Greetings & Salutations my fellow South Dakotans'! Today, I want to talk with you about perhaps the most controversial issue of today, yesterday and for decades to come! My mother, God bless her sole, always said, "there are two things you should never discuss, politics, and religion!" Wherefore, I will not speak of this matter beyond this article!
So, here we go! Ever since Roe vs. Wade, et al, our federal Supreme Court, as well as lower State and Appellate Courts have been embroiled in this controversial issue, with its roots arguably planted deep within the 1st. Amendment and Freedom of Religion!
What I want to speak to is my personal opinion and my legal opinion! This is not to be intended, or taken as any form of legal advise, it's simply opening up a dialogue intended to explore the history and the future discourses of the Roe vs. Wade controversy! And to discuss why Congress should take oversight responsibility concerning the Supreme Court's legislative activities from the bench.
As for my personal opinion! If I were forced to choose a side to come down on, I would have to choose Pro-Life! The reason I choose pro-life is because every child deserves a chance at having a full and rewarding life! Furthermore, my mother always said, "don't put the dough in the oven, if you don't want the bread to rise!" That means we all have a duty to be responsible adults/parents! Secondly, if a child is conceived and the biological parents cannot or do not want to keep the child, there is always hundreds of couples out there who cannot conceive and adamantly want to adopt, and most would adopt a child at any age! It is becoming increasingly harder to adopt an American born baby these days, regardless of race or gender!
Now, before any Pro-Choice advocates say that's not fair, I want to say, I respect your right to your opinion, and hope that you will show me the same respect accordingly! I ask you to agree to disagree, because there are exceptions to both arguments, including, but not limited to "rape, incest, and catastrophic genetic and environmental causes for debilitating birth defects!"
As for my legal opinion! I adamantly believe the Supreme Court opened up a can of worms when they decided to hear Roe vs. Wade! Because the Pro-life vs. Pro-choice argument is deeply rooted in the 1st. Amendment's Freedom of Religion rights, I believe the Court made a huge mistake taking up this case, and should have abstained!
Our founding fathers wrote the Articles and the Constitutional Amendments for specific reasons. The applicable argument here invokes Article III; and the applicable argument also invokes the 1st. Amendment!
According to the 1st. Amendment,
"[Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . .",
including, but not limited to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our government! Because I believe the right to responsibly parent a child begins at conception, I too believe a child's right to life also begins at conception!
Moreover, I interpret that to mean that our founding fathers wrote into the 1st. Amendment the implicit right of Freedom of Religious Choice when it comes to child rearing; and I vehemently believe our founding fathers did not want any governmental entity imposing their personal or political ideologies upon the citizens of a free republic and/or democratic society. Ultimately, I believe the decision lies with the biological mother, the father and God as to conceiving and rearing a child! Our founding fathers probably didn't intend for parents to discard our unborn children, anymore then I would believe our forefathers wanted us to discard our born children accordingly. I suspect that's why my mother preached responsibility and maturity into me when she said, "don't put the dough in the oven, if you don't want the bread to rise!"
I believe that the Supreme Court decided to take up Roe vs. Wade for the same reason they hear most controversial cases, that being the need to remain relevant, and the Court truly likes to legislate from the bench! The issue wasn't whether the Court had the requisite Article III Jurisdiction to hear the case, but rather whether by doing so would the Court infringe upon an individuals 1st. Amendment right? According to the separation of powers doctrine, the Executive branch (i.e. the President) signs the bills presented by Congress, thus making them the law; the Legislative branch writes the bills to be voted on by both the Senate and the House prior to presentment to the President; the Supreme Court is charged with the duty of making sure the bills signed into law are in fact Constitutional! The Court does not have legislative authority to create law, but they continually legislate (e.g. create case law) from the bench. They have been doing so for many decades without any oversight and apparently will continue this conduct until reigned in!
According to Article III, section 2, paragraph 3, Congress has the authority to reign in the Supreme Court's jurisdiction! Congress can stop the Supreme Court dead in its tracks from legislating from the bench forever. "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, . . . the supreme court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all . . . other cases, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
What this means to me is that only Congress was bestowed with Constitutional authority to create law; and the task of the Court is to make certain the laws created by Congress and subsequently signed into law by the President comply with the Constitution! If the law is not Constitutional, the Court is charged with the duty to strike it down or remand it back to Congress for revision; however, the Court historically has taken it upon itself to legislate from the bench without Congressional oversight! Inevitably, the Court has created case law, some good and some bad. Usually bad case decisions lead to bad case law; and in my opinion, Roe vs. Wade is one of those instances where a bad case decision has lead to bad case law! Applying this to modern day decisions, we see the judicial overreach in the immigration pause by executive order of President Trump. President Trump is not only authorized by Constitutional authority to control who immigrates into the United States, but he also has a fiduciary duty as Commander and Chief to protect American citizens' from any foreign and domestic threats. The 9th Circuit was committing judicial overreach, in order to fulfill partisan political agendas!
We need to stop imposing our individual political and religious beliefs on others for the sole purpose of furthering partisan political ideologies! Our forefathers intended to shield us from governmental overreach, and that included judicial overreach as well. This entire article is solely my own opinions and is not intended as legal advise targeted or directed to anyone in particular, either specifically or generally. Outside of this blog, I will not discuss this topic again because I respect everyones' individual rights and beliefs!
This message was paid for by the campaign to elect Dr. Terry Lee LaFleur for Governor. My name is Dr. Terry Lee LaFleur and I approve this message!