Support H.R. 539, to Limit Federal Courts' Right to Rule on Abortion

Written by Warren Mass

Wednesday, 01 April 2009 09:10

Ron Paul In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court ruled that all state laws prohibiting abortion were unconstitutional. Ever since the Roe v. Wade (and the less publicized Doe v. Bolton) decision, the primary strategy among pro-life people has been to overturn Roe by electing so-called pro-life Republican presidents who will appoint strict constructionist justices to the Supreme Court. Theoretically, this strategy will eventually lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

However, despite the best efforts of members of the pro-life movement, it is 35 years and an estimated 50,000,000 deaths in the womb later, and abortion — for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy, is legal in every state and territory in the United States. Federal courts have also rendered other decisions contrary to traditional family values, as well, including negating state laws mandating school prayer.

As to why the best-laid plans of armies of pro-life people have not ended abortion or returned prayer to our schools, a compelling explanation was made by Chuck Baldwin (a Christian pastor from Pensacola, Florida, and the 2008 presidential candidate of the Constitution Party) in an address before the National Committee of the Constitution Party on October 25, 2007 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Dr. Baldwin asked: "So, please tell me why, after having control of both houses of Congress and the White House for six years, did these ‘pro-life’ Republicans in Congress and a ‘pro-life’ President not pass [U.S. Rep. Ron] Paul’s bill? Why? Because they really do not give a hoot about abortion, but only use pro-life rhetoric to dupe conservative voters.”

The legislation referred to by Dr. Baldwin was H.R. 300, which had been introduced in the 110th Congress as the “We the People Act,” to limit federal courts’ right to rule on matters related to religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion. This bill has been re-introduced in the 111th Congress as H.R. 539 by Rep. Ron Paul (R.-Texas) and initially cosponsored by Reps. Walter Jones (R.-N.C.) and Ted Poe (R.-Texas).

Article III, Sections 1-2 and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution give to Congress the authority to rein in an abusive judiciary and remove abortion (or school prayer, or homosexual marriage, or fill in the blank) from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all other federal courts. This means that should Congressman Paul's bill become law, state abortion laws would be removed from the apellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and all other federal courts, and Roe v. Wade would no longer be "the law of the land."

Passage of H. R. 539 would not only remove federal courts from life and family-related issues that should best be settled at the state level, it would also help restore the proper balance of power between the states and the federal government as envisioned in the Tenth Amendment and help prevent judicial travesties such as Roe v Wade from occurring in the first place. Through our previous well-intentioned, but misguided practice of transferring the authority to oversee equal protection of the laws from the states to the federal government, we have inadvertently also given the federal courts the converse power to abolish those rights! In this case, the most fundamental right of all — the right to life!

Click here to urge your representative to vote yes to Limit Federal Courts' Right to Rule on Abortion. Utilizing the powers found in Article III, Sections 1-2 and Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution is the most effective way to prevent federal judicial tampering with matters related to personal morality that are best left to the states.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (8) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

MarkGlen

April 02, 2009

74.196.210.71

Votes: +3

Hope restored

H. R. 539 is a very good bill and restores hope by limiting federal jurisdiction.

archtoplee

April 02, 2009

98.230.200.48

Votes: +3

Limiting Jurisdiction

Limiting the apellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a fine example to set. Impeachment is another but I can really see how an entire congress slapping down the courts can have a very positive and Constitutionalist ripple effect across the entire political landscape.

MarkGlen

April 02, 2009

74.196.210.71

Votes: +2

This is the best day of my life!!!!!

The old saying "The biggest possum walks jest fo day." is true. This is the darkest hour for America I have ever witnessed in my 45 years as a patriot. But the enemy is most vunerable. He has fought for many a year and is actually exhausted and over confident. There is no better time to mount a lightening bolt counterattack. We mustn't think numbers. We should think force and the numbers will follow.

Thomas Paine

April 02, 2009

66.61.38.24

Votes: -4

Be careful what you wish for

I am against abortion, but in today's environment of children being born to unwed mothers and going on to hate the world as they were never loved and thus become criminals, we better think before adding 2 million more a year to the population of the unloved.

Job challenged God when he cursed the day he was born. Instead of God punishing Job for questioning God's will and the value of life, he rewarded Job's questioning.

We must value the living first. Insist baby's be born to married women. Maybe we should eliminate the welfare if the women has the baby out of wedlock.

MarkGlen

April 02, 2009

74.196.210.71

Votes: +3

Life is more powerful than death

Our power is not found in the dead but in the zeal of the living.

Pat Henry

April 06, 2009

189.130.6.194

Votes: +3

Not law of the land

Roe v. Wade is not now, nor ever has been the "law of the land." As the controlled media well know, if you repeat something long enough, even your enemies will start to parrot the line.

Roe v. Wade is binding to the parties in the case. Period.

If a state will assert jurisdiction under the current US Constitution, it has a legal case superior to the supposed stare decis (precedent) of Roe. And that is all the more true since the Roe decision itself is 1) unconstitutional (thus unlawful)on the face of it ("penumbras of emanations" my foot!); and 2) it is based on false agnosticism of scientific truth about when human life begins, which any 4th grader can now refute by colored "4-D" sonograms. Granted, SCOTUS may refuse such legal challenges; but if a state passes lawful legislation and ACTS on this by prosecuting lawbreakers, then they'll hear the case!

The larger problem is one of spirit, manifested in the lack of testosterone - both literally (in for-"convenience"-only birth control, and actual levels in cowed society) and thus metaphorically in the public square as well.

Children are our hope and our future. When we start acting like it before the God who governs nations, this will precipitate the needed spiritual shift. Ironically, our enemies were right (in a different sense than their subterfuge intended) when they said "you can't legislate morality." Note that they cannot stop us from reproducing more of our kind. And if we act on time-tested moral principles, they will fade like the shades. That's why I vote Constitution Party.