Forum (Articles)	Offer	Partners	Rules	Tips	SaveTheWorld:FAQ	Begin!	Donate

Statement of Facts #12 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) 18:11, 15 October 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 #12 of 12:

Judicial Interference with Constitutional Obligations is Impeachable.

Any state judge interfering with this state’s compliance with the 14th Amendment and its ancient authority to protect its people ^[1] – the central reason governments exist, is an accessory to genocide according to the uncontradicted consensus of court-recognized fact finders, and is guilty of exercising the legislative function, in order to perpetuate genocide through an unconstitutional ruling, which exceeds the judicial powers given by the state Constitution, which is Malfeasance in Office, a ground of impeachment.2 ^[2]

Should any federal judge so interfere, this state appeals to its congressional delegation to examine similar grounds for disciplinary action, along with exercising its Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 authority to make “exceptions” and “regulations” designed to end SCOTUS’ long line of landmark abomination cases.3 ^[3]

This state also appeals to its congressional delegation to exercise its life-saving and rights-protecting authority under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment whose plain words give Congress, not courts, the authority to correct state violations of Rights,4 which subsumes the authority to define their scope and balance competing interests, while the “privileges and immunities” clause identifies as protectable rights those listed in the Constitution.4 ^[4] Official world-wide definitions of “crimes against humanity” apply “to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.”5 ^[5] Any court review of this law must be expedited, because lives are lost with each day that courts delay.

The following footnotes are enriched by selections from the following amicus briefs filed in Dobbs v. Jackson: 396 State Legislators from 41 States <> Melinda Thybault/Moral Outcry

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 ancient authority of state legislatures...to protect the lives of all its people – an authority which no court can legitimately remove.”
     Courts that overturn the prolife laws of “red states” interfere with the ancient duty and power of every government, in every generation, to protect life, points out the amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by 396 State Legislators from 41 States.(www.supremecourt.gov/Docket PDF/19/19-1392/185121/ 20210728125120809_Dobbs%20Amici%20brief_State%20Legislators_07272021.pdf)

     State legislators have the constitutional duty, and therefore the power, to protect the fundamental, civil rights of persons. The fundamental law in which those fundamental rights are found is the common law, which consists of both natural duties and those ancient, customary rights and immunities that are foundational to ordered liberty. Thus, a state legislature must declare and secure to all persons within the protection of its laws the rights that those persons have by natural and customary law. Cf. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721-22 (1997) (upholding state legislation that prohibited assisted suicide and reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’.” (quoting Moore v. E. Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977)).

     William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765): “Hence,” he said, “it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.” Id. Blackstone taught that the legislative power is to declare existing common-law rights and duties and to remedy any defects in the legal security for those rights. Id. at *42-43, 52-58, 86-87
     The Founders echoed this view in the Declaration of Independence, declaring that governments are instituted among men in order to secure the inalienable rights with which human beings are endowed by nature and nature’s God. They also accused the crown and Parliament of infringing the rights of “our constitution,” which in 1776 could only have been a reference to the common-law constitution of British North America. This view predicated the Constitution of the United States, which expressly secures natural rights, such as life and religious liberty, and common-law rights, such as jury trials and freedom from the quartering of soldiers in one’s home, and expressly disclaims any intent to disparage the other rights of the fundamental law.
     Indeed, the point of having legislatures, executives, and courts is to secure the rights that Americans already have. Neither state legislatures nor the Constitution of the United States create those rights. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) (stating that “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a preexisting right,” that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution,” and is not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”).
     Some, but not all, of the rights of natural persons are enumerated [listed] in the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.; art. IV, §2; amends. I-VIII. Others are enumerated in state constitutions. See e.g., Soc’y for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 22 F. Cas. 756, 766 (No. 13,156) (C.C.D.N.H. 1814). Still others are declared in American constitutions but not enumerated. U.S. Const. amend. IX (“The enumeration of certain rights herein shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”) (emphasis added). State legislatures have a duty to declare and secure all fundamental rights, both enumerated and unenumerated.
     Fundamental rights are those that persons enjoy by fundamental law—natural law and common law— with or without any written constitution. Because the common law includes natural rights, to understand the fundamental rights declared and secured by the Constitution, it is sufficient to look to the common law, especially as explained by William Blackstone. Established common-law doctrines constitute the best evidence of the existence and meaning of both enumerated and unenumerated, fundamental rights.
     The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). The terms and concepts of the common law provided the “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall) 162, 167 (1875). Accord James R. Stoner, Jr., Common-Law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism 9-29 (2003).
     American constitutional rights are not philosophical abstractions. They are described in detail in common law treatises, such as those by Coke and Hale, and especially Blackstone’s Commentaries. The framers crafted American constitutions—state and federal—in common law terms. And Blackstone was their teacher and lexicographer....
     As this Court has rightly acknowledged, Blackstone’s “works constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999). Blackstone retained his influence through the adoption of the Civil War Amendments. James M. Ogden, Lincoln’s Early Impressions of the Law in Indiana, 7 Notre Dame L. Rev. 325, 328 (1932). And this Court continues to turn to Blackstone today.
     [2 A few examples from recent years include Gamble v. United States, __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) (the Court’s opinion, the concurrence, and one dissent citing Blackstone multiple times to determine the meaning of the phrase “the same offense” in the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause); Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1969 (2020) (calling Blackstone’s Commentaries a “satisfactory exposition of the common law of England”); Ramos v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1395 (2020) (citing Blackstone in explanation of the holding that the requirement of juror unanimity is “a vital right protected by the common law” and therefore the Constitution’s jury trial guarantee); Torres v. Madrid, __ U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 989, 996, 997, 998, 1000 (2021) (citing Blackstone multiple times to determine meaning of Fourth Amendment “seizure”). ]...
     But as the Ninth Amendment makes clear, the enumeration of certain common-law rights does not deny or disparage all the other rights that the American people enjoy by virtue of natural law and their ancient customs. The Ninth Amendment expressly reserves to the people those civil and fundamental rights that they enjoyed prior to ratification, which are their natural rights, other common-law rights and liberties, and some privileges enumerated in state constitutions.

