Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation & Gay Marriage

If you find the layout at Canada Free Press confusing [they messed up the indentation on one paragraph], the one at my website may be easier to follow: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32004 or http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/judicial-abuse-of-the...

These are the points which all Citizens need to fully understand, and which I prove in the paper:

1. The powers of the federal courts are "enumerated"! They can lawfully hear only those cases which fall within one of the categories itemized at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution. YOU can learn to judge this.

2. The Federalist Papers really do explain the "original intent" of the Constitution.

3. "Federalism": If the Constitution doesn't bestow authority over an issue to the federal government; and if Art. I, §10 doesn't prohibit the States from exercising that authority, then authority is reserved to the States and the People. Some examples are abortion, homosexual contact, and gay marriage.

4. The original intent of the 14th Amendment: To protect freed slaves from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship. It was not intended to permit baby killing, gay marriage, etc.!

5. How federal judges perverted the 14th Amendment and destroyed "federalism" with their redefinitions of the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses. In effect, they have used those clauses to repeal the body of the U.S. Constitution!

6. To alert you to the judicial re-definition of "liberty": From "freedom" from coercive civil governments to "freedom" from moral law! [Pastors need to talk about this and need to slam the federal courts for imposing their version of morality on this Land.]

7. To refute the widely believed lie that federal judges have "lifetime appointments". Rubbish! They can be fired whenever enough people in Congress find the guts to impeach them.

8. To remind you that our Rights come from God and thus pre-date & pre-exist the Constitution. They do NOT come from the Constitution, Sonia Sotomayor's & Elena Kagan's opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. [Do you really want those two deciding what rights you have - and don't have?] Pastors should start talking about this also. We can not restore our Land unless the pastors renounce pietism, passivity, hopes of "rescue" or "escape", and start fighting the evil people who are taking over our Land.

There is no easy fix. People on our side seem to think that passing this Amendment or that Amendment to the Constitution will somehow fix our problems. It won't. The truth is that all of us with IQ's above room temperature need to obtain a working knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, and then we must tell everyone. We are in the fight for our lives and our posterity. PH

Tags: Fourteenth Amendment, Proposition 8, abortion, due process, enumerated powers, equal protection, gay marriage, judicial usurpations

2 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Foil on January 11, 2011 at 12:29pm

Professor PH, thanks again for the lesson and for keeping the brushfires burning.

Permalink Reply by J. Andrew Reid on January 11, 2011 at 1:29pm

Great article. I think the public has been victimized by activist judges and "constitutional lawyers" who trade on what they represent as the complicated nature of the Constitution. They try to present it as something only they are qualified to interpret when the truth is that a historian is better qualified to discern the intended meaning of the document than they are. The difference being that a historian has an obligation to report the truth and they are driven by a desire to engineer changes in society to stay abreast of modern mores. The Constitution was written to prevent that but it has not stopped them from perverting the document. Thank you for the reminder that Judges, even those on the Supreme Court, can be impeached. There is hope.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on January 11, 2011 at 2:49pm

The Constitution isn't that difficult. With an old dictionary and the Federalist Papers, a Citizen can learn how to find the original intent of most provisions of the Constitution in a few minutes (after he becomes familiar with the Papers).

BUT supreme Court jurisprudence is difficult! People need a law degree and lots of experience with supreme Court cases before they can handle supreme Court jurisprudence. It is the huge body of opinions which the supreme Court has accumulated for the last 200 + years. I have been a lawyer for 40 years, but if I wanted to come up to date on the supreme Court's jurisprudence on many issues, it would take me days & weeks of research: finding and reading and sorting through stacks of supreme Court opinions on the issue and then making sense of them. And even after all that work, I still could only make predictions of what they will do in a given case. They do not go by "the Constitution". They go by their own personal views and write opinions to justify the result they want. And I find it particularly outrageous that they cite their prior decisions AS AUTHORITY!

YES! lawyers and judges are the high priests of our secular culture. With a mumbo-jumbo only they can understand. We are taught in law schools that this is how it is and how it should be and that WE are entering this "high" priesthood.

Permalink Reply by Vern Shotwell on January 11, 2011 at 1:36pm

You are correct, PH. Better to read it on your Blog than at CFP for 2 reasons.

Don't have to read around the ads, and,

Much faster loading, at least at the moment!

Actually, the Enumerated Powers, Art. III, Sec. 2 as ammended seems to be sufficient to end this. Why must the discussion go further?

Permalink Reply by Maureen Gerrish on February 24, 2011 at 4:53am

I have a question on: "3. "Federalism": If the Constitution doesn't bestow authority over an issue to the federal government; and if Art. I, §10 doesn't prohibit the States from exercising that authority, then authority is reserved to the States and the People. Some examples are abortion, homosexual contact, and gay marriage. "

When a right is inalienable doesn't that prohibit authority over that right? For example: the right to Life?

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on February 24, 2011 at 9:49am

Maureen, you bring up something very profound: The Declaration of Independence recognizes that the purpose of civil government is to protect our God-given rights; and that among the rights which God gave us are the Rights to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.

At the same time, we must remember that the U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers only. With The Constitution, WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established a Federation of States which united for the LIMITED PURPOSES enumerated in the Constitution: national defense, international commerce & relations; and domestically, the establishment of an uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, a monetary system based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, and mail delivery. That's about it! Read Art. I, Sec. 8, clauses 1-16, U.S. Constitution, and you will see for yourself how few are the powers delegated to Congress.

So Congress has no constitutional authority to make laws legalizing or outlawing abortion, or homosexual contact, or passing whatever laws THEY think will advance our "Happiness". Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution does not prohibit those powers to the States.

So! Authority over those areas is retained by the States or the People. Now HERE is where we have the irreconcilable conflict with the so-called "libertarians". Our Framers & Founders looked to the Bible & Natural Law to find our Rights: Nowhere in God's Law or in Natural Law is found a "right" to kill babies, to have homosexual contact, or to marry persons of the same sex, or one's sibling, or one's pets. So the States properly outlaw baby killing, same-sex marriage, etc.

Here is Dr. Alan Keyes' wonderful paper on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell":

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=243145 He shows that those who pretend to be seeking to advance the cause of "Liberty", are in fact seeking to FORCE all of us to accept something which many find morally reprehensible.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on February 7, 2012 at 1:54pm

Here is the paper where I explain - among other things - the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals just affirmed. I'll update it to reflect the 9th Circuit's opinion:

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/judicial-abuse-of-the...

If it goes to SCOTUS: We have "our 4" (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas). Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote. However, since Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (which struck down a Texas statute outlawing certain homosexual acts), and the trial court judge in Perry v. Schwarzenegger relied heavily on Lawrence v. Texas [always a good way to curry favor with an appellate judge], I expect SCOTUS will uphold the 9th Circuit in a 5 to 4 decision.

Permalink Reply by Publius Huldah on February 8, 2012 at 9:38am

Ed, my paper explains in detail how the 9th Circuit gets around their lack of constitutional jurisdiction over an Amendment to a State Constitution (Prop 8). I know it is complicated, but the federal courts had to "get complicated" in order to add to the categories of cases enumerated in Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1. Those are the ONLY cases over which federal courts have constitutional jurisdiction.

In a nutshell, the federal courts take the word, "liberty" at Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and say that for a State to prohibit anything which they (federal judges) think should be permitted is a violation of the 14th Amendment. The did the same for the terms, "due process" and "equal protection". Those 3 words & terms are chameleons which they re define as they wish.

NO! Scrap what you said below. It will confuse you and anyone who reads it. "Judicial power" - "jurisdiction" is the authority for courts to preside over a case. See Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1.