SCOTUS Again Eliminates Babies Rights of Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness

SCOTUS Rules Again in Favor of Eliminating Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness

The SCOTUS announced today in a 5-3 decision that it has struck down the State of Texas restrictive abortion law.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer in writing the majority opinion said “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”

Constitutional and Supreme Court Scholar Marc Alan Urbach says, “You Sir, Stephen Breyer just violated the Constitution. You VIOLATED those Babies, unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness!! Per Article III, Section 2, “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made,…” The Court is only to rule on cases that “arise under this Constitution,” and the “Laws” of the U.S. that adhere to the Constitution, NOT just on any and all laws it wants to. Per Article III, Section 2, “and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” Means the Congress has the power, authority and responsibility to force the Court to send this case back to the “states or people.” Murdering babies is not in the Constitution. It is a “State” “or to the people” RIGHT!!!! Per Article I, Section 1, ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH, THE CONGRESS CAN MAKE LAW!!! NOT the SCOTUS. The Court is to “interpret the law.” According to the Federalist Papers, the Court is “the weakest” of the three branches. Rep. Adam Schiff of CA. said, “The branches are co-equal.” Sir, you need to butter up on your Constitution.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton weighed in on the ruling via Twitter saying the decision “is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality.

Urbach said, this decision is a loss for babies fighting for their lives, their freedom, and their pursuit of happiness. Murdering babies is not a right. Not on the doctor’s table, NOT in a righteous Christian nation, and especially NOT in the eyes of God.

Planned Parenthood celebrated the ruling.

“We are thrilled that these dangerous provisions have been struck down,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America said in a statement. “This is a win for women. Every person must have the right to make their own personal decisions about abortion, and we will fight like hell to ensure they do.”

Urbach; I am not happy about this. This is a loss for the life of the most innocent. Every mother and father must look to God for what they do. I will fight with all my might to ensure the survival and success of liberty for ALL. Amen

I pray to Almighty God that this nation will have a new birth of Freedom and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from this earth. Amen!! Selah!!

Federalist #78

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.”2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Oral interpretation of the Torah, the Talmud states, “A judge should always visualize a sword suspended over him and Ghehena or hell gaping beneath him.”






Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s