2: Judicial Tyranny - Out of Control Courts

[TheGeneral]

Show Number Two is a detailed discussion about judicial tyranny and our out-of-control courts.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=165

[Areopagus]

Show Number Two is a detailed discussion about judicial tyranny and our out-of-control courts.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=165

The Republicans love to chastise the Democrats for their lack of ideas, solutions, and policies. The candid citizen, who has been an observer of the political scene over the past decade, must confess that the Democrat liberal ideal was stolen, and implemented by the Republicans. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Supreme Court which had three of the seven GOP appointed judges responsible for the partial-birth abortion of STENBERG V. CARHART.

If GOP appointed judges aren’t the solution, perhaps amendment is. What would an amendment accomplish with a Court bound to differ with it? They conjured up a pandoras box of emanating penumbras from 4 words (due process, equal protection) in the 14th Amendment. Who knows what mischief they would derive from more text to misinterpret?

The broadcast mentions Article 3 which receives very little to no commentary in the faux-conservative press. When it is mentioned, folk think that it is some antiquated theory without practical significance. “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/20031...5845-5892r.htm

Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.776.IH: is based on recommendations of this broadcast. Introduced 2/10/2005, by Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland), it has only 5 cosponsers: Bartlett, Roscoe G.; Garrett, Scott; Lewis, Ron; Miller, Jeff; Norwood, Charlie.

Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 - Declares that:

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each State has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Amends the Federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

Some excerpts from Ron Paul’s speech introducing this bill. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r109:./temp/~r109mNDjHs

• The lack of respect for life that permits abortion significantly contributes to our violent culture and our careless attitude toward liberty. Whether a civilized society treats human life with dignity or contempt determines the outcome of that civilization. Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society. There is already strong evidence that we are on the slippery slope toward euthanasia and non-consensual human experimentation. Although the real problem lies within people' hearts and minds, the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, where the court usurped the state's authority over abortion.

• One of the bills I am introducing today, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, reverses some of the damage done by Roe v. Wade. The Sanctity of Life Act provides that the federal courts of the United States, up to and including the Supreme Court, do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. Congress must use the authority granted to it in Article 3, Section 1 of the Constitution to rein in rogue federal judges from interfering with a state's ability to protect unborn life.
It is obvious that this bill is no panacea, but neither is any other approach seriously pursued by pro-life organizations. Legislation restricting jurisdiction on abortion has been introduced before, but pro-life organizations, preachers, and politicians were determined to ignore, or denounce it. This is the greatest number of reps that I have seen in support of this legislation since Bob ‘Bomber’ Dornan introduced a similar bill http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c104:H.R.1624: over a decade ago.

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 “Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life.”

If passed by simple majority in both Houses, and signed by the President, this bill becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land. This article shows that “30 States [are] Ready to Outlaw Abortion,” Tuesday, October 05, 2004, FOXNews.com http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134530,00.html , but you will not find pro-abortion President Bush behind this bill. His signing of the PBA ban makes him no more pro-life than it did ex-Senator Tommy Daschle, who also signed the same bill.

Obviously, this bill would be easier to pass than an amendment, and far more effective that the THE RIGHT TO LIFE ACT 2005 which is subject to review by the same federal courts which have already struck down the PBA ban.

So, why aren’t pro-life organizations ACTIVELY PROMOTING The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005?

I would like see the published responses of the National Right to Life, Americans United for Life, American Life League, and James Dobson, when questioned about their lack of support for this bill. If Scott T. Whiteman, John Lofton, and Michael Anthony Peroutka think this legislation is worth supporting, maybe John Lofton could do one of those exclusive interviews with those supposedly pro-life organizations.

Anyone attempting to get a straight answer from those organizations must be prepared to get bounced to the legal dept, and talk with some para-legal clerk, or lawyer who wouldn’t understand Article 3 unless his paycheck depended on it.

They will give every sleazy answer under the sun with a couple of ad hominems thrown at Ron Paul for exposing their pro-choice position. This bill makes the politician take a stand that http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=363 clearly reveals they aren’t willing to do. The Exceptions Clause http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...94458_0.HTM#45 , far from being some esoteric theory, is very plain practical fact!

[Areopagus]

Show Number Two is a detailed discussion about judicial tyranny and our out-of-control courts.

