MoveOn.org – George Soros’s propaganda arm – is worried about conservative legislatures passing discriminatory voting laws. Soooo, they go on and say they’ve been prepping for such a happening – by voter suppression!

They say –

“Today's ruling clears the way for states with conservative legislatures to implement whatever voting laws they want. And it gives power to Congress to determine what, if any, states should now be covered by the VRA.

This was right-wing judicial activism at its worst. But MoveOn members represent grassroots activism at its best.

The Supreme Court is opening the floodgates to a wave of conservative organizing to pass discriminatory laws state by state. This is the type of battle we've been prepping for. We've spent the last six months experimenting with new ways for MoveOn members to have a huge impact on state issues—and voter suppression is one of them.

If we can raise $150,000 in the next 24 hours, we'll go all-in to stop the Court's decision from stealing elections and stripping the right to vote from millions of Americans.

Can you chip in $5 to support new member-led campaigns to protect the right to vote?”

So you see folks, MoveOn.org wants to “protect the right to vote.” Their tactic to protect that right is “voter suppression!”

No wonder “progressives” all seem to be clones of crazy Nancy Pelosi!

Liberals, come home to America. The ”progressives” have sold us all out.

      Will White Students be denied entrance to College Admissions Office

If you are a white student walking into a Michigan college admissions office, you have to be wondering whether you are going to be admitted based on your grades or denied because of your ethnicity. This may soon become the reality for a countless number of white college students across the wolverine state, or America if the U.S. Supreme Court rules to invalidate state voters that voted against using race to determine college admittance in 2006.

Of course racial discrimination is unfair, repugnant and dangerous to the social viability of a nation when it is used to deny the rights of its citizens. The problem which voters in Michigan thought had been corrected was to toss out race-conscious affirmative action admission plans with a fairer race-neutral approach.

At the core of the case is the notion that fifty-eight percent of Michigan voters were seriously in error in amending the Michigan constitution to prohibit discrimination in admission to state colleges on the basis of national origin, sex, race or ethnicity.

To most voters in Michigan this seemed like a relative no-brainer. How could anyone oppose not using discriminatory practices to deny a prospective student entry to college?

It seems that the liberals and race baiters who thrive on erecting barriers to race neutrality and color blind solutions wanted a different result. Instead of desiring to work to determine real solutions to any potential problems minorities might be experiencing in matriculating from high school to college admittance, they took the more convenient route to cry racism!

This approach taken by the civil rights organizations in the state and nationally have determined without much effort, to use a formula that strips sanity from the law and replaces it with fear and racist scare tactics. The goal is to scare the judicial community and moderates who are lukewarm on everything, to abandon common sense and support a fraud which has no foundation in law or on recent facts.

Where is the proof that there is continued discrimination against minorities since the voters in Michigan decided that reverse discrimination is unjustified and beneath the dignity of a state that wants equal treatment for all of its citizens? What about a state’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment, where the state and its citizens have a right to determine its own course in order to balance justice and equality under the law?

Another key question of law which the court must grapple with is whether or not a state amendment that bars discrimination in its constitution can be found to be unconstitutional because it does not allow discriminatory practices and remedies.

Are you confused now?

You should be, because in effect, what the advocates of affirmative action are arguing is that the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment should allow a state to openly and intentionally discriminate against a race or ethnic group as a means to remedy previous discriminatory practices.

( click to read more )

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman for life.  The way a man and woman's body are formed is evidence of this natural union (versus unnatural unions).  Everything else is not a real marriage but instead a civil union or some other term offerring protection under the law.  The Obama administration in trying to slam dunk this issue in the Supreme Court to force Virginia and most other States to strike down their own marriage legislation and it is the highest assault an administration has ever made on America and the Church. 

