Standing Between the Butcher and the Baby

[TheGeneral]

It is the duty of all governments to properly discover and administer the Law ... What happens, then, if a state government has properly administered the Law, but the federal government declares such administration to be unconstitutional?

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=12

[Solon01]

No American government has ever treated the murdered preborn child as equal to the born murder victim. To do this the murdering mother who has her child put to death would have to be treated on the same basis as the murderer, or solicitor of murder, of a born person.

Typical exception in the criminal homicide statutes:

A person is one who is alive AND HAS BEEN BORN...

This, in violation of US constitution, Article I section 9 or 10, excludes the preborn child from the protection of the murder laws.

[Areopagus]

No American government has ever treated the murdered preborn child as equal to the born murder victim. To do this the murdering mother who has her child put to death would have to be treated on the same basis as the murderer, or solicitor of murder, of a born person.

Typical exception in the criminal homicide statutes:

A person is one who is alive AND HAS BEEN BORN...

This, in violation of US constitution, Article I section 9 or 10, excludes the preborn child from the protection of the murder laws.

State Homicide Laws That Recognize Unborn Victims

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/index.html

[Areopagus]

It is the duty of all governments to properly discover and administer the Law ... What happens, then, if a state government has properly administered the Law, but the federal government declares such administration to be unconstitutional?

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=12

http://www.wherethetruthhurts.org/tractsbooksread.php?w=82&p=1
House Bill 228: A Biblical Argument for the Re-criminalization of Abortion in Ohio
House Bill 228: The Remedy

Many Ohioans are praying and working diligently to re-criminalize abortion in our state. House Bill 228 is designed to do just that. The bill has 19 sponsors and co-sponsors and you can read it at www.ohioabortionban.com.

You can also contact your legislators through the site. If your representative claims to be pro-life and is not a sponsor or supporter of this bill, then let it be known that he or she is perpetuating abortion in the state of Ohio. There are presently two choices for every Ohio state legislator: re-criminalize abortion or keep the murder of the innocent legal.

Dear fellow Ohioans, we need your help. Indeed, the preborn, the smallest, most helpless assault victims in our state need your help. God Almighty, the father of the slaughtered fatherless, requests your help. With God’s help, we will protect the innocent preborn in Ohio from slaughter. We will love our preborn neighbor as we love ourselves.

www.ohioabortionban.com/index.php?section=23

Why a total abortion ban?

Abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life, and the primary purpose of civil government is to protect innocent life. Abortion on demand has only been legal 32 years since the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and companion Doe v. Bolton. Before the Supreme Court decided the matter for us, abortion was against the law and the medical, religious, and political communities and the public were overwhelmingly against it.

Thirty-two years later-over 46 million babies killed plus countless mothers and fathers wounded emotionally, spiritually, and for some mothers, physically-abortion has contributed no positive good to our country in any way.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZX4.html

Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:


"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought tomean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).


The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.


"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).


Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:


"[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

[exmarine]

The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.


"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).



Yes, thereinlies the biggest problem - the judicial oligarchy. I applaud Ohio or any other State who seeks to criminalize infanticide. Unfortunately, it is easy to predict that any and every anti-abortion law passed by a State Legislature will be struck down by at least one reprobate federal judge.

Of course, the answer is for Congress (now the weakest branch of government) to grow a backbone and some moral fiber, and start excercising their Constitutional powers over the courts, e.g. the exceptions clause as well as impeachment proceedings. I'm certainly not holding my breath.

The LORD used Israel to destroy the Canaanites for their extreme wickedness, not the lest of which was the ritual sacrifice of babies to Molech. The only difference I see between Canaan and America is that, instead of Molech, Americans sacrifice their babies to the god of Convenience.

[SWhiteman]

In my view, one branch of government in one State could end the love affair with Roe. If one governor (one lone man) were to simply declare that Roe is invalid in his state, and that the AG was to begin the prosecution of laws already on his books, it would go quite far to chill the practice in that state. If he had a judiciary willing to back his play, convictions could occur.

One Sheriff could man-up and say, "Not in my county."

One Mayor could say, "Not in my city."

[Thomas Ellington]

Abortion is the unjust taking of an innocent human life, and the primary purpose of civil government is to protect innocent life. Abortion on demand has only been legal 32 years since the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and companion Doe v. Bolton. Before the Supreme Court decided the matter for us, abortion was against the law and the medical, religious, and political communities and the public were overwhelmingly against it.<<

Abortion was legal in most jurisdictions within the United States until about 1860. It was outlawed not for moral reasons, but because doctors were losing money to midwifes.