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=165

The broadcast also mentions the $ 500,000 Faith-Based federal grant to Robertson’s Operation Blessing International http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20021003a.html .

For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 1 Timothy 6:10. No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24

But that dosen’t stop Pat from trying to serve two masters:

April 16, 2001- WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, a long-time vocal opponent of abortion, said Monday that while he opposes the idea of forced abortions in China, he understands why Beijing controls its population.

"I don't agree with it, but at the same time they've got 1.2 billion people and they don't know what to do," Robertson told CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."

"If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable."

Blitzer then pressed Robertson: "Won't your critics on the right be saying Pat Robertson is justifying abortions in China?"

"Well, I just think they need to get involved in what's happening," Robertson said. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/16/robertson.abortion/

Why would Robertson support forced abortion of any race? Jeff Jacoby had this to say:


There is a reason Robertson is so mealymouthed: He has invested millions of dollars in Chinese cable and internet operations. His partner in one broadcasting deal is the communist government itself. To protect his financial interests, He depends the regime's goodwill, and to win it, he is apparently willing to say anything -- even to defend China's savage destruction of reproductive freedom.

It is a myth that China is too crowded; its population density is one-fifth that of Taiwan, one-200th that of Manhattan. China suffers not from too many people but from too little liberty. If Robertson doesn't understand that, his ignorance is shocking. If he does, he is a contemptible hypocrite. Either way, he is a disgrace, and conservatives should be the ones to say so. http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=507

The Welch Report has the details on Robertson’s investments in China http://welchreport.com/pastnews_c.cfm?rank=136

No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier. 2 Timothy 2:4

[bluebird]

Under the Supremacy Clause, everyone must follow federal law in the face of conflicting state law. The Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 “Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life.”

If passed by simple majority in both Houses, and signed by the President, this bill becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land.
Dear Aeropagus, I could not download the radio program and I am not near a station that broadcasts the American View, but I will comment on your comments.

If I am to understand that this is a new bill that will be before the Congress, then it looks as though their majority vote could outlaw Roe v. Wade, right?

Does this bill virtually take jurisdiction from the lower courts and the Supreme Court and give it back to Congress. Is it saying that Congress will determine "what" a person is, and, the protections it will be afforded?

If that is what the Bill says, and it passes by a majority, would it make null and void state jurisdictions over abortion?

Please let me know if I'm understanding the Bill correctly.

[exmarine]

Robertson said, "I don't agree with it, but at the same time they've got 1.2 billion people and they don't know what to do," Robertson told CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."

It appears that Robertson has bought into the assumptions of the godless communist view of populations. I believe these ideas were originally birthed by Thomas Malthus. Robertson (who says he has a history degree) should know that Malthus' overpopulation theory was embraced by none other than Charles Darwin:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".
Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)

(see http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/malthus.html for more information on Malthus' population theory).

With modern farm technology, if resources and land are managed properly through good stewardship, there is nothing to fear from increased populations. Famines are almost always the result of the evil actions of men and mismanagement.

[bluebird]

"April 16, 2001- WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson, a long-time vocal opponent of abortion, said Monday that while he opposes the idea of forced abortions in China, he understands why Beijing controls its population.

"I don't agree with it, but at the same time they've got 1.2 billion people and they don't know what to do," Robertson told CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports."

What a ridiculous statement by a christian leader!
It becomes so obvious that money and investments have superceded morality -- anyone could see that the Republican Party and their love for money was eventually going to clash with their moral duty to do the right thing. Guess which "value" won out!

[Areopagus]

Dear Aeropagus, I could not download the radio program and I am not near a station that broadcasts the American View, but I will comment on your comments.

If I am to understand that this is a new bill that will be before the Congress, then it looks as though their majority vote could outlaw Roe v. Wade, right?

Does this bill virtually take jurisdiction from the lower courts and the Supreme Court and give it back to Congress. Is it saying that Congress will determine "what" a person is, and, the protections it will be afforded?

If that is what the Bill says, and it passes by a majority, would it make null and void state jurisdictions over abortion?

Please let me know if I'm understanding the Bill correctly.


Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 gives nothing to Congress, but returns the issue to States where it was prior to Roe in 1973. The States would be accountable to some very important principals in the language of the bill which becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land. It would be the true settled law of the land, vs. federal court rulings favoring abortion which are unconstitutional opinions about the settled law of the land. Congress, rather than saying what a person is, would simply be acknowledging what a person is according to rational demonstration persuaded by embryological evidence that has concurred with what the Creator revealed long ago.


The broadcasts are as valuable as the written articles. Consider getting the software, or the device to play them for yourself, and record them for others. Some folk are far more inclined to listen to a broadcast than read an article. Also, most in the faux-conservative press, and some Christian conservatives have stigmatized the CP as a party of Christian ayatollahs chanting down fire from above to vaporize all ungodliness. Your family and friends could listen to a broadcast that indicates these folk are of sound mind earnestly contending for the application of Biblical and Constitutional truth to government for the good of the people. The tone is a reasonable one of line upon line, precept upon precept, a little here from the Constitution, and a little there from the Bible for the purpose of restoring the life of rule of law to a deceased republic. The rabid dogma of compromise is the domain of the intolerant Christian pluralist, who would have torn a straight jacket asunder on his radio broadcast, had he been properly attired, at the mere mention of the CP just prior to last election.

[Areopagus]

It appears that Robertson has bought into the assumptions of the godless communist view of populations. I believe these ideas were originally birthed by Thomas Malthus. Robertson (who says he has a history degree) should know that Malthus' overpopulation theory was embraced by none other than Charles Darwin:


With modern farm technology, if resources and land are managed properly through good stewardship, there is nothing to fear from increased populations. Famines are almost always the result of the evil actions of men and mismanagement.

And Margaret Sanger who embraced Malthusian eugenics:

Grant quotes from Malthus’ magnum opus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, published in six editions from 1798 to 1826: “All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.” http://blackgenocide.org/negro.html

I recall watching the video Harvest Of Despair http://www.ihffilm.com/377.html a year before the Berlin Wall came down. 7,000,000 died for resistance to collectivization.

The love of money ruled in that day as it does today with Robertson.

Even the democratic governments of the depression hit West preferred to remain silent over Soviet Russia's atrocities in order to continue trading. http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/teachingkuryliw.html

[bluebird]

Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 gives nothing to Congress, but returns the issue to States where it was prior to Roe in 1973. The States would be accountable to some very important principals in the language of the bill which becomes part of the Supreme Law of the Land.
I see what you're saying, however, California has already insured abortion will remain legal no matter what happens to federal abortion rulings or opinions.:mad:
The broadcasts are as valuable as the written articles. Consider getting the software, or the device to play them for yourself, and record them for others.
There appears to be a problem with downloading because I've been able to download some of the radio programs in the past. The first few I was not able, then a few in the middle went fine, and now, the most recent won't. So what would be the required software? Also, I will get my adult children over to look at my computer to make sure it isn't operator error.
The rabid dogma of compromise is the domain of the intolerant Christian pluralist, who would have torn a straight jacket asunder on his radio broadcast, had he been properly attired, at the mere mention of the CP just prior to last election.
:p "Quote of the Month":)

The fact that the Constitution Party had such an important message to get out this past election only to be forcibly constrained on many different levels, tells me that the "spiritual battle" for America is well under way. We can have faith that God will not allow wickedness to suppress the truth forever, as noted in Romans 1:16-18

[Areopagus]

I see what you're saying, however, California has already insured abortion will remain legal no matter what happens to federal abortion rulings or opinions.:mad:

Would the case in California prohibit a genuine pro-lifer from supporting that bill allowing 30 other states to end/restrict abortion? Would the present case in California prohibit a genuine pro-lifer from supporting that bill which would allow California to renounce mass murder by joining those 30 civilized states at a later date, without federal court objection? The pro-life folk in California would have a formidable argument on their side by having ‘person’ correctly defined in the Supreme Law of the Land. This legislation, if passed, would modify the United States Code definition of ‘person.’




There appears to be a problem with downloading because I've been able to download some of the radio programs in the past.



It appears that you have everything needed to listen, but something has changed on your end, or the site. I’ve listened to several during the past week which have downloaded & played flawlessly on my P.C.

Two links that should lead to a solution.
http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/mp3.html
http://www.mpeg.org/MPEG/MPEG-audio-player.html#player

Also, chatterbox should be able to tell you exactly what is needed to listen. http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/member.php?u=1