Difference between revisions of "Statement 11 + Footnotes"
From SaveTheWorld - a project of The Partnership Machine, Inc. (Sponsor: Family Music Center)
(→Statement of Fact #11 of 12:) |
(→Statement of Fact #11 of 12:) |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
<span style="color:blue">Finding #11: The 14th Amendment gives federal courts no “due process” authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the “right” to murder, and gives Congress no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights, like taking a baby’s right to Life. 43/326 | <span style="color:blue">Finding #11: The 14th Amendment gives federal courts no “due process” authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the “right” to murder, and gives Congress no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights, like taking a baby’s right to Life. 43/326 | ||
| − | <span style="color: | + | <small><span style="color:grey">The claims here seem to Americans today like well meaning ideas which could never work and which courts will never allow, but they are based on the plain words of the Constitution as explained by several SCOTUS dissents and several amicus briefs filed in Dobbs. (That is until I get to the Bible stuff. From then on it’s my own.) And they will not only “work”, they worked; they not only created America, they will save America. Whether or not courts will ever allow healing, it’s not up to courts. </small> |
<span style="color:blue">The sole federal authority over state laws regarding the rights of their own citizens is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.1 Contrary to SCOTUS rulings, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides: | <span style="color:blue">The sole federal authority over state laws regarding the rights of their own citizens is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.1 Contrary to SCOTUS rulings, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides: | ||
| − | <ref> | + | <ref>More about '''“The sole federal authority over state laws...is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.”''' |
| + | <br> From the Concurrence of Justice Clarence Thomas in ''McDonald v. Chicago'', 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (https://law.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/561/McDonald_v_City_of _Chicago) | ||
| + | <br> <blockquote>Representative John Bingham, the principal draftsman of §1, [section one of the 14th Amendment] delivered a speech on the floor of the House in February 1866 introducing his first draft of the provision. Bingham began by discussing Barron [an earlier precedent] and its holding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. He then argued that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide “an express grant of power in Congress to enforce by penal enactment these great canons of the supreme law, '''securing to all the citizens in every State all the privileges and immunities of citizens, and to all the people all the sacred rights of person.” '''39th Cong. Globe 1089–1090 (1866). Bingham emphasized that '''§1 was designed “to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It ‘hath that extent—no more.’ ”''' Id., at 1088. | ||
| + | <br> Bingham’s speech was printed in pamphlet form and broadly distributed in 1866 under the title, “One Country, One Constitution, and One People,” and the subtitle, “In Support of the Proposed Amendment to Enforce the Bill of Rights.”[Footnote 10] Newspapers also reported his proposal, with the New York Times providing particularly extensive coverage, including a full reproduction of Bingham’s first draft of §1 and his remarks that a constitutional amendment to “enforc[e]” the “immortal bill of rights” was “absolutely essential to American nationality.” N. Y. Times, Feb. 27, 1866, p. 8.</blockquote> | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
Revision as of 00:20, 5 December 2023
| Forum (Articles) | Offer | Partners | Rules | Tips | SaveTheWorld:FAQ | Begin! | Donate |
Statement of Facts #11 of 12 from:
Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases
Saving Babies from judges & voters
Saving Souls from ‘Scrupulous Neutrality’ about Religion
by proving in courts of law and in the Court of Public Opinion that:
The right to live of a baby and of a judge are equal The Bible & reality-challenged religions are NOT equal
A strategy of Life that relies on the Author of Life
for pro-life, pro-Bible Lawmakers, Leaders, Lawyers, and Laymen
by Dave Leach R-IA Bible Lover-musician-grandpa (talk) 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Try to imagine how a judge, reviewing a prolife law with these Findings of Facts, would be able to dodge this evidence - in fact, see if you can find ANYONE who can refute these facts - as opposed to not caring about facts - that is, not caring about reality:
Statement of Fact #11 of 12:
Finding #11: The 14th Amendment gives federal courts no “due process” authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the “right” to murder, and gives Congress no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights, like taking a baby’s right to Life. 43/326
The claims here seem to Americans today like well meaning ideas which could never work and which courts will never allow, but they are based on the plain words of the Constitution as explained by several SCOTUS dissents and several amicus briefs filed in Dobbs. (That is until I get to the Bible stuff. From then on it’s my own.) And they will not only “work”, they worked; they not only created America, they will save America. Whether or not courts will ever allow healing, it’s not up to courts. </small>
The sole federal authority over state laws regarding the rights of their own citizens is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.1 Contrary to SCOTUS rulings, the 14th Amendment explicitly provides: [1]