[SWhiteman]

Abortion was legal in most jurisdictions within the United States until about 1860. It was outlawed not for moral reasons, but because doctors were losing money to midwifes [sic].

You need to document that. The Common Law and every state or commonwealth for which I did the research, makes it clear that abortion by potion (i.e. modernly, RU486) or surgery was criminal.

[Areopagus]

In my view, one branch of government in one State could end the love affair with Roe. If one governor (one lone man) were to simply declare that Roe is invalid in his state, and that the AG was to begin the prosecution of laws already on his books, it would go quite far to chill the practice in that state. If he had a judiciary willing to back his play, convictions could occur.

One Sheriff could man-up and say, "Not in my county."

One Mayor could say, "Not in my city."
This article backs your claim.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=27906 EXCERPTS:

A Footnote to the Political Theory of John Adams Vindiciae contra tyrannos

Published: Aug 31, 1996
Author: Prof. Stanley Bamberg

The Vindiciae is divided into four sections, each devoted to a burning issue of that day. First, should subjects obey rulers when their commands violate the law of God? Second, is it legal to resist a ruler who encroaches upon the law of God, or spoils the church; if so, by whom, in what manner and to what degree? Third, may a ruler who oppresses a state be resisted; to what degree, by whom, in what manner and with what justification? Fourth, may neighboring rulers aid the subjects of another ruler persecuted either for their religious beliefs or are victims of other tyrannical oppression? The questions demonstrate that the author's main purpose is not the development of a comprehensive philosophy of the state. His purpose is much more narrow-defining the relationship between government and religion. The more general part of the work is confined to question three where the topic of oppression is treated apart from its religious dimension.

A king who violates the compact willfully and persistently is truly a tyrant by practice. In this case the officers of the realm are required to pass judgment upon him according to the law. If he resists, then duty compels them to remove him from office forcibly. Private citizens, however, should not take up arms against such a tyrant because the orderly structure of society would be endangered.

Vindiciae, therefore, does not argue for anarchy. It recommends resistance to tyranny based upon the authority of lower officers of the state. As such, it should be considered an argument for a conservative revolution. At the same time, it brought the contract theory into play against the claims of divine right absolutism. In this way it contributed to later contract theory.

[tz1]

Put succinctly, The Law is above the king, not the king above the law.

The practical problem is that the States are run by the same tyranocrats the federal government is. They dutifilly pass federally mandated laws to get their subsidy. They won't resist whatever the courts do.

[exmarine]

Put succinctly, The Law is above the king, not the king above the law.

The practical problem is that the States are run by the same tyranocrats the federal government is. They dutifilly pass federally mandated laws to get their subsidy. They won't resist whatever the courts do.

Agreed. Not only that but several states legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, and even if Roe v. Wade should be overturned, I guesstimate that half or more of the States would keep abortion legal (certainly all of the blue States). Today, there are states who have laws stating that a minor girl (e.g. 13 years old) can get an abortion without parental consent or knowledge! (e.g. California, Florida). That is the very epitomy of evil. And I don't need to tell you about legalized and sanctined forms of gay unions in Vermont, Massachusetts (and coming soon to my former state -the land of fruits and nuts - California). In effect, many States sanction and protects the baby-killers and perverts.

Neither Republicanism or Federalism can work if the people do not have virtue, and the sad state of affiars is that the people do not have virtue. I do not believe a moral majority exists. Morals and law have been badly relativized.

As Francis Schaeffer pointed out in Christian Manifesto, almost all of the law schools of today teach relativized law (legal positivism) based on the godless drivel of Charles Evans Hughes, Frederick Moore Vinson and Oliver Wendell Holmes. Once God is removed from the equation, the Constitution doesn't stand a chance. Since a good many of our state and federal representatives and all our judges are lawyers, the future is indeed bleak for righteous law and government.

[Joe_Liberty]

I just received my latest issue of The Christian Statesman and I note this article by Scott Whiteman is included. Congratulations! I am not sure if you have been published by them before, but this is the first I have noticed.

[Paul]

"In my view, one branch of government in one State could end the love affair with Roe. If one governor (one lone man) were to simply declare that Roe is invalid in his state, and that the AG was to begin the prosecution of laws already on his books, it would go quite far to chill the practice in that state. If he had a judiciary willing to back his play, convictions could occur."