Focus on the Family Story

Marriage is sacred in the Church and Obama's actions are harming the civil rights of one class of people while advancing his agenda for another (win-lose) while the right thing to do is win-win where marriage remains between a man and a woman and civil unions cover everything else.  Quite frankly I am ashamed of Obama and pray for the day his remaining term is over for the sake of a once great nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for all (win-win). rz

Black Conservatives  rally against Section 5 reverse discriminatory Voting Rights Act current use

The images of vicious bombings that once littered the landscape of the civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s in America are now a distant memory. Cities like Birmingham, Alabama which were at the epicenter and caught the brunt force of the segregationist fury to deprive black voters of their voting rights have been replaced by a vast number of local and federal minority public officials throughout states and in congress. And of course we cannot forget the two times elected Barack Obama, as president!

So this week, Shelby County, Alabama made the case before the U.S. Supreme Court that the federal Voting Rights Act has seen its day and that Section Five should be overturned. Conservatives have long held that in states and localities like Shelby County where voting rights suppression no longer exists, it makes little legal or moral sense to continue to list a community as being engaged in racist voting practices where none exist.

In reality this case has much deeper significance for the other communities across the country which are also similarly weighted down with this federal mandate. The purpose of the bill is well intended and was needed in its day to protect the rights of minority voters who were systematically deprived of their constitutional right to vote. Now, according to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, without the presence of racism this law seems to favor racial entitlement, reports Fox News

Yet, in the 21st century, where those same states which bore the mark of racism in their practices regarding minority voting rights, no longer practice those tactics. So should they continue to be marred with the title and legal penalty?

That is essentially what Shelby County has presented in its legal arguments before the justices of the Supreme Court. It is an argument which can be cross-tied with the similar Affirmative Action inequality which has burdened America more recently with imbalanced racial favoritism where racism may no longer exist.

There are many detractors on the left and in civil rights communities who have made a living off of crying falsely crying racism. Their behavior can be likened to the famous fictional Chicken Little character, who claimed, “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” Well if you remember the rest of the story, Chicken Little finally meets Foxey Loxey, who welcomes Chicken Little and Henny Penny into his den, and, “They never, never come out again.”

Well, this is what is happening to America with this law as well as with continued use of Affirmative Action application and enforcement. Much like Chicken Little, there are those liberal leaders like Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson and President Obama and even the NAACP who insists the sky is still falling. Unfortunately they still continue to lead America into the fox den, where justice and equality under the law for all Americans will never emerge again.

A central question that the court must answer, is when does justice arrive for all Americans if institutional injustice does not exist any longer? If racism in voting practices no longer exists, then what is being monitored?

(click to read more )

            America’s Abortion may end with North Dakota Personhood Law

History may mark February 7th as the day that Personhood for the unborn was established. This is the day that provided the unborn at conception the God given right to life bestowed upon all since the beginning of creation. This is a significant step in the continuing evolution of sanctioning the protection of life which has been riddled by abortion rights activists since the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Forty years and 55 million plus deaths of the unborn who committed no crime except to be conceived in God’s image were murdered. This was accomplished because of a court and society that would protect a tree frog’s existence above a human life. These murders may soon be put to a stop with the North Dakota Personhood Measure that passed in the State Senate. When it is established that a fetus has U.S. 14th Amendment constitutional protection, abortion ends in America!

Often times in the history of monumental movements, they often have their genesis in the hearts and souls of the faithful who are unwilling to witness or permit the undoing of basic rights. The aptly named Personhood Constitutional Amendment initiative would codify the constitutional protections and absolute rights afforded all citizens of North Dakota and equally apply them to human embryos.

This is not just a momentary battle that supporters of life will wait to see what will happen in North Dakota’s House. The fact is that, in North Dakota as well as other states that are considering Personhood laws; the war for life should and can be won on the local battleground of state turf. These legislators, unlike their federal congressional counterparts, are not afraid to stand up to protect their religious values and principles, under the heat of unceasing liberal mass media contempt.

At the very core of the right to life is the imbalance that exists in continuing to treat the right to exist and to be born as incidental and given no more value than extinguishing the life of a common earth worm. The rights of the mother is given weight not as the carrier of life, but the right to her privacy to do as she pleases, which includes state sanctioned murder.

Yet for forty years the growing tearful cries of fathers who will never be, and mothers who are now filled with regret because of abortion. Their mournful regret is coupled with birthrights of the unborn, sheered away by abortion clinics.

