Tim | Reedy
  • Home
  • Believe.Act.Serve
  • Bible
  • Blog

Getting the Federal Courts out of the Abortion Issue

11/12/2014

0 Comments

 
Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution; To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
"Article 3, Section 1 of the US Constitution: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish"....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, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

The Roe v. Wade US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion came down to the opinion of nine justices who were never elected to that office by the people.  Since 1973 and more recently, the federal judiciary has taken on an even more active role in deciding morality-type of cases (i.e. gay marriage).  Again, judges who make up the federal benches such as the circuit, appellate and supreme courts, are never elected and serve for life.  

Conventional wisdom tells us that in order to reverse these decisions such as legalizing, we must elect a president who when called upon, will nominate pro-life judges to the federal benches.  With the recent GOP wave that rode into Washington this past election day, the GOP now controls both houses of the legislature.  Therefore, a republican president and a republican legislature could erode Roe v Wade, in time.  Probably, a long time.

As I read the constitution, especially the articles and sections I cited above, the pro-life movement, along with the republican wave, could erode Roe v Wade sooner or eliminate it altogether. Let me explain.


Since Congress makes all laws for the federal government, why can't Congress pass legislation that says that all federal courts are prohibited from hearing cases relating to abortion?  The onus to pass abortion laws or pro life laws would be put on the states.  In other words, if the state of New York wants to allow abortions, let them pass a law in their state without any oversight by the federal benches.  Similarly, if West Virginia wants to outlaw abortions in their state, they can pass such a law in their state without any intervention from the federal courts.  The bottom line is that no matter what a state does, the federal courts would be prohibited by law in hearing lawsuits brought by private citizens to the federal government.  Suits would be limited to their states judiciaries.  By the way, this would/could work with gay marriage as well.

If the GOP is pro life as they claim, they should be able to pass such a law.  More than likely, President Obama would veto the law; however, with an almost supermajority in the house and coupled with the 54 GOP senators, I am certain that there would be some pro life democrats who would support such legislation that would override any veto.
  • BELIEVE that the very basis of a moral society is its protection of life -- the unborn, born and those nearing the end of their life. 
  • ACT by telling your friends and neighbors that a good moral foundation for a government is essential.
  • SERVE in your church, community or at home

So is passing a law forbidding the federal courts from hearing abortion or pro life cases really that easy?  I say yes.  Maybe I am naive to think that it would be that easy.  Certainly those with law degrees and the like surely would have thought about this or even floated the idea.  


However, I wonder if both sides of the abortion issue would want to explore this even if it were that easy because keeping the issue alive brings in money to their coffers, something both sides need in order to survive.






 

0 Comments

The Answer You Want, but Won't Ever Get

11/5/2014

0 Comments

 
A key campaign topic for the Pennsylvania's governor race was public education spending.  In the commercials and advertising on this topic, Governor Corbett was portrayed as the person who cut upwards of $1 billion from public education.  All I know is that according to the State Dept. of Education's web portal, the amount of state funding for education remained the same for the past two school years. But I digress.

A review of this same web site shows that the Commonwealth of PA spends $15,341.00 per student for each one of the state's 1.8 million children enrolled in grades K-12.  Revenue funding for education is broken down roughly as 58% (local property taxes), 36% state and 6% between federal and other sources.   Broken down further, each one of the state's 12.77 million residents pays on average $832.00 each year per student for public education.

My point of this post is ask a question to those who say we don't spend enough on public education.  In fact, I only use the example of education funding to show real numbers.  Inserting the word "welfare or transportation" in place of the word "education" works as well.  I would like for politicians, activists, school boards, educators, department secretaries, political parties, etc., to put an exact figure on what they need in order to fund their departments or causes.  I am growing sick and tired of politicians and activists saying, "if only we had more money, then we could solve 'X' problem."  Again, how much is enough?  What do you need?  If education is suffering, should we spend $17,546.09 per student?  Or, would $20,065.98 be enough?

I fully understand that as the years go by, costs increase.  I get it.  But, just because you cut funding does not necessarily mean that results need to suffer.  Listen folks: throwing more money at a problem does not mean that the problem will get fixed.  Maybe if people would start using their brains instead of someone else's bank accounts, we could begin to increase our results.  Yes, we do need money.  However, the quick fix is not just asking for more.

  • BELIEVE that more money doesn't necessarily solve the issues we face
  • ACT by using your brain instead 
  • SERVE others by being a good steward of what is given to you

So the next time you are talking to activists or politicians or school board members and they say, "if only we had more money", ask them this question: "Give me a specific dollar amount you need in order for everything to be perfect?" My guess is, you will not get it.

0 Comments
    Picture
      Take a Journey with Me.

    "I'm not trying to win the approval of people, but of God.  If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ's servant." - Galatians 1:10

    Picture

    Archives

    January 2017
    November 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.