Perhaps we will see this if Roy Moore wins Alabama.

[bluebird]

"What happens, then, if a state government has properly administered the Law, but the federal government declares such administration to be unconstitutional?"

I am not a lawyer, nor a paralegal -- however, it makes sense to me that the Constitution itself would be the deciding factor between the two. Normally, I would say "states' rights" trump federal intervention. But in the case where the Right to Life is being defended, I believe Life trumps states' and federal governments' jurisdiction. That is because only God can deny someone their Right to Life. Shouldn't it be fairly CLEAR to any judge that the Right to Life (being the first Right) was deemed to be God-given? How is it then that a judge, ANY judge would have the arrogance to deny the Right to Life?

How long will this country play the stupid little game of "not a person before birth" -- only a "person after birth." If that doesn't make all of us seem like ignoramouses, I don't know what does!

[The Kangaroo]

In my view, one branch of government in one State could end the love affair with Roe. If one governor (one lone man) were to simply declare that Roe is invalid in his state, and that the AG was to begin the prosecution of laws already on his books, it would go quite far to chill the practice in that state. If he had a judiciary willing to back his play, convictions could occur.

One Sheriff could man-up and say, "Not in my county."

One Mayor could say, "Not in my city."

Woulda, coulda, shoulda....what is this all really but wishful thinking? It's not going to happen. No offense, obviously many feel strongly about this, but in the end it appears to be all sound and fury signifying nothing.

[The Kangaroo]

You need to document that. The Common Law and every state or commonwealth for which I did the research, makes it clear that abortion by potion (i.e. modernly, RU486) or surgery was criminal.

See Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Dr. Kristin Luker for confirmation of above plus history of abortion. I was particularly impressed with her documentation of the participation and signature on the bill of then-Governor Ronald Reagan in the California liberalization bill.

[bluebird]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda....what is this all really but wishful thinking? It's not going to happen. No offense, obviously many feel strongly about this, but in the end it appears to be all sound and fury signifying nothing.

The difference between you and faith-filled Christians is that Christians Know that Roe v. Wade is doomed.

We put all of our Faith in God (Who is the Author of Life) and trust that His laws will prevail in the end.

God abhors the blatant disregard for innocent human life, and it is He who will not let any of us rest until this Act of Aggression against the most vulnerable is stopped.

So we are not about doing our will and having our way, we are about doing the will of God.

If God is for us, who can prevail against us?

[Colleen Smith]

When someone is convicted of murdering a pregnant woman, are they not convicted of two murders? Is an aborted child less dead than one who dies when a pregnant woman is murdered?

[SWhiteman]

When someone is convicted of murdering a pregnant woman, are they not convicted of two murders? Is an aborted child less dead than one who dies when a pregnant woman is murdered?
Not necessarily, though that what it should be. Some states recognise that, others don't.

The Federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act (http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/UVVAEnrolled.pdf) makes it a separate offense when someone harms an unborn child to death in the commission of a federal crime. It extends the "felony murder" law, which holds a person liable for any death that occurs as a direct result of his committing a felony, into the womb. For example, Mr. A commits armed robbery, the gun is not loaded. Armed robbery is a felony. Anyone in the store who dies as a result of his felony, be it by heart attack, jumping out of his way and cracking their head, possibly even if the store owner lawfully defends himself but the bullet hits another, Mr. A can be charged with "felony murder." The law now extends into the womb.

But there are dozens of reasons to oppose the Lacy Peterson Act. 1.) The Constitution gives no grounds for any federal crimes except Counterfeiting, Treason, and Piracy. The federal involvement in all other crimes is regulated to by Article IV, s.2 c.2, which is to facilitate the return of the accused felon to the state having jurisdiction over the crime.

2.) And this should really get you angry, for the first time, the right of non-prosecution for the commission or obtaining of an abortion was signed into law. 90A U.S.C. s. 1841(c)(1) states that federal prosecution is not permissible against women or doctors for abortions committed with the consent of the woman, or for any act of the woman with respect to her unborn child. Presumably, that means a woman can kill her own baby without fear of federal prosecution.

Bush signed that law. Pro-lifers cheered. "Yay, for the first time in American history, abortion is protected by law." Forgive me for not celebrating with those who have connived to create the most successful fund raising strategy in history.