( click to read more )

                  Anti Obamacare activists given new life with U.S. Supreme Court order

                               for new hearing on Obamacare religious school challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court has breathed new life into the anti Obamacare movement by ordering the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals court to hear Liberty University’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. The university had brought an action against having to implement the law on the grounds of equal protection and religious freedom. President Obama insisted during the presidential campaign that religious freedom would not be inhibited or an issue for religious colleges and religious organizations would have to consider.

According to Fox News, the school is challenging being forced to provide insurance which pay for birth control against the institution’s constitutional rights. Liberty University and many opponents firmly believe that religious institutions are protected from having to adhere to this constitutional violation under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.

It appeared that many had seemingly resigned themselves to being victimized by the June U.S. Supreme Court decision as well as the recent reelection of Obama which appeared to defeat overturning the bill. But, legal sanity still prevails in the form of state leaders that are now openly opposing the merits of the law with renewed determination.

A number of republican governors are not waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze the tea leaves in order to take concerted action against this draconian and oppressive federal interventionist law. The governors refuse to have their citizens burdened as Governor Kasich of Ohio warned, “States do not have any flexibility to build and manage exchanges in ways that respond to unique needs of their citizens or markets.”

Monday, November 26th, according to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, over 16 states have already indicated that they will not be implementing Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges in their states. In fact, Ohio governor John Kasich was joined by Texas governor Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sean Parnell of Alaska, and John Heineman of Nebraska, among others in opposition to state-run health exchanges.

In effect, these governors are providing the lead for Obamacare battleground opponents who can slow down and eventually reduce the implementation of the most odorous and oppressive aspects of the bill.

Democrats who have been doing the happy dance over the reelection of President Obama should slow down that roll to a “wait and see” crawl. More and more states and their citizens will rally against full implementation of the law based upon being deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Others will seek protection of their religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.

( Click to read more )

If a lie is said often enough, it will become the truth when left unchallenged. Affirmative action is the new slavery. It is the new second-tier of citizenship, Abigail Fisher, in Texas does not keep your child from excelling in school. So why are black supporters of Affirmative Action letting Affirmative Action and its discriminatory use block Abigail Fisher’s opportunity at the American Dream?

Black mothers and fathers should seriously consider this. When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child in school to keep him from learning? When was the last time you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him to commit a crime? When was the last time that you saw a white person stand in front of your child and told him not to study, not to get good grades, not to try harder, not to do better, not to be better and not to succeed?

Race based affirmative action may come to a screeching halt and finally put an end to decades of reverse discriminatory policies utilized in higher educational institutions.

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court took up arguments concerning a case brought by Abigail Fisher, a white applicant who was denied admission to the University of Texas (UT) at Austin in 2008. Fisher is challenging UT-Austin’s decision to use a race-conscious admission plan which considers race as a factor in admitting students to its incoming freshman class.

Instead of using a fairer race-neutral plan, which Texas law already guarantees the top 10 percent of high school students in their graduating class admission to the university, UT-Austin, went a step further. It used an unnecessary and highly unfair reverse discrimination practice of considering race as a factor for admittance, thus making the purpose for the race neutral Texas law meaningless.

The problem which Miss Fisher and any other high school applicant in Texas and in any other community in America has to consider, is will they be admitted based upon their academic ability, content of their character or any other measurable qualities? ( Read More )

I believe the subject of this treatise will be about an individual which a great many people consider to be public enemy number one. For those of you who have read my other treatises, I hate to disappoint you, this particular treatise will not be the scathing witch hunt which uncovers the corruptness of our so-called leadership or of any particular leader for that matter. Instead, I am going to spend the time looking into a man who much of the public seems to intensely dislike, but for whom I have a great deal of respect.

