Nomsendero, "mea culpa, mea maxima culpa". My choice of wording in regards to the "IInd" was wrong to put the matter to you plainly and I do apologize sincerely.
As for further discussion I have penned a primer, so to speak, it is intended as a formal dispassionate discussion on the subject that has been bandied about here. It is not opinion; it is in the way of historical fact and is intended to arm those who wish honest discussion and debate instead of animus and fury, especially on the issue of artificial abortion, its legality and its relationship tyo constitutional law. A CONCLUSION
Abortion exists as a fact in nature. Abortion is the natural result of the hostÂ’s body [the mother] rejecting the fetus [a fertilized embryo] from the symbiotic relationship established in the womb. Abortion is a natural defense by the body against some condition, fundamental, in the pregnancy that makes the fetus morbid or threatens the life of the host mother. Artificial abortion is that protocol or practice or practices taken individually or in some combination that induces the natural defensive mechanisms of the host mother to reject the fetus at any stage of development. Artificial abortion mimics abortion and is not abortion in the truest sense.
The term “abortion” is a political term expropriated by its proponents to define certain views, personal and social, with an end in view of making that which is a fact in nature a political end.
Artificial abortion has been practiced by all members of the animal kingdom and exists as a fact reflective of their animal natures. For the sentient cognitive animal known as man, artificial abortion has been, continues, and is generally expected in the future to be a condition resultant of the exercise of free will as well as a component of their lower animal natures.
To raise arguments for or against the practice of artificial abortion, the efficacy of it, is to raise moral and ethical questions that quite possibly not be answered. Those who demand the rescission of “Roe” by the Court are deluded. The political reality is that though “Roe” is bad law by clause bound Constitutional interpretation it is nevertheless now settled law. No Supreme Court in the history of the Republic has ever rescinded a decision by justices “en benc”; that is a fact in law and a political fact. To do so would be far worse than the original “Roe” decision with ramifications that will destroy even the Constitution itself.
Those who demand “Roe” at all costs do so in the face of statistical realities that demonstrably show that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to artificial abortion. Arguments that have been
Propounded concerning a supposed “right to privacy” are specious at best. For if indeed they were not all would see and accede to that position; the reality is that all do not. It may be fairly put by those favoring artificial abortion that those who are opposed to it are somehow forcing their views, values and judgments on them. That indeed is a fact that is not arguable and exists as a demonstrated fact in that peculiar exercise of human nature otherwise known as government. All governments in all times and in all places in all of human history demonstrate the fact that government exists for nothing other of its purpose than the projection of the power of its majority and the protection of their power through the systematically conscionable codification of their judgments in a consistent body of law. When it ceases to do so it is either altered or abolished, by that same majority. The simple inarguable reality of this is that all minorities exist at the sufferance of the majority in any given government milieu and whenever they become destructive of the majority culture or their ends run counter to established government, they are dealt with, generally harshly or in such manner as restores political equilibrium and stable government thereby. This occurs irrespective of any fictions, preconceptions or conceits regarding all constituted government charters, especially our own.
Now, it may be that a constitutionally directed Republic cannot be adequately rationed or quantified by some equation, but it is understood and known as such by its peculiar architecture, the separations of powers. What is generally understood through this is that the will of its majority culture is not systematically and consistently thwarted, for if it is those who are complicit and principal to that do so at their own peril. The majority culture in the milieu of a constitutionally directed Republic in America is White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is a cultural consideration and all who ascribe to those values associated with it are the same, by that association. This occurs not respecting race, gender, religion or class; this reality cuts across all lines. The religious tenets of all White Anglo-Saxon Protestants are Judaeo-Christian in character. The cold wind that blew out of Germany in the 16th century [the Protestant Revolution] reformed nothing; it set future American feet on the path that inevitably led to the “Declaration” of Independence, the Revolutionary War and constitutional government.
The dynamic democratic theocracy of the Scots-Irish Presbyterian Kirk with its covenants by mutual consent was rooted in Judaeo-Christian traditions, the Torah, and the New Testament; it gave first to America and then to the world the writings of Locke, Hume, Harrington and Adam Smith. This tradition is responsible, and none other, for free market capitalism, and from the bottom up covenant, mutual in character, of constitutionally directed Republican government. Aside of the Judaeo-Christian teachings and traditions as reflected in the majority culture of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant America all other teachings; traditions and cultures are without value and have no meaning for the culture of our constitutionally directed republic.
