Say Anything Blog

Rob,

Bush took on Social Security and Tax Reform as key points in his agenda, and the Status Quo won out fairly decisively.  Still, I don’t think the SD decision gets much play in the moderate suburbs and the purple congressional districts.  Remember, there are some (very few) pro-Life Dems out there too and it again demonstrates that not all Republicans are Pro-Life Robots that are lock step with the Evangelical Christian movement. 

I don’t think that we can really tell how the SCOTUS will vote until the case is heard, but ultimately, the SD law can only lead to further clarification of what Roe means, whether overturned or not.  And several justices that lean left may be gone by the time it is heard.

Was Karl Rove behind this?  I don’t see how it hurts or helps the 2006 elections.  It is a non-issue since all Federal officials can distance themselves from the issue.  This is a state issue, not a Federal one.  Not a Federal Law.

I think this challenge comes down to States Rights and it will force them to review the 14th Amendment as well as the original logic behind the "Right to Privacy" and the "Due Process" clause that they used to arrive at Roe and overturn the 10th Amendment.

I was reading the Federalist Papers recently and <a href="http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/federalist-40-49/federalist.46.shtml">Federalist 46</a>:

<blockquote>

Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty. On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.<BR><BR>

But ambitious encroachments of the federal government, on the authority of the State governments, would not excite the opposition of a single State, or of a few States only. They would be signals of general alarm. Every government would espouse the common cause. A correspondence would be opened. Plans of resistance would be concerted. One spirit would animate and conduct the whole.</blockquote>

That is what the 10th Amendment is all about.  That is what the Constitution is all about and this from a Federalist--Madison--no less.  No better yet, this from a guy from Massachusetts.  To attack what South Dakota is doing right now and what the other Red States are doing is to attack the very fabric of the Constitution and to slap Adams, Jefferson, Paine, Hamilton, and others squarely in the face.

This is tyranny by the Judicial Branch and the unelected at the Federal Level against the will of the people.

Damned HTML tags.