By A. Dru Kristenev ——Bio and Archives--May 10, 2022
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
“As the Court's landmark decision in West Coast Hotel illustrates, the Court has previously overruled decisions that wrongly removed an issue from the people and the democratic process. As Justice White later explained, “decisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into the document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation. For this reason, it is essential that this Court maintain the power to restore authority to its proper possessors by correcting constitutional decisions that, on reconsideration, are found to be mistaken.” Thornburgh, 476 U.S., at 787 (White, J. dissenting).” (emphasis, mine)Page 42:
“The weaknesses in Roe's reasoning are well-known. Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, it imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation. See Roe, 410 U.S.,at 163-164.” (emphasis, mine)
“ “The contending sides also make conflicting arguments about the status of the fetus. This Court has neither the authority nor the expertise to adjudicate these disputes,” Re: Casey.”Each of the foregoing excerpts refer to the lack of authority for the Court to overrule the states' jurisdiction over matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, which there is an unfortunate unwillingness for many legislators, judges and executive office holders to read and understand its constraints. There is also the wishfulness of ideologues to insist that their beliefs be instituted regardless of the Constitution's clear language. Further, on Page 62 the draft states that abortion is a “unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” This also applies to disease control and climate change because mandates have the same potential to terminate life, as in administering experimental injectables after suppressing evidence of dangerous adverse effects. Restrictions instituted to battle “climate change” have a similar effect of threatening lives by denying citizens access to food, fuel and housing due to engineered shortages, inflated prices and banning products and industries. There's more.
Support Canada Free Press
“And the Court did not explain why it departed from the normal rule that courts' defer to the judgments of legislatures “in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U.S. 417, 427 (1974) (emphasis mine)This last acknowledgment is crucial. It identifies the fact that justices are well-versed in application of the Constitution to policies, regulations and law, but not the science or medicine that may underly any of these. It is not for judges to make scientific or medical determinations that serve to empower political ideologies. Numerous cases brought before the courts can be attributed directly to motivation to burden the people with encumbrances not addressed or granted by the Constitution – limiting CO2 emissions (“Climate Change”), mask mandates, forced vaccinations, energy production, federal election supervision, illegal immigration, environmental standards encroaching on property rights, religious expression, free speech and healthcare. The last categories of guaranteed freedoms are currently being gutted and challenged by establishing these unconstitutional oversights:
- Environmental and Climate Justice Division of the Department of Justice,
- Disinformation Governance Board of the Department of Homeland Security, and
- WHO International Pandemic Treaty which would ostensibly allow an appointed authoritarian organization (under Chinese Communist Party influence) to overrule the Constitution of the United States.
“We now overrule and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”Before casting your ballot, the question that must be put to every office seeker, from governor to sheriff, is this: Will you invoke States' Rights protected by the Constitution if federal regulations, policies and laws demean and destroy the lives and livelihoods of the people, and disenfranchise the citizens of the state, abrogating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? If candidates are not strong enough to enforce the constitutional rights of states and their citizens, then they are not worthy of holding office. 'America First' works through 'States First.' This is true federalism.
View Comments
Former newspaper publisher, A. Dru Kristenev, grew up in the publishing industry working every angle of a paper, from ad composition and sales, to personnel management, copy writing, and overseeing all editorial content. During her tenure as a news professional, Kristenev traveled internationally as a representative of the paper and, on separate occasions, non-profit organizations. Since 2007, Kristenev has authored five fact-filled political suspense novels, the Baron Series, and two non-fiction books, all available on Amazon. Carrying an M.S. degree and having taught at premier northwest universities, she is the trustee of Scribes’ College of Journalism, which mission is to train a new generation of journalists in biblical standards of reporting. More information about the college and how to support it can be obtained by contacting Kristenev at cw.o@earthlink.net.
ChangingWind (changingwind.org) is a solutions-centered Christian ministry.