     Because many states refused to remedy infringements of fundamental rights [for blacks] prior to the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary to ensure to all persons due process of law and the equal protection of the laws, and to empower Congress to remedy infringements of those rights. It bears emphasis that the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary to recall state legislatures to their original task. Far from repealing the people’s retention of fundamental rights declared by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment strengthened it. And far from abrogating the duty of state legislatures to declare and secure unenumerated rights, the Fourteenth Amendment reinforced that duty.

     That is, the rights retained by the people but not protected by their state, such as the right of Blacks to liberty, was strengthened – at the expense of the freedom of the legislature to torpedo those rights.
     And as Statement #11 and its footnotes explain, the 14th Amendment did not supplant the duty of legislatures to protect rights with that duty in courts. The only authority over state violations of rights given courts by the 14th was to enforce federal laws enacted by Congress. The authority of courts we see today, to make up “rights” not found in the Constitution and impose them on states without waiting for Congress to pass a law, was not given by the 14th, but was seized by courts in violation of the Constitution.
↑
↑
↑
↑

[1] More about “the ancient authority of state legislatures...to protect the lives of all its people – an authority which no court can legitimately remove.”
Courts that overturn the prolife laws of “red states” interfere with the ancient duty and power of every government, in every generation, to protect life, points out the amicus brief filed in Dobbs v. Jackson by 396 State Legislators from 41 States.(www.supremecourt.gov/Docket PDF/19/19-1392/185121/ 20210728125120809_Dobbs%20Amici%20brief_State%20Legislators_07272021.pdf)

State legislators have the constitutional duty, and therefore the power, to protect the fundamental, civil rights of persons. The fundamental law in which those fundamental rights are found is the common law, which consists of both natural duties and those ancient, customary rights and immunities that are foundational to ordered liberty. Thus, a state legislature must declare and secure to all persons within the protection of its laws the rights that those persons have by natural and customary law. Cf. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721-22 (1997) (upholding state legislation that prohibited assisted suicide and reasoning that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’.” (quoting Moore v. E. Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 503 (1977)).