* Congress authorized, not courts. Congress, not courts, determines the manner and scope of federal intervention in states whose laws don’t protect their citizens’ rights.2 [2] Congress is not limited to enforcing only those rights of which SCOTUS approves, nor only to the extent that SCOTUS approves,3 [3] nor only when state governments, not individuals, directly violate rights.4 [4]
* Federal courts aren’t permitted to stop either states or Congress from protecting enumerated rights (like Life), or to repeal federal laws for conflicting with unenumerated [not listed in the Constitution] “rights” (like the “right” to murder babies), or to intervene in states’ protection of rights beyond prosecuting violations of federal laws.5 [5]
* Nor can Congress stop states from protecting enumerated rights. Neither Congress nor federal courts may overturn a state law protecting the lives of unborn babies from surgical abortion, chemical abortion, or contraceptives.6 [6]
* The rights subject to federal enforcement are not those made up by SCOTUS allegedly based on the “Due Process” clause,7 [7] but those listed in the Constitution, referred to as “privileges and immunities”8 [8] (including, for unborn babies, the “privilege” of life and “immunity” from “cruel and unusual punishment” and execution “without due process of law”).9 [9]
* Enumerated Rights recognized before the Constitution existed are not excluded from Congressional intervention.10 [10]
* “Substantive Due Process” is the sophistry by which SCOTUS turned the Constitution’s Authority to Define Rights, and Congress’ 14th Amendment, Section 5 Authority to Enforce Rights, into its own authority to reclassify abominations as “rights”.11 [11] It is an illegal, unconstitutional, Freedom-crushing fraud from Hell fomenting a long line of Landmark Abomination Cases.12 [12]
(This argument for ending SCOTUS’ long line of Landmark Abomination Cases continues in Part Two of this book where its focus on SCOTUS-mandated murder of babies created in the Image of God is extended to SCOTUS’ censorship of God Himself.)
INDEX to all 12 Statements of Facts
Statement_1_+_Footnotes Courtrecognized, court-tested Finders of Facts unanimously establish that unborn babies are fully human
Statement_2_+_Footnotes Courts Accept the Fact-Finding Authority of Legislatures, Juries, Experts for the same good reasons their findings persuade the public.
Statement_3_+_Footnotes The FACT that Babies are Fully Human was never denied or ruled irrelevant by SCOTUS.
Statement_4_+_Footnotes Heartbeats & Brain Waves are Legally Recognized Evidence of Life.
Statement_5_+_Footnotes Legislatures should regulate abortion, as Dobbs held, just as legislatures regulate the prosecution of all other murders.
Statement_6_+_Footnotes The full humanity of a tiny physical body is hard for many to grasp. But what distinguishes us from animals isn’t physical, and has no known pre-conscious stage.
Statement_7_+_Footnotes Congress has Already Enacted a Personhood Law as Strong as a “Life Amendment”. The 14th Amendment already authorizes Congress to require all states to outlaw abortion.
Statement_8_+_Footnotes Roe, Dobbs, and the 14th Amendment agree: All Humans are “Persons”.
Statement_9_+_Footnotes When pregnancies develop into medical emergencies requiring separation of mother and child to save the mother, the child has an equal fundamental right to life and medical care.
Statement_10_+_Footnotes Tyranny over any class of humans by any other is prohibited by the Constitution, by the Declaration which gives the purpose of the Constitution, and which rests its own authority on the revelation of God in the Bible.
Statement_11_+_Footnotes The 14th Amendment gives courts no authority to invent rights not specified in the Constitution, like the right to murder, and gives legislatures no authority to legalize violations of Constitutional Rights.
Statement_12_+_Footnotes Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.
FOOTNOTES
- ↑ More about “The sole federal authority over state laws...is through the 14th Amendment, Sections One and Five.”
From the Concurrence of Justice Clarence Thomas in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (https://law.justia.com/ cases/federal/us/561/McDonald_v_City_of _Chicago)
Representative John Bingham, the principal draftsman of §1, [section one of the 14th Amendment] delivered a speech on the floor of the House in February 1866 introducing his first draft of the provision. Bingham began by discussing Barron [an earlier precedent] and its holding that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. He then argued that a constitutional amendment was necessary to provide “an express grant of power in Congress to enforce by penal enactment these great canons of the supreme law, securing to all the citizens in every State all the privileges and immunities of citizens, and to all the people all the sacred rights of person.” 39th Cong. Globe 1089–1090 (1866). Bingham emphasized that §1 was designed “to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today. It ‘hath that extent—no more.’ ” Id., at 1088.
Bingham’s speech was printed in pamphlet form and broadly distributed in 1866 under the title, “One Country, One Constitution, and One People,” and the subtitle, “In Support of the Proposed Amendment to Enforce the Bill of Rights.”[Footnote 10] Newspapers also reported his proposal, with the New York Times providing particularly extensive coverage, including a full reproduction of Bingham’s first draft of §1 and his remarks that a constitutional amendment to “enforc[e]” the “immortal bill of rights” was “absolutely essential to American nationality.” N. Y. Times, Feb. 27, 1866, p. 8. - ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑
- ↑