Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
On Monday the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Oklahoma Supreme Court blocking a personhood ballot initiative that would have declared that life begins at conception. The court blocked the initiative because it is "repugnant to the Constitution of the United States."
Well, actually, not the Constitution as such, but the Court's venerable 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. “The measure is clearly unconstitutional pursuant to Planned Parenthood v. Casey," said the Court. "The states are duty bound to follow its interpretation of the law." But actually, neither Casey nor its direct precedent, Roe v Wade, purports to "resolve the difficult question of when life begins," as the Roe majority put it.
So there, my friends, you have the perfect storm of judicial activism. The Supreme Court refuses to address the threshold question of when life begins, and the People are barred from addressing the issue themselves via the political process. The more one thinks about Roe and Casey, the more they look like Dred Scott.
- Comment (25)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
May '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
If personhood is established, then it immediately begs the question: So this whole time we were actually murdering human beings?
And no one wants that...
Mar '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
The power of judges has grown immensely, far beyond what both the federal and state constitutions intended. They've more or less given themselves more power over the years. The question is... what do we do about it? Elections in other offices aren't going to change this, obviously.
May '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
I wish this had happened a couple of weeks ago Adam. It would have been a good question to have passed to Justice Scalia who himself made the exact point that the legislature needed to decide these things.
Mar '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
So does Oklahoma have a system were the voters can get rid of judges? If so they should follow Iowa lead and start getting rid of these tyrants.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 6:11pmOct '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Like Dred Scott, Roe represents a clash of two opposing world views. The Judeo-Christian Western world view, and the secular progressive world view. The first time we lost over half a million lives in the Civil War to temporarily settle the issue.
What will it cost this time? How many lives? Or forever the last great chance for the world to see freedom with constitutional restraint on government?
Jun '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
raycon:
What will it cost this time? How many lives?
A new estimate published by the National Right to Life Committee indicates there have been an estimated 54,559,615 abortions since the Supreme Court handed down its 1973 Roe vs. Wade
Nov '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
So to be clear:
There was a proposed ballot initiative in OK.
The OK Supreme Court refused to let it proceed to voting because the thing clearly violated established Constitutional law on the subject.
This is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, who declined to hear the case.
And this is "judicial activism"?
Question:
If instead of being a personhood amendment, it was a ban on personal fire arm ownership, in a way that clearly violated established Constitutional law on the subject, and the OK Supreme Court had refused to let it move forward to voting, and then it was appealed to the SCotUS, and they refused to hear the case,
Would it still be judicial activism?
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 7:41pmMar '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Fred Cole: So to be clear:
There was a proposed ballot initiative in OK.
The OK Supreme Court refused to let it proceed to voting because the imitative clearly violated established Constitutional law on the subject.
This is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, who declined to hear the case.
And this is "judicial activism"?
Question:
If instead of being a personhood amendment, it was a ban on personal fire arm ownership, in a way thatclearly violated established Constitutional law on the subjec, and the OK Supreme Court had refused to let it move forward to voting, and then it was appealed to the SCotUS, and they refused to hear the case,
Would it still be judicial activism? · 10 minutes ago
The problem with that argument is Abortion rights are legal fiction. There is a specfic prevision on the right ot bear arms in the federal constituion. The right to privacy (although I agree with the general premis) is a idea that is not in the constituion but invinted by judges. How can you declair something unconstituional that was created out of thin air.
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 7:01pmJul '12
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
I wonder how the proposition was polling? These Personhood Amendments have crashed and burned in Pro-Life states, e.g. Mississippi.
Nov '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Brian Clendinen
The problem with that argument is Abortion rights are legal fiction. There is a specific prevision on the right to bear arms in the federal constitution The right to privacy (although I agree with the general premise is a idea that is not in the Constitution but invented by judges. How can you declare something unconstitutional that was created out of thin air. ·
Frankly, the Constitution says whatever the Court says it does.
Liberals say the Second Amendment applies to the militia, not to the individual right to arms.
They would make the same argument you just said about abortion rights and the right to privacy.
I also took great care in choosing my wording.
Oct '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
I'm no legal genius, but how is this reconciled in view of fetal homicide state laws? For purposes of homicide, Alabama defines the person as follows:
PERSON. The term, when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.
Many states have these laws. Why aren't these laws "repugnant to the Constitution." I'm assuming they all have a caveat saying that these laws don't apply to abortion. So, you have the Court saying that the fetus is not a person and the state legislatures saying it is, except when the Court says it isn't. Even though fetal homicide laws are constitutional only because they include the flimsy caveat that they don't apply to abortion, these laws shed light on the myth that underlies a justification of abortion. That is, what is undeniably human, really isn't. Quite frankly, I don't see why someone who receives prison time for fetal homicide doesn't challenge these laws as unconstitutional. Isn't it the settled law of the land that a fetus is not a person?
Edited on October 30, 2012 at 8:08pmOct '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
BTW, here is the Oklahoma homicide law:
A. Homicide is the killing of one human being by another.
B. As used in this section, "human being" includes an unborn child, as defined in Section 1-730 of Title 63 of the Oklahoma Statutes.