William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765): “Hence,” he said, “it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.” Id. Blackstone taught that the legislative power is to declare existing common-law rights and duties and to remedy any defects in the legal security for those rights. Id. at *42-43, 52-58, 86-87
The Founders echoed this view in the Declaration of Independence, declaring that governments are instituted among men in order to secure the inalienable rights with which human beings are endowed by nature and nature’s God. They also accused the crown and Parliament of infringing the rights of “our constitution,” which in 1776 could only have been a reference to the common-law constitution of British North America. This view predicated the Constitution of the United States, which expressly secures natural rights, such as life and religious liberty, and common-law rights, such as jury trials and freedom from the quartering of soldiers in one’s home, and expressly disclaims any intent to disparage the other rights of the fundamental law.
Indeed, the point of having legislatures, executives, and courts is to secure the rights that Americans already have. Neither state legislatures nor the Constitution of the United States create those rights. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) (stating that “it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a preexisting right,” that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution,” and is not “in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”).
Some, but not all, of the rights of natural persons are enumerated [listed] in the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8.; art. IV, §2; amends. I-VIII. Others are enumerated in state constitutions. See e.g., Soc’y for the Propagation of the Gospel v. Wheeler, 22 F. Cas. 756, 766 (No. 13,156) (C.C.D.N.H. 1814). Still others are declared in American constitutions but not enumerated. U.S. Const. amend. IX (“The enumeration of certain rights herein shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.”) (emphasis added). State legislatures have a duty to declare and secure all fundamental rights, both enumerated and unenumerated.
Fundamental rights are those that persons enjoy by fundamental law—natural law and common law— with or without any written constitution. Because the common law includes natural rights, to understand the fundamental rights declared and secured by the Constitution, it is sufficient to look to the common law, especially as explained by William Blackstone. Established common-law doctrines constitute the best evidence of the existence and meaning of both enumerated and unenumerated, fundamental rights.
The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888). The terms and concepts of the common law provided the “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall) 162, 167 (1875). Accord James R. Stoner, Jr., Common-Law Liberty: Rethinking American Constitutionalism 9-29 (2003).
American constitutional rights are not philosophical abstractions. They are described in detail in common law treatises, such as those by Coke and Hale, and especially Blackstone’s Commentaries. The framers crafted American constitutions—state and federal—in common law terms. And Blackstone was their teacher and lexicographer....
As this Court has rightly acknowledged, Blackstone’s “works constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 715 (1999). Blackstone retained his influence through the adoption of the Civil War Amendments. James M. Ogden, Lincoln’s Early Impressions of the Law in Indiana, 7 Notre Dame L. Rev. 325, 328 (1932). And this Court continues to turn to Blackstone today.
[2 A few examples from recent years include Gamble v. United States, __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1960 (2019) (the Court’s opinion, the concurrence, and one dissent citing Blackstone multiple times to determine the meaning of the phrase “the same offense” in the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause); Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1969 (2020) (calling Blackstone’s Commentaries a “satisfactory exposition of the common law of England”); Ramos v. Louisiana, __ U.S. __, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1395 (2020) (citing Blackstone in explanation of the holding that the requirement of juror unanimity is “a vital right protected by the common law” and therefore the Constitution’s jury trial guarantee); Torres v. Madrid, __ U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 989, 996, 997, 998, 1000 (2021) (citing Blackstone multiple times to determine meaning of Fourth Amendment “seizure”). ]...
But as the Ninth Amendment makes clear, the enumeration of certain common-law rights does not deny or disparage all the other rights that the American people enjoy by virtue of natural law and their ancient customs. The Ninth Amendment expressly reserves to the people those civil and fundamental rights that they enjoyed prior to ratification, which are their natural rights, other common-law rights and liberties, and some privileges enumerated in state constitutions.

Because many states refused to remedy infringements of fundamental rights [for blacks] prior to the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary to ensure to all persons due process of law and the equal protection of the laws, and to empower Congress to remedy infringements of those rights. It bears emphasis that the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary to recall state legislatures to their original task. Far from repealing the people’s retention of fundamental rights declared by the Ninth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment strengthened it. And far from abrogating the duty of state legislatures to declare and secure unenumerated rights, the Fourteenth Amendment reinforced that duty.

That is, the rights retained by the people but not protected by their state, such as the right of Blacks to liberty, was strengthened – at the expense of the freedom of the legislature to torpedo those rights.
And as Statement #11 and its footnotes explain, the 14th Amendment did not supplant the duty of legislatures to protect rights with that duty in courts. The only authority over state violations of rights given courts by the 14th was to enforce federal laws enacted by Congress. The authority of courts we see today, to make up “rights” not found in the Constitution and impose them on states without waiting for Congress to pass a law, was not given by the 14th, but was seized by courts in violation of the Constitution.

[2] ↑

[3] ↑

[4] ↑

[5] ↑

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Statement 12 + Footnotes

Reversing_Landmark_Abomination_Cases

Statement of Fact #12 of 12:

==

Navigation menu

Find

Browse

This page

Tools