Putting Roe in perspective
Today the Left is quite upset with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. A reading of the opinion would lead any rational person to understand why it had to be overturned. It was policy legislation by the court, not their function, in an area over which neither they nor Congress have any authority. Abortion is a matter for the states to decide, and it is now again back where it should be.
The Left was fine with the Roe decision, because it suited their agenda. Never mind that it was judicial legislation and wrong from its inception. Perhaps it is time to put this in perspective with a mythical “what if” scenario.
What if, for example, today’s SCOTUS decided to do a little judicial legislation. What if the SCOTUS took notice that of the fact that we have a crisis of crime in many of our big cities, especially those run by Democrats. They also take notice that in many of these cities the police have been weakened or otherwise rendered ineffective by Democrat policies. The lawlessness is spreading. SCOTUS decides something needs to be done to protect citizens’ right to happiness. They write an opinion authorizing the formation of vigilante groups by concerned citizens. These groups are given limited liability like the police, and they are authorized to carry weapons and make arrests. To be sure, they are fully armed and ready for all the “assault rifles” criminals allegedly have, SCOTUS decrees that weapons and ammunition bought and stored under Obama shall be distributed to these vigilante groups, including fully automatic, real assault rifles with high-capacity magazines and 2,000 rounds of ammo each. It’s open season on criminals. Crime rates plunge.
Of course, all of this would be problematic, despite the fact that something needed to be done. The SCOTUS would be making law where Congress did not and could not. They would be basing their decision on things not in evidence. They would be creating a right that doesn’t exist. They would be “making laws” in areas that are reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment. In effect, they would be acting just like the court did in Roe v. Wade. Eventually, the SCOTUS would have to correct its mistake, as they did with Roe, and such matters returned to the states where they belong.
Needless to say, many people would be outraged with vigilantes. Others would approve of it, saying something needed to be done. Due to the emotion and hysteria, some states might ban it altogether while others may adopt it in various forms in the heat of the moment.
What stops such madness on both sides? The Constitution of the United States is what, if we allow it. It was written with safeguards to prohibit such overreaches of the federal government. It may not be perfect, but it is the best the world has seen. If it needs amending then there are procedures to do so. It is a long process, sure, and rightfully so. A Constitution on which a nation is based should not be changeable on a whim or a burst of emotion. We should let it do its job.
Image: American Life League.