The “Declaration” is the first instance in human history of formal codification of Judaeo-Christian principles as matters of practical political consideration. As much a declaration of independence it is first and foremost a declaration of right. Rights, God and the connection which rights accrue thereby between man and God are stated first. While battles over “Roe .v. Wade” have been lost, the war over it is nevertheless being won in the sea change of American opinion. The battle over this issue goes deeper than isolated instances of court sanctioned killings. It goes all the way back to the found of the Republic and its seminal document, the “Declaration”, that provided the driving moral force for that founding. The admixture of religious principle to politics is quintessentially and American phenomenon. It is conservative in its character, from the Mayflower Compact to present times; the covenanted charter
[Constitution] accompanied by its corpus of amendments in the Bill of Rights of our Republic cannot be understood and contemplated apart from that reality because it flows from it. Artificial Abortion is the lynch pin of all contemporary American social issues. These are not European or Asian issues because it is our “Declaration” that is the primeval document guaranteeing the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Its assertion is free from guile or art and directly states as sole authority among men the “Creator”; they are entitled by “…the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God…” The only reason that there is a right to life movement in America and not Europe goes to the reality of that document. This is the unblinking glaring boundary, unavoidable in its presence, that separates principled Conservatives and the Republican Party from the Democratic Party, those seeking artificial abortion, and in the end makes it “the” patriotic party which reverences ancient traditions, institutions, ideals, government by laws not judges and life. For Republicans, Conservatives and those aligned with the pro-life movement, the case of “: Roe” demonstrates nothing less than a naked grab for power by the judiciary.
The fundamental premise of the Democratic non-filibuster of the PresidentÂ’s judicial nominees is that
“Roe” must never be questioned. “Roe” as is the whole of the pro-choice position, is corrupt not only on
Its face but on a far greater scale, in that it is the matrix upon which a whole rotten panoply of
Contemporary liberal social and political issues in America are based. With the review and rescission of
“Roe”, the whole edifice will crash. American people cannot long adopt the stance that the
Constitution is a living document that the satraps of the Supreme Court and the grandees of the legal will
From time to time tell “us” what it means. The court then becomes political; disrespect for the rule
Of law will be fomented, by discrete minorities seizing control of the judiciary and subverting government
to their own ends. Legally binding decision making on the question of artificial abortion is a function of
the original power of the people themselves;it is not the purview of the Courts or the clotured membership
of the American legal professions. From the very first “Roe” has corrupted the rule of law because it has
had the effect of the state sanctioning killing for purposes private, and by hat has put public order in
jeopardy and has loosened restraints on behavior personal and private. As a sidebar, the court ordered
killing of Terry Shciavo makes crystalline that those who feared the repercussions of “Roe” were not
groundless in their fears and were absolutely on target.
For nearly two hundred years the “IXth” Amendment was treated as a judicial oddity. The “IXth” has served as a warrant for the “Xth” Amendment, which amendments taken in tandem serve as a punctuated period to not only the amendment debates but to a positive conclusion of constitutional debates in the infant republic. Madison sought with colleagues, like minded, to bring further constitutional debate to a conclusion as protracted debate on the line of amendment risked the disaffection of the states with the corpus of constituted articles. Madison’s explanation of the rationale for the “IXth” followed on a line of argument, that considered delimitation from the Federal perspective.
Madison held in argument:
“…It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in the enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights that were not placed in that enumeration, that those rights not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure.” The thrust point of Madison’s disputation is acutely simple: straightaway the “IXth” guarantees that those rights already in the constituted governments of the several states could remain with the states exclusively and that the enumeration of rights in the “Bill” could not be construed as altering that arrangement.