While there are nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, I am going to focus on one. If you haven’t guessed who I am referring to by now, it is Senior Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia. Antonin Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate and assumed his office, or his seat, on 26 September 1986 as a Supreme Court Justice. Who is this Supreme Court Justice and what sets him apart from the rest? According to Wikipedia Justice Scalia is, “The longest-serving justice currently on the Court, Scalia is the Senior Associate Justice. Appointed to the Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia has been described as the intellectual anchor of the Court’s conservative wing[i].” I would like to mention a few more items noted in Wikipedia before I continue, which I believe will give us something to work with regarding Justice Scalia. Wikipedia also notes, “In his quarter-century on the Court, Scalia has staked out a conservative ideology in his opinions, advocating textualism in statutory interpretation and originalism in constitutional interpretation. He is a strong defender of the executive branch…and, in his minority opinions, often castigates the Court’s majority in scathing language.” I’ll also touch on Justice Scalia’s beliefs on such matters as flag-burning and abortion as they relate to the Constitution of the United States. I believe these items through his over 25 years on the Court will allow us to find out who Supreme Court Justice Scalia is and why so many people believe he is public enemy number one.

A Constitution is not meant to facilitate change. It is meant to impede change, to make it difficult to change.

Antonin Scalia

Because I love the U.S. Constitution and know the founding fathers of this nation were great men, I believe that would be a good place to start. What does Justice Scalia mean when he speaks about originalism in constitutional interpretation? According to an interview with Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes, the CBS News report states, “Justice Scalia is still a maverick, championing a philosophy known as “originalism,” which means interpreting the Constitution based on what it originally meant to the people who ratified it over 200 years ago[ii].” Personally, I like the idea of interpreting the U.S. Constitution[iii] in a manner that upholds the values, principles and words of our founding fathers who actually risked everything to create such a wonderful document for the people of the United States. In the report Justice Scalia goes on to explain what he means, “It is an enduring Constitution that I want to defend.” Ms Stahl notes, “Scalia has no patience with so-called activist judges, who create rights not in the Constitution – like a right to abortion – by interpreting the Constitution as a “living document” that adapts to changing values.” Justice Scalia states why he is against the idea of a living Constitution, “What’s wrong with it is, it’s wonderful imagery and it puts me on the defensive as defending presumably a dead Constitution.” So it is apparent, Justice Scalia believes the U.S. Constitution should be and is our ‘rock solid foundation’ which we stand upon and which has elevated us, the United States, to our (at least once) grand stature. With regard to the founders, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “Well, it isn’t the mindset. It’s what did the words mean to the people who ratified the Bill of Rights or who ratified the Constitution.” Justice Scalia isn’t against progress or change, “Create it the way most rights are created…Pass a law.” But he is against changing the Constitution, our foundation. Like many people I believe if you wish to change the Constitution, lawmakers need to go through the extremely cumbersome amendment process in order to make the Amendment. However, making a law in itself, is much less cumbersome, it just needs to be constitutional.

Why does Justice Scalia advocate textualism in statutory interpretation and what is it? Oliver Wendell Holmes in The Theory of Legal Interpretation stated, “How is it when you admit evidence of circumstances and read the document in the light of them? Is this trying to discover the particular intent of the individual, to get into his mind and to bend what he said to what he wanted?” Mr. Holmes, who I might add was a brilliant man, further states, “Thereupon we ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used, and it is to the end of answering this last question that we let in evidence as to what the circumstances were[iv].” So I believe Mr. Holmes is stating textualism is not necessarily the intent of the man as much as it is the words themselves, as used by men in general, to understand the meaning of the words within a certain circumstance.

According to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, “The basic premise of textualism is that judges “must seek and abide by the public meaning of the enacted text, [as] understood in context” and should “choose the letter of the statutory text over its spirit[v].”” Mr. Davis further states with regard to textualism, “Only the statutory text has passed the constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment, and that judicial reliance on unenacted intentions or purposes “disrespects the legislative process.”” Also according to Mr. Davis, textualists believe those ‘unenacted intentions and purposes’ are that which “Skirts the constitutional protections designed to safeguard liberty by diffusing legislative power.” So textualism maintains the separation of power within the three branches of government itself and protects the U.S. Constitution as well as the liberty of sovereign individuals and sovereign States.

Just so you know bicameralism is Congress as two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. For the definition of presentment I’ll go to Black’s Law Dictionary, “In criminal practice. The written notice taken by a grand jury of any offense, from their own knowledge or observation, without any bill of indictment laid before them at the suit of the government. A presentment Is an informal statement In writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it[vi].”

