruling. However, I don’t think you can have both. If a decision of the US Supreme Court, or a legislative act of Congress, is basically not constitutional, there is no reasonable way to justify the results of its implementation.

In much the same way, the Supreme Court of John Roberts of the 21st century, with a predominant conservative majority today, could, in the very near future, declare with those five conservative votes the evil and immorality of Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), and that it should not have been considered in 1974 as arising under the laws of the United States or under the Constitution of the United States to be determined by the federal judiciary. Those conservative judges currently have the power to rule that Roe v. Wade “did not” should have originally been tried and tried by a US district court and appealed to the US Supreme Court but should have been originally and forever considered exclusively a matter of state. This is a topic that Senator Lindsay Graham focused on in his confirmation cross-examination of then-Supreme Court candidate Brett Kavanaugh, when the senator asked Kavanaugh if the historical precedent that abortion was a state-only matter exceeded the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade (1973). At the time, Kavanaugh declined to answer the question correctly, saying only that he would “follow the precedent.” However, historically, abortion was an exclusively state matter that was regarded as strictly as homicide, or the unlawful murder of one human being by another, during the four hundred year period in which the original thirteen states were British colonies. The original thirteen states, formerly colonies, established a standard for defining the unborn as human beings by declaring that the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes the illegal murder of “two or more” human beings rather than one under colonial authority and State constitutional law and customary law. If that fetal human being in the womb of a pregnant woman killed by another human being is loved as a son or daughter by the pregnant woman, or by the man who got her pregnant, that human life is, historically, both a living being. breathe human like pregnant woman. The law cannot be twisted to be ambiguous on this very basic issue. Because if the wife of a prominent New York City attorney is pregnant and in the ninth month of pregnancy with that couple’s first-born child, and that child’s proud mother and father expect the child to be born on time, the premeditated murder of that woman and her child by a criminal during the commission of a robbery to a store constitutes the murder of two human beings, instead of just one; and that the husband / father would, in all likelihood, seek the death penalty for such a heinous crime. This basic principle applies to the intentional killing of “any” normal healthy child in the third, fourth, fifth or sixth month of gestation through abortion process when the mother of that child could have waited and delivered the living healthy child for adoption. What is the basic difference in outcome if the normal healthy child, in the mother’s womb, is deliberately killed by a gunshot (separately or together with the mother) or by the act of an abortionist? The baby, a human being, is dead as a result of the actions of other human beings.