Monday, January 22, 2007

22 January

Unfortunately, work and such do not permit me to do justice to this topic and this day. But it's a big topic and a big day.

Thirty-four years ago today, the Supreme Court said that the states can not debate, legislate, and regulate abortion in any meaningful way.

And federalism died.

I understand that abortion is an intensely personal issue. I am unapologetically pro-life, but I understand that people of goodwill do not share my views. Still, I think the only logical conclusion for some one who values living in a free society is to respect the limits of the individual's power to end innocent life.

There's another threat here that all of us can and should appreciate, though.

As the years roll on, I am more and more convinced that the manner that the abortion debate has been illegitimately tabled by the Supreme Court has damaged the nation's mind and will perhaps as badly as unfettered access to abortions has harmed the nation's soul.

The Supreme Court in Roe instituted a national standard in the middle of a raging debate. States held in 1973 (and still hold) varying views on the abortion issue. But the Supremes, yes, those same sages who preach the virtues of tolerating all manner of diverse religious and moral views, told the 50 states that their policies must be, as a practical matter, homogenous.

Why? Well, this entire experiment in judicial oligarchy finds it origins in the Supreme Court's heading off the sand bar of judicial sanity in the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut. In that case, the Court saved Connecticut from a silly law outlawing contraceptives, based upon its discovery of a "right of privacy" in the Constitution (175 years after it was written). How this right remained hidden for so long remains a deep mystery; it seems this right wasn't there for the unwashed to see. Only the enlightened judges saw it in the "penumbra" of the Constitution. It was lurking in the shadows, you see.

Translation: They made it up to strike down a law they didn't like. They didn't trust the people of Connecticut to fix the silly law. Too stupid, those little people. It's that simple. The unelected few overruled the people on the basis of personal preference.

Federalism was in critical condition.

Eight years later, the Supremes made the next, natural leap in striking down Texas's law outlawing abortions. Again, the Court didn't trust Texans to get it right. After all, maybe they never would. But what is the role of a judge in a federal system, any way?

But by 1973, the court had the Griswold precedent to rely upon. So, they weren't making it up.

Thus, the Court delegitimized state power that had been legitimately utilized in every state since the founding of the Republic. Abortion was illegal in every state when the Constitution was ratified.

Now, the public-educated masses are taught that the Supremes heroically intervened to make abortion "legal". But actually, the Supreme Court only made the work of the people's representatives illegal.

Federalism died on January 22, 1973.

But in killing debate, discussion and federalism, the Court showed the illegitimacy of its own cause.

If this debate could be won legislatively in the sunlight, why would the Supremes go dark?

The rest of the nation has noticed. Pro-lifers were awakened, and many remain skeptical of the raw power grab that is Roe.

Aside from its complicity in encouraging an alarming number of abortions, the Supreme Court has short-circuited the nation's laboratory of federalism -- where the 50 states can pass their own laws to demonstrate what does and doesn't work. A free people usually and eventually see what works and get it right. An oligarchy always gets most things wrong, except in taking care of the ruling few.

In killing federalism, the Court showed us all that it, too, is illegitimate. Unless and until it overturns this constitutional abomination, it has forfeited its legal and moral authority.

When I was in law school at The University of Texas nearly 20 years ago, I eagerly awaited a good discussion of the relative merits of Roe. But I never heard such a debate. Quite the contrary, what I heard was a defense of abortion, not defense of the case that placed the practice beyond meaningful legislative reach.

Pro-abortion professors openly cheered the result but admitted that the opinion was a product of very suspect methodology. I never found a professor who would defend Roe on its merits. But they liked it.

Such people are beneath the deepest, darkest contempt.

For they deligitimize a free society. Ultimately, they will endanger the lives, liberty and property of us all for their own personal, sordid agendas.

I will fight them as long as I am alive.