So between Oliver Wendell Holmes and Mr. Davis of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, Justice Scalia’s advocacy of textualism in statutory interpretation is not the intent of what is or was meant, but the actual public meaning of the text itself within the context of what was said [in the statute] and this is done strictly to safeguard our liberty under the U.S. Constitution while holding the government in check. I can’t figure out how that is a bad thing. The framers of the Constitution believed in limited government, to be sure, limited federal government as stated by James Madison in Federalist No. 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined[vii].”

Now imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after…the Naturalization clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.

Antonin Scalia

An example of one of Justice Scalia’s minority opinions can be found in Arizona v. United States. Justice Scalia states, “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding[viii]?” Justice Scalia goes on to say, “The President said at a news conference that the new program “is the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.” This is wonderful example of Justice Scalia castigating the majority (let’s call it) in scathing language-lite (I would have just called them spineless jellyfish). While the majority opinion was in favor of the President’s so-called plan of doing nothing other than trampling atop the rights of the sovereign State of Arizona, Justice Scalia sets himself apart and appropriately rebuffs the majority as well as the Executive branch. Justice Scalia states, “The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable horror…seems to me not so horrible and even less looming…the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written…Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” Justice Scalia seems right on point and makes my previous statement with regard to the Supreme Court Justices in “On Sovereignty[ix]” seem a bit harsh. Quite frankly I should have stated the Supreme Court might as well be referred to as ‘Eight Empty Chairs’ instead of nine. Justice Scalia quite eloquently affirmed Arizona’s sovereign status and rebuked the Executive’s misguided stance as well as the Supreme Court’s inconceivable majority opinion. Why should the sovereign State of Arizona be required to allow its borders to be violated? As a sovereign State, Arizona has every right to secure its borders, protect its citizens and enforce Immigration Laws even if the Federal government doesn’t have the backbone or the intestinal fortitude to aggressively enforce those laws. I have always been unable to fathom why the federal government shirks its own responsibilities but has such a voracious appetite for prosecuting decent Americans who simply exercise their freedoms as they see fit, which seem to be at odds with the misguided beliefs of the jack-booted thugs in Washington.

Apparently, the Obama administration which flatly refuses to rigorously enforce existing immigration laws, just like his predecessor, George W. Bush who also refused to enforce those laws should not handcuff a sovereign State from doing so. Each sovereign State, like the nation as a whole, has its own Constitution and its own three branches of government. The federal government in my view is always subordinate to the States as well as the individuals who make up the States, unless one of the various constitutionally guaranteed rights of the individual has been violated by the State. What right does the federal government believe it has to step in as ‘High Lord and Potentate’ and issue its so-called fatwa’s or to even dictate to the sovereign individuals and the sovereign States? The business of the State is just that, the business of the State. The federal government’s power is limited for a reason, the founders believed in the sovereign individual and the sovereign State.  Clearly, the federal government merely acts out of jealousy in its daily attempts to usurp what is not rightfully theirs as stated in the Law of the Land, the U. S. Constitution.

Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…But this wolf comes as a wolf.

