Historic ruling: Roe v. Wade overturned, abortion laws sent back to the states

 By CASEY HARPER | THE CENTER SQUARE

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that prevented states from banning abortion.

The court ruled 6-3 that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion and that it is therefore up to each state to decide how to handle the issue.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” a syllabus of the ruling reads. 

The high court called the Roe v. Wade ruling “egregiously wrong.”

“Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided,” the court said. “Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side. Those on the losing side – those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life – could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views. The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.”

Several states have already lined up legislation to restrict abortion in anticipation of this ruling.

“Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents,” the ruling said. “The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s ‘concept of existence’ prove too much.”

The case in question began with a legal challenge to a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks. Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch last year requested that the Supreme Court use that case to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The ruling comes after the court last year allowed a Texas law to stand that banned abortions after six weeks, when a baby’s heartbeat is detectable.

A leak from the Supreme Court earlier this year that indicated Roe v. Wade could be overturned sparked controversy and led to protests outside multiple Justices’ homes and a failed assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Fencing and barricades were erected around the court, and law enforcement presence increased after the leak. Demonstrators on both sides gathered outside the court all week along with law enforcement in anticipation of the ruling.

Pro-life advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Laws across the country can now affirm that life is a human right and ensure women have greater access to the support and resources they need and deserve,” Alliance Defending Freedom General Counsel Kristen Waggoner said.

Now, the energy on abortion will likely ramp up at the state level, where each state government can now decide how to handle the controversial issue.

“We now turn to the states to ensure that unborn children and their mothers are protected from the gruesome reality of abortion, and that they receive the care and resources they need to flourish,” Waggoner said. “Mississippi asked the court to overturn Roe because that case was egregiously wrong and had no basis in constitutional text, structure, or history. Additionally, Roe’s changing standards have long been unworkable, which is why so many pro-life laws ended up in court. It also failed to account for changing science, which demonstrates that life begins at conception. Today is a day of celebration, but the battle continues, as states either respect or shirk their responsibility to protect the life and health of women and children.”

This story is developing.

Why the Founders Wanted You to Own Military-Style Weapons

Two hundred and twenty-seven years ago this month, the U.S. Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792. This pair of bills authorized the president to lead the state militias in war and to conscript all able-bodied free men to fight with self-provided arms and munitions.

To a modern American living in the midst of an empire with a permanent military presence both here and abroad, there might be little reason to acknowledge this anniversary. However, it offers an example of how the founders believed military defense and war should be handled, and why so many modern arguments against civilian gun ownership don’t match the history.

The first Militia Act was passed on May 2, followed shortly thereafter by the second Act on May 8. The first act gave the president the power to call up the militia “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.” The second Act called on every “free able-bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18-45 to join a militia.

Why are these laws relevant today?

We live in a time when Americans are told by self-appointed “wise overlords” that the founders never intended for private citizens to have military weapons. Incidentally, they never cite anyplace that the founders made this assertion, nor where they declared their love for intervening in other countries’ domestic affairs, endless unconstitutional wars, and a permanent military with bases in foreign nations for that matter. This argument is used to justify gun control policies that restrict our right to keep and bear arms as described in the Second Amendment.

The reality is that many in the founding generation were terrified of a permanent, standing army that could crush liberties at home. This fear was a major theme during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788. In fact, the convention’s proposed Second Amendment text makes it clear why it was so important that the proposed central government had no say in the possession of firearms by Americans (bold emphasis added):

That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The convention’s “Second Amendment” draft also provides another glimpse into their worldview. The country’s defense was to come from the people, not an army held to a different legal standard. There was no separation between soldier and civilian. At the convention, George Mason referred to the militia as “the whole of the people.” In every colony besides Pennsylvania, able-bodied men not only had to join a militia and show up to musters, but they had to furnish their own functioning arms.

The Militia Acts show that this tradition carried on through Colonial America into its history as an independent country apart from Great Britain and under the newly-approved U.S. Constitution.

Under the Militia Acts, the militia members had to bring the following:

A good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutered and provided.

The militiamen were to be armed with their own weapons, not ones provided and owned by the federal government.

Now some might argue the U.S. government lacked the financial resources it does today, but that’s why it’s important to look at the broader context of the law. The founders did not want a standing army, and there were no calls for these men to surrender their personal firearms once a military crisis had been addressed.

Ultimately, free men must be the ones responsible for defending their liberties and their country if that freedom is to last. The founders believed that, and it’s why they favored a militia-style military composed self-equipped men, which would reduce the risk of a standing army that would take that responsibility away. If free men are not responsible, then they are not really in charge – and thus they are not truly free.

A constitutionalist or someone sympathetic to anti-federalist concerns might take issue with the law and how it was used to call up the militia during the Whiskey Rebellion. However, the Militia Acts offer reveal the blueprint for how the founders believed wars should be fought, and why they made it clear the central government should have no right to infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

TJ Martinell

TJ Martinell is an author, writer, and award-winning reporter from Washington state. His dystopian novel The Stringers depicting a neo-Prohibition Era in the city of Seattle is available on Amazon.

