Well, everybody is entitled to an opinion. If you don’t like the constitution, you are free to either change it through the mechanisms enshrined by it, show that God himself wills it to be changed, or establish a dictatorship that rejects it.
As far as the Supreme Court of the United States, they are bound by law and solemn oaths to uphold the laws of the United States, principal of which is the constitution.
The court goes through considerable lengths to carry out a historical comparison of the the situation at the time of the passing of the document and at the time of the appeal. Their opinion is that, being the principal law of the nation, it must always be upheld, but this upholding must take into account the historical differences, so that the intention must be objectively determined and established, and its applicability in modern terms determined. An example given in this syllabus is when the court decided that a bug planted in a house was a modern equivalent of physically searching premises at the time of the writing of the relevant amendment.
They make reference to more than a dozen historical documents and previous decisions, as well as scholarly studies, many brought to the court by the respondents (those arguing against the repeal of the gun ban in New York).
Am I right to understand that your opinion is that observance of the law constitutes religious fanaticism?
Of course, there might be something to that. It might be that all who do not acknowledge God in heaven consider that their own opinions should arbitrarily be law. Like yours that the Supreme Court of the United States should be abolished, and the constitution disowned.
It is very possible that this was the downfall of the French Revolution, which did not place its law under the authority of God, but of whoever managed to occupy government.
England is another interesting case, because they do not follow the French path either, and have a long history of continuity of law. In their case, the highest authority is the reigning king or queen, and all laws are passed and upheld in their name. Even common law is observed explicitly at the king or queen’s pleasure. Having made the monarch a figurehead with no legislative innitiative, they managed to make something firm. However, the monarch is still a human, and in order to challenge the letter of the law, all that has to be shown is that it is done in the name of the monarch. This took place not many years ago when an appeal to the highest court in England succeeded in convincing them that, on the letter of no particular law or precedent, in the name of the queen’s authority, the government was breaking the law by calling for a break in the parliamentary session.
Even given my displeasure at acknowledging English law in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, I have to admit that they go through considerable lengths to frame that acknolwedgement to the circumstances relevant to and surrounding the writing of the constitution. It is only appealed to to the extent that it can be demonstrated to have been relevant to the drafting of the constitution. In that sense, they are able to grab on to the stability and continuity provided by centuries of English law, without breaking from the letter of the constitution or submitting to a foreign law. Here is a relevant quote:
In other words, English law is invoked in order to better understand the law as written in the constitution, rather than to provide a source of authority for it. This is a danger which they also explicitly name, but are succesful in precicely defining and establishing mechanisms to preempt.
The legal structure of the United States also does something special, which is distinguish between the law and government interest, and putting the law first. In England, for example, as shown above, the government interest is the law. But, in the United States,
It is an implicit acknowledgement that the constitution of the United States exists as much to protect its people from the government as from any other legally identifiable threat. No other country does this, and all protections from the government are had solely at the government’s discretion.
“A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.”
Which, of course, would apply to the right to free speech or a fair trial as much as the right to keep and bear arms.
Or, consider what would happen if the following right were subordinated to government interests:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
And yes that argument can reduce the legal ramifications that subsist in the above argument between constitutional issue with that set to scrutiny between the framers and the contenders- but. for a second the East -West repartee had become minimized to an unrecognizable extent: vis. that which consists between real economic correspondence between the Freudian micro and the global economic theories.
But then, my little good man side won over that of the fat man.
[b]'Taking pills to end a pregnancy accounts for a majority of abortions in the United States, both legal and not. Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, medication abortion will play a larger role, especially among women who lose access to abortion clinics.
'What is medication abortion?
'It’s an F.D.A.-approved regimen of pills that women can take at home. The approved protocol includes two medications. The first one, mifepristone, blocks a hormone called progesterone that is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. The second, misoprostol, brings on uterine contractions.
'Is it effective, and is it safe?
‘Yes on both counts.’[/b]
Will those who manufacture the pills and those who take them eventually be deemed guilty of premeditated murder as well?
After all, once conception occurs, anything that stops it ends a human life, right?
What I always come back to are those here who are willing to “leave it up to the individual states” to decide what the law will be, and those who [re God or No God] won’t rest until all abortions in all fifty states are deemed to be criminal offenses.
Also, the extent to which those who do believe this are willing to take this criminal offense seriously enough to charge those who perform or cause or have an abortion with the crime of premeditated first degree murder.
To actually sentence the guilty to long prison terms…or even to advocate executing them.