Antonin Scalia

Now that we have seen Justice Scalia beat up on Obama, I think it would be a good time to touch on him [Scalia] as a strong defender of the executive branch. In Morrison v. Olson Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “We should say here that the President’s constitutionally assigned duties include complete control over investigation and prosecutions of violations of the law, and that the inexorable command of Article II is clear and definite: the executive power must be vested in the President of the United States[x].” Clearly, Article II of the U.S. Constitution states the duties and power of the Executive Branch as separate from either the Legislative or Judicial Branches, as stated in Articles I and III respectively, and vice versa. Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion continues, “In my view…the Court’s conclusion must be wrong…One of the natural advantages the Constitution gave to the Presidency, just as it gave Members of Congress (and their staffs) the advantage of not being prosecutable for anything said or done in their legislative capacities…It is the very object of this legislation to eliminate that assurance of a sympathetic forum.” As executive privilege is a principle based on the constitutionally mandated separation of powers – the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches operate independently from one another. Private decision making with their advisors, in this case the independent council was the Assistant Attorney General Olson, has to be done without fear of ‘how something might look’ to either of the other branches of government. Unless a crime has been committed, no branch of government may frivolously impede the duties of the other branches of government. Especially when the aim is simply to destroy an elected leader’s ability to carry out the duties of his office through a so-called witch hunt or a fishing expedition which effectively renders the elected leader impotent without just cause, or simply to act as a device to destroy one’s political enemy. “The purpose of the separation and equilibration of powers in general, and of the unitary Executive in particular, was not merely to assure effective government but to preserve individual freedom.” This is a good example of Justice Scalia’s strong defense of the executive branch. But in doing so, Justice Scalia is actually defending all three separate branches of government and their duties as delineated in the U.S. Constitution. What strikes me as even more paramount than the defense of the Executive and the separation of powers (which is extremely important), is Justice Scalia’s believe that in doing so it is in the defense of the individual freedoms which are ultimately protected.

Lastly, we should take a look at Justice Scalia’s conservative ideology. If we go back to the 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl, Justice Scalia states, “I’m a law-and-order guy. I confess I’m a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases.” An example of Justice Scalia’s impartiality, in spite of his own personal beliefs, is in regard to flag-burners, “If it was up to me, I would have thrown this bearded, sandal wearing flag-burner into jail, but it was not up to me.” While that does sound conservative to me, it also sounds impartial. Justice Scalia clearly states his disdain for flag-burning and flag-burners, yet his opinion with regard to the law is flag-burners are protected under the U.S. Constitution. I’m not so certain I could be so fair-minded. It seems to me, flag-burners have plunged themselves into the depths of the multitudes of depraved individuals around the globe who constantly burn our flag, yet cry a river whenever the United States does something with which they do not agree. Of course, they claim they burn our flag because of our aggression, and while there may be a certain amount of truth to that statement, these people which I speak of live in a barbaric rat hole as a result of their own choosing, not ours. Their argument is disingenuous as well as fallacious.

The right to abortion is another issue with which we are all too familiar, based on the landmark case Roe v. Wade. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Scalia gave his dissenting opinion, “By foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. – We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining[xi].” Whether someone is for or against abortion, it seems clear to me as it seems to be with Justice Scalia, nowhere within the U.S. Constitution does it state there is a right to abortion. However, I do believe as Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion states, this is a matter that should be left up to the States. Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of the federal government’s attempts to destroy States rights. Has there been an amendment to the Constitution? The easy answer is no, but if that is the case, then why does the federal government feel they have the right to enact a national law without going through the cumbersome amendment process to the U.S. Constitution? If a State or the people of a State enact a law which either affirms or denies the right to have an abortion through State law, the individual on either side is not held against their will in that State. They have the freedom and the right to leave and seek out their liberty in another State where the people of that State have beliefs which are more in keeping with their own set of beliefs. But to have a national law foisted upon us all with the misguided attempt at appeasement for some, completely disregards the others. Not to mention the fact that such an idea is completely foreign to the U.S. Constitution.

I would conclude by stating Justice Scalia is not only a fantastic jurist, but an outstanding Supreme Court Justice. This man has a clear grasp of the law and an understanding of the U.S. Constitution which is unparalleled. I happen to like the fact that he adheres to the public meaning of text in his interpretation of the statutes and how he sticks to what the founding fathers said and what the words meant to them regarding the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Justice Scalia’s belief that the idea of a living constitution is in reality a dead constitution is an honorable defense of the U.S. Constitution. His belief that his duty is to defend an enduring Constitution speaks volumes about this man. Justice Scalia’s defense of the sovereign State in the face of Executive, Congressional and Judicial malfeasance is also quite noteworthy. To protect the sovereign State is to protect the sovereign individual and it would appear as though Justice Scalia is a staunch supporter of both. As I have already stated, he defends the Constitution, but he also does this by affirming there is a clear separation of power between the three branches of government as stated in the Constitution. His conservative leanings don’t seem to sway his opinions or impartiality with regard to any case. And his opinions in general are quite interesting to read. Justice Scalia shows up for work each day fully prepared to uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States. I cannot imagine why so many people hate this man, unless of course, it is because they hate the U.S. Constitution.