Visit his personal site at www.tjmartinell.com. Join his Facebook page here. Listen to his weekly podcast on Sound Cloud.

http://www.tjmartinell.com

Republished with permission from the Tenth Amendment Center. The original article may be viewed here.

Wild Bill: "State Courage Rising"

Molôn Labé, indeed!

Quote for the Weekend

"We don't need no stinkin' permission to exercise our rights. We need to exercise our rights whether they, the government, want us to or not!"

~ Michael Boldin, Tenth Amendment Center

Quote of the Day

"Our Founding Fathers constructed our Constitution in such a way that emphasized trust in one another and distrust in the government -- a rather radical concept today. The desired outcome of such a construct would be that the citizens would protect themselves and one another by not allowing government to gain more power than it was due. The citizens would keep watch over their government and elected leaders to ensure that government remained limited and that would ensure the protection of their rights and liberties. Slowly but surely over the past few decades, we have seen the mindset of the American people change. The traditional American view of hard work and self-sufficiency has been replaced by the so-called 'welfare mentality' where it becomes the job and responsibility of government to correct the problems of citizens rather than citizens taking that responsibility themselves. That mentality, in effect, gave the government license to expand its power and authority to do what it wished. The people 'needed' it to solve their problems."

~ Lisa S. Dean

NOAA Puts Some AK Fishing Charter Operators Out of Business

I'm a little late with this story, but

"A new rule intended to reduce the amount of halibut taken from Alaska waters will reduce the charter fishing fleets in some areas of the Gulf of Alaska by more than one third. Beginning in 2011, charter operators will have to display a  permit issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for their clients to legally catch halibut."

So now the fed.gov is telling us who can fish?

"NOAA's preliminary figures estimate that 231 businesses will qualify for a permit in Southeast and 173 will not; in Southcentral, 296 will qualify and 154 will not..."

Yeah, because some faceless bureaucratic panel 4,000 miles away knows what's best for poor little us. Sorry, but this is a load of bull. They have no business interfering in fishing. If the State of  Alaska chooses to regulate and/or impose quotas, that a different matter.

But a federal fishing permit? Yes, others have predicted it would happen. Now it has.

Score a Victory for States Rights!

Armed Citizen: Score a Victory for States Rights!

Excerpt:

Bighorn County Sheriff Dave Mattis spoke at a press conference following a recent U.S. District Court decision (Case No. 2:96-cv-099-J (2006)) and announced that all federal officials are forbidden to enter his county without his prior approval ......

"If a sheriff doesn’t want the Feds in his county he has the
constitutional right and power to keep them out, or ask them to leave,
or retain them in custody."

The court decision was the result of a suit against both the BATF and the IRS by Mattis and other members of the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. The suit in the Wyoming federal court district sought restoration of the protections enshrined in the United States Constitution and the Wyoming Constitution.

Guess what? The District Court ruled in favor of the sheriffs. In fact, they stated, "Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding that of any other state or federal official."

RTWT!

Who Is Sovereign in the U.S.?

The Tenth Amendment Center has been tracking the states' rights movement, and providing updates as developments occur. The founder's son, an attorney, has written a legal opinion about who is supposed to be in charge, in the U.S.A.

"..the Federal government today does not recognize the Sovereignty in the people of the respective states; it does not recognize the respective States’ jurisdiction over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government; and it does not seem to acknowledge State Sovereignty under the 10th amendment of the US Constitution. Given their evident intent and purposes to continually grow in power and to continually oppress and suppress the sovereignty of we the people, against our respective states, the question becomes, how will they be made to understand this? It is of course up to the Sovereigns in each state to answer this question. And we see the answers arriving through State laws such as the Firearms Freedom Act.

The time has come in America where to be free necessarily means to resist status quo and federal usurpation and to actively change the course and philosophy being shoved down our throats. There really is no middle ground any more. This is not a matter of politics anymore. This is not a matter of Republican and Democrat. This is a matter of FREEDOM, as much so as were the matters of 1775 and 1776. It is staring you in the face, daring you to make a move. May we never be guilty of causing, whether by our apathy, indifference, laziness or comfort, this nation to lose the freedoms that our founders attempted to secure with infinite pains and labors. We the people must once again reassert our Sovereignty in this country and the States must recognize and act upon their God-ordained role as Freedom protectors and tyranny resisters."

This is a long but very interesting opinion piece. Read it all here.

h/t The Maritime Sentry

Rep. Rohrer: 10th Amendment Defines States' Rights

h/t DR at Maritime Sentry

Luck's Rants: The Patrick Henry Caucus

Please take a moment to read this post at Luck's Rants. It's about states taking the next logical step in the effort to reclaim their Constitutional sovereignty.

It's worth the few minutes it will take to read it.

10th Amendment & States' Sovereignty

This hasn't been discussed much over the last 30 days, as other events have crowded it out of the news.

Alaska's legislature passed the statement of 10th Amendment rights & state sovereignty unanimously (both houses) on April 19, and the bill is now awaiting transmittal to Governor Palin.

If you want to see what your state is doing - or not doing - check out http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/23/state-sovereignty-resolutions/.