C. Homicide shall not include:
1. Acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during a legal abortion to which the pregnant woman consented; or
2. Acts which are committed pursuant to the usual and customary standards of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment.
D. Under no circumstances shall the mother of the unborn child be prosecuted for causing the death of the unborn child unless the mother has committed a crime that caused the death of the unborn child.
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Fred Cole: So to be clear:
There was a proposed ballot initiative in OK.
The OK Supreme Court refused to let it proceed to voting because the thing clearly violated established Constitutional law on the subject.
This is appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, who declined to hear the case.
And this is "judicial activism"?
Question:
If instead of being a personhood amendment, it was a ban on personal fire arm ownership, in a way thatclearly violated established Constitutional law on the subject, and the OK Supreme Court had refused to let it move forward to voting, and then it was appealed to the SCotUS, and they refused to hear the case,
Would it still be judicial activism? · 1 hour ago
Edited 42 minutes ago
Fred - the activism comes in the Roe/Casey decisions, in which the Court inserted its own policy preferences into the Constitution and removed abortion from the political process. This latest round is simply the predictable legacy of the Court's original anti-democratic activism.
The OK Court's hands were (arguably) tied. Not SCOTUS. It could have used this opportunity to undo Roe and Casey.
Jul '12
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Brian Clendinen
The right to privacy (although I agree with the general premis) is a idea that is not in the constituion but invinted by judges. How can you declair something unconstituional that was created out of thin air. · 1 hour ago
Edited 1 hour ago
Please note the 9th amendment. The fact that a right to privacy is not listed in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution does not mean we do not have a right to privacy. Of course we do. Where is a right to privacy invented, and by which judge? The entire theory of natural rights means that rights are not given to us, they can only be taken away. And since when is a right to privacy a code for abortion?
Jun '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Fred Cole
Frankly, the Constitution says whatever the Court says it does.
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court illegitimately claimed for itself the power to decide what the Constitution means. We need to retake that power and restore proper checks and balances between the branches.
Frankly I'd like to elect a President with the guts to quote Andrew Jackson: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" And I'd like to see judges impeached for judicial activism.
Nov '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Adam Freedman
Fred - the activism comes in the Roe/Casey decisions, in which the Court inserted its own policy preferences into the Constitution and removed abortion from the political process. This latest round is simply the predictable legacy of the Court's original anti-democratic activism.
The OK Court's hands were (arguably) tied. Not SCOTUS. It could have used this opportunity to undo Roe and Casey. · 1 hour ago
It could have. The Court can always use any case to overturn existing precedent. If it had, it would be the Left say it was judicial activism.
But, Adam, I'll put the above question I asked directly to you:
Nov '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Joseph Stanko
No, it doesn't. The Supreme Court illegitimately claimed for itself the power to decide what the Constitution means. We need to retake that power and restore proper checks and balances between the branches.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters
Kyllo v. United States
Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer
District of Columbia v. Heller
McDonald v. Chicago
New York Times Company v. United States
Meyer v. Nebraska
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States
Lawrence v. Texas
Buchanan v. Warley
The proper role of the Court is to check legislatures, executives, and yes, even the public initiative process if it is going to take rights away from people.
Quite frankly, I'd rather have it doing that, protecting the rights of individuals than cowering in fear of political pressure put on it by the liars, whores, crooks and thieves who happened to have lied, whored, and stole to get public office.
Jun '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Fred Cole
The proper role of the Courtis to check legislatures, executives, and yes, even the public initiative process if it is going to take rights away from people.
Agreed, the role of the Court is to check the legislature and executive whenever they violate the clear, original intent of the Constitution.
It is not the role of the Court to decide what the Constitution means, nor invent new rights not clearly spelled out in the Constitution, nor to settle contentious questions of social policy by legislating from the bench. When they do that, they should be impeached.
Jun '10
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Fred Cole
Quite frankly, I'd rather have it doing that, protecting the rights of individuals than cowering in fear of political pressure put on it by the liars, whores, crooks and thieves who happened to have lied, whored, and stole to get public office.
Those very same liars, whores, crooks and thieves are responsible for appointing and confirming Supreme Court justices.
Can we stop pretending that the Court is somehow above politics? We all know that the Court has a liberal wing and a conservative wing. The Court is the American version of the House of Lords, they are a legislative body appointed for life that decides most issues these days on a strict party-line vote.
And as for nobly protecting the rights of individuals, the Court had no problem with the Obamacare mandate, or with confiscating private property in Kelo. They bowed to political pressure and have endorsed the New Deal ever since FRD threatened to pack the Court. In Dred Scott they held that blacks had no rights whatsoever under the Constitution.
Their overall track record of protecting individual rights from an ever-expanding federal state is very poor indeed.
Nov '11
Re: Democracy Denied: Oklahomans Won't Get to Vote on Personhood Amendment
Joseph Stanko
Their overall track record of protecting individual rights from an ever-expanding federal state is very poor indeed. · 2 hours ago
This is true. They're just one check in a system of checks.