26: Bush Just Doesn't Care About The Pro-Life Cause

[TheGeneral]

Program 26 documents in detail how President Bush is the problem on abortion, how he really doesn’t care about the pro-life cause except to the extent that he could exploit this issue to get elected and re-elected. Pro-life means, of course, pro-every-unborn life – no exceptions, NONE!


Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=409

[Will]

General:

I agree wholeheartedly. Please go and review the thread I started on a simple way to end abortion.

[Areopagus]

Program 26 documents in detail how President Bush is the problem on abortion, how he really doesn’t care about the pro-life cause except to the extent that he could exploit this issue to get elected and re-elected. Pro-life means, of course, pro-every-unborn life – no exceptions, NONE!


Bush is part of the problem, but he isn’t THE problem. The problem is pro-life organizations that have established cottage industries to capitalize on pro-life sentiment.

Attention, Please, PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS, Court Rulings Are NOT Law!
http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269

We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3893.IH:108th%20CONGRESS was introduced in the U.S. House on March 4, 2004 by Congressman Ron Paul. It was proposed to: “To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.”

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION. The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court shall not adjudicate any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction;”

This legislation went almost completely unsupported by pro-life organizations, and by Republicans in Congress. To those who claim that Congress has no such power to remove jurisdiction:

“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.” http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20031006-085845-5892r.htm

To others who might protest that Congress did restrict jurisdiction, but it was unconstitutional to do so, see the Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju94458.000/hju94458_0.HTM#45

Attention, Please, PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS, Court Rulings Are NOT Law, and Congress has more than one way to correct judicial tyranny.

When was the last time you heard the National Right To Life, Priests For Life, American Life League, or Americans United for Life support legislation that restricts the federal courts ruling on abortion, or demand that the pseudo-pro-life Bush not enforce Roe/Casey?

One lone voice of sanity demands the beginning of the end to the American holocaust. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, Speech to National March for Life, Washington, D.C., Thursday, January 22, 2004 http://www.jewsformorality.org/pr_right_to_life_speech040122.htm .

“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.”

What practical effect would it have? Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion, Tuesday," October 05, 2004, FOXNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html

Jurisdiction stripping is no panacea for abortion, but it is one huge step in the right direction. It is a step that pro-life leaders refuse to take. The abortion holocaust isn't a video game to be marketed for political purposes by cottage industries. Those who think otherwise should read the testimony of abortion survior Gianna Jessen. http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67226.000/hju67226_0.HTM#54

Pro-life organizations aren’t serious about aborting an unconstitutional opinion that has exterminated over 40 million living human beings. So, why should Bush & Republicans, or anyone for that matter, take them seriously?

[Jaime]

I quit supporting Jay Sekulow when I heard him say that limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was a bad idea, in response to a caller's question. The questin dealt with the abortion issue.

[exmarine]

I quit supporting Jay Sekulow when I heard him say that limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was a bad idea, in response to a caller's question. The questin dealt with the abortion issue.

I quote supporting Sekulow when he called me to help support the appointment of William Pryor.

[Will]

I agree with Jaime!

The jurisdiction of the SC is (supposed to be ) limited by the Constitution!

Will Mattison

[Areopagus]

I quit supporting Jay Sekulow when I heard him say that limiting the Supreme Court's jurisdiction was a bad idea, in response to a caller's question. The questin dealt with the abortion issue.

I wouldn’t be shocked, if Sekulow thought that impeachment/removal of judges was a bad idea, or that interposition was a bad idea, or that executive review of federal judiciary majority opinions leading to non-enforcement was a bad idea. It really wouldn’t surprise me at all, if Sekulow said that the adherence to the written Constitution was a bad idea.

I would be shocked; however, if the federal courts opined that Jews already born should have the remainder of their life aborted, and Sekulow steadfastly held to his ‘bad idea’ opinion about checking, and balancing the rogue federal judiciary. Sekulow thinks that abortion is nothing more than a moot court exercise, because his neck isn’t in the noose.

Chief Justice John Marshall thought jurisdiction stripping was most appropriate.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/fitschen.html

After Supreme Court Justice Chase’s impeachment, but prior to his acquittal, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in a letter to Chase that:

[T]he present doctrine seems to be that a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment. . . . I think the modern doctrine of impeachment should yield to an appellate jurisdiction in the legislature. A reversal of those legal opinions deemed un-sound by the legislature would certainly better comport with the mildness of our character than [would] a removal of the Judge who has rendered them unknowing of his fault.

Clearly, Marshall believed that Justices could be removed for rendering opinions that Congress considered to be unconstitutional. Marshall held this opinion, despite Jefferson’s political witch-hunt and Marshall’s fear that he was also likely to be a target.

[Areopagus]

I quote supporting Sekulow when he called me to help support the appointment of William Pryor.

You have posted over 100 times on this forum. I have read enough of your posts to conclude that you apply the following:

Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Application of those verses avoids this error: Eph. 4:14--"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man [educator, politician, rock star, news anchorman/woman] take you captive through vain and deceitful philosophy [naturalism, materialism, existentialism, pragmaticism], after the tradition of men [Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Wellhausen, Freud, Dewey, Foucault], after the rudiments of the world [socialism, evolution, higher criticism, humanism, moral relativism, deconstructionism, collectivism], and not after Christ.

So, it is no great surprise to me that you apply those same principals to the text, and internal logic of the Constitution, which is good immunization from the rants of roge judges, and their acolytes in law schools, media, and Republican circles of reasoning.

A brief perusal of the U.S. Constitution reveals that Sekulow is a dangerously lose cannon blowing holes in a rapidly sinking Republic.

Jefferson & Abe concur:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr614&dbname=cp108&

Deep concern that Federal judges might abuse their power has long been noted by America's most gifted observers, including Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

Thomas Jefferson lamented that `the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped . . .'

Responding to the argument that Federal judges are the final interpreters of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote:

You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps . . . [T]heir power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots.

Jefferson strongly denounced the notion that the Federal judiciary should always have the final say on constitutional issues:

If [such] opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation . . . The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

Abraham Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861,

`The 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.'

[exmarine]

You have posted over 100 times on this forum. I have read enough of your posts to conclude that you apply the following:

Acts 17:11 “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
2 Peter 1:20 "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
2 Corinthians 10:5 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Application of those verses avoids this error: Eph. 4:14--"That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man [educator, politician, rock star, news anchorman/woman] take you captive through vain and deceitful philosophy [naturalism, materialism, existentialism, pragmaticism], after the tradition of men [Marx, Darwin, Nietzsche, Wellhausen, Freud, Dewey, Foucault], after the rudiments of the world [socialism, evolution, higher criticism, humanism, moral relativism, deconstructionism, collectivism], and not after Christ.

So, it is no great surprise to me that you apply those same principals to the text, and internal logic of the Constitution, which is good immunization from the rants of roge judges, and their acolytes in law schools, media, and Republican circles of reasoning.


Thank you for noticing and for your kind words. I consider it the highest compliment possible.