In the cultural history of constituted government the “IXth” has been used in a most notable instance “Griswold .v. Connecticut” as a rationale in part for holding state legislation as unconstitutional. Justice William O. Douglas created a veritable “Lazy Susan” cafeteria line of rationalizations from the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments in derivation of the principle of an overarching principle of a right to privacy older than the “Bill of Rights” with respect to the privacy of the marriage bed. Douglas writing for the majority:
“… specific guarantees, in the “Bill of Rights” have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” Therefore, the “zones of privacy” created by the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth amendments protect marital privacy. This ruling on privacy held in Griswold was used to justify a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy, “Roe .v. Wade” of 1973:
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determines, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
It cannot be said with any degree of clause bound interpretation sense that there are such manifests as “penumbra” or “emanations”. Both the text and structure of all amendments comprising the “Bill” mean to say what they do as specifically isolated statements of general principle; they are specific exceptions to the general grant of power to the general [Federal] government; they do not emanate or shade. No where in the text of the formal Constitution is the word “privacy” mentioned; judicially it is of indeterminate value and cannot be said to exist in any rationed quantifiable senses. Privacy is a substantive quality, which quality is definitive of particular instances of human existence and behaviors. Any senses to the contrary not withstanding, influenced by disparate factors, it is highly subjective and judgmental in character and is as much determined by social mores and considerations as personal prejudices and choices. Therefore, privacy is not absolute, and lacking any rational or quantifiable senses there is no “overarching” principle to be gained either by implication or inference. In particular the worded text of the “IVth” goes to security:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,, papers, and effects, shall not be violated…” . That the people have privacy generally speaking is because they are held “secure” constitutionally speaking. Privacy is not a right; it does not emanate, nor does it shade, create penumbra or zones; it is the creature of security and not the creator. Any senses to the contrary extended to their natural end states jeopardize unfairly the autonomy of governance by the state in any matters: homosexual behavior, murder, prostitution, narcotic manufactory, treason, conspiracy, to randomly cite a few.
The net result of the Douglas decision in both “Griswold” and “Roe” was to create a judicial “tour de force” of legislation by judicature. It is inconceivable that the Framers who viewed the judiciary as a separate and coequal branch would have devised a system of governance no where else known on earth whereby judges could exercise unbridled authority to override executive decisions and laws conjured under fair principles of democratic legislation by finding authority outside of the Constitution. In a constitutionally directed Republic the moral content of the law is determined by the morality of the Framers or legislators and not the morality or policy preferences of judges. The clause bound plain language interpretation of the “IXth” affirms this and goes to rights enumerated; it is not the font of rights hitherto undiscovered or not enumerated. The Revolution and the carnage of the Civil War were not prosecuted to establish a heretic form of constitutionalism, unconditional judicial autocracy. If Madison had intended otherwise than according to clause bound plain language interpretation the worded structure and text of the “IXth” may quite well have been penned differently:
“The Courts shall determine what rights, in addition to those enumerated here, are retained by the people, which courts shall determine as congenial to them any new rights as required by fair principles of Republican democratic government and further we say and do ordain that the American people believing in the laws of nature and those laws passed to them by nature’s God, render to the courts and delegate to any of their assignees such tasks as determining rights other than those enumerated herein as retained by the people.”
Madison conjured none of these things, penned none of these things and the records of the Constitutional convention as well as the records of the first session of Congress show that the Framers ratified none of them. If the Framers envisioned such a dynamism for the Courts, they were inestimably adept at not saying so. Madison and the Framers, worthy eminences all, soundly convicted of Judaeo-Christian principle, were also pragmatic and fundamentally understood the realities of their epoch. Differing profoundly among themselves on almost every issue they correctly knew that they could not immediately do away with the pernicious institutes of a general slavery and form a strong Union, nor could they treat of every matter particular to each state without being counterintuitive to the Spirit of the “Declaration” and the mechanics of the articles of Constitution. What they correctly understood was that a politic society [what we call government by another name] resting on the consent of a majority of the governed and having nothing other of its purpose than securing the rights of the majority of the polity must exercise all of its power in subordination to those rights. The problem for them was not whether rights hitherto undiscovered were as worthy of enforcement as enumerated rights but whether or not the courts should infer from the “Bill of Rights” rights worthy of respect, which rights the Framers would conceivably want to safeguard as principled by constitutional governance.
In the end, the protection afforded by the “IXth” amendment strengthens and reinforces rights for individual participation in the process of democratic government; it does not go to the protection of choices that reflect substantive values, artificial abortion.
Anchor's Away/Semper Fi
CPO Bull
PS Did you hunt in NM with a 25/06AI?