Justice Scalia is in many ways like Socrates, he questions and reproves, he educates and he enlightens. While in his interview with Ms Stahl he stated, “I was never cool,” I would have to disagree with him on that point. I personally believe Justice Scalia is in fact very cool, I might even go so far as to say he is a role model for decent and honorable men and not just young lawyers who someday wish to sit on the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia is an example of a man who leads by example. If we had more like him on the Supreme Court, it’s possible our nation wouldn’t hit the nail right on our thumb quite so often.

If you think aficionados of a living constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens to enact it. That’s flexibility.

Antonin Scalia[xii]

God Bless this Great Republic, the United States of America.

Brett L. Baker

http://mytreatises.blogspot.com 

References

FOR IMMEDIATE PRESS RELEASE:

The California Supreme court’s ruling of “In re Marriage Cases” established the constitutional right of same sex couples to marry.  Proposition 8 , known as “California Marriage Protection” was voted on by the “Majority Consent of the Governed” in California’s 2008 November state elections and overturned, through “Constitutional Convention” amendment, California’s Supreme court “judicial legislated constitutional right” of same sex couples to marry.  

The people of the United States can exercise “Constitutional Convention”, as well, through two thirds of state legislatures and amend the United States Constitution without the approval of the U.S. president. 

I don’t know what the requirements are in California, but apparently, those requirements were met and the people of California overruled the California Supreme Court.  On August 4, 2010, Proposition 8 was yet overturned by the “Federal” Judge, Vaughn R. Walker, who himself is gay, in the case
Perry v. Schwarzenegger claiming that it violated both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the United States Constitution.  An injunction was issued preventing the enforcement of Proposition 8 and a stay to determine the suspension of the ruling pending appeal, however, On February 7, 2012, in a 2–1 decision, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel affirmed Walker's decision declaring the Proposition 8 ban on same sex marriage to be unconstitutional On June 5, 2012, by a majority, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals refused a petition for rehearing “en banc and stayed the ruling again pending appeal. On July 30, 2012, another petition was filed for “certiorari with the U.S. Supreme court requesting a review of the case and a response is due by August 31, 2012.

After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws. What exactly such a requirement means has been the subject of much debate, and the story of the Equal Protection Clause is the gradual explication of its meaning.

A Judge in Hawaii recently refused to overturn the state’s constitution banning the recognition of same sex marriage.  The judge, and rightfully so said, we have a “democracy” that the people follow and that he could not legislate such changes to the state’s constitution from the bench.  He’s is so right.  The case now goes to, guess where? It goes to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Folks, the same sex marriage isn’t about a “constitutional right” or “equal protection under the law or due process”.  The issue is about, just who determines and who has the last say in what those rights are and if “equal protection and due process” on any certain issue exists in the first place? 

From prior experience, apparently, the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals judges thinks that the judicial system has the last say.  The Hawaii judge disagrees.  He has ruled that, We The People, have the last say through “Constitutional Convention” and he is right, because if the Fourteenth Amendment protects the rights of the people from “abridgment by state leaders and governments, it most assuredly protects the right of the people to “self-govern” from abridgment of the Judicial system as well.  If it doesn’t then, in reality, all we really have governing us is a socialist totalitarian type government. 

The question is, How do We The People, ensure our right to self-govern when a governing authority, the Federal Judicial system in this case, becomes "destructive" to our most basic foundational right to self-govern and over reaches its' authority to impose its' own set of ideology and values on to the people when those governing authorities are supposed to be "For the people,of the people and by the people"? Perhaps "We The People" should insist that all elected officials follow the precedent that our liberal U.S. President and several state governors has already set in opposing and refusing to enforce existing laws in support of same sex marriage,and refuse to acknowledge or enforce any ruling of the Federal Judicial Court System that clearly usurps authority over the Will of the People's and infringes upon our most foundational right and freedom to self-govern afforded to us by the United States Constitution.  It clearyly makes sense to me.