-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Today pro-life activists are marching in Washington to protest and mourn the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Three pro-life Republican presidents later, Congress and the states have a little bit more power to democratically enact restrictions on abortion, but Roe still stands. That’s why the March for Life remains an annual event.
Pro-lifers have tried two strategies for overturning Roe: constitutional amendments (largely abandoned after the Reagan years) and appointing conservative judges, especially to the Supreme Court. But in the last Republican presidential debate, Ron Paul brought up another: jurisdiction-stripping.
Under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, Congress has the power to regulate and make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. A Republican Congress could, by simple majority vote, reverse Roe through jurisdiction-stripping. Even assuming many — perhaps most — states would opt to keep abortion broadly legal, the overall effect would be to make the legal code more pro-life than it is currently without necessitating the kind of political transformation that would be required to ratify a human life amendment or waiting for that elusive fifth anti-Roe justice.
Jurisdiction-stripping is controversial by itself. Using it as a tool in dealing with some of the most polarizing political issues of our time would make it doubly so. But would reminding the American people that Congress has this power, and has used it in the not-too-distant past in legislation that has come before the Supreme Court, not potentially build support for this approach? It would seem to be a better use of conservatives’ time than constitutional amendments that won’t ever clear a single chamber of Congress, much less be ratified.
View all comments (9) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/23/stripping-for-life
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Peace in Our Times
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- The Vast and the Tiny
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Mike 3/505| 1.23.12 @ 4:36PM
The best result that could come from this would be that Americans would be reminded that there are 3 COEQUAL branches of our government. The Supreme Court is not then final arbiter of everything.
I look forward to the day, when the EPA attempts to deny me the right to perform some activity on mymown property and some other branch of government stands beside me to tell them, "pack sand."
Drek| 1.23.12 @ 5:33PM
You don't know who you're dealing with if you think a clever artifice is going to put a rabid judiciary in its place.
It's going to take millions of men with their weapons, in the streets, out on the Washington Mall, before the judiciary starts checking its worst inclinations.
You haven't any idea how determined they are to push that left agenda.
A life devoid of political agitation, a life that does not advance their leftist agenda, is a life unthinkable for them. Why do you think the left is rabid, whereas the right is not?
Jack in Wi.| 1.23.12 @ 6:24PM
Roe Vs Wade could have been over turned decades ago and the juridiction returned to the states, using this simple Constitutional tool.. The late, great Jesse Helms wanted to do this in the early 80's but didn't have the support of the pro-life bureacracy. They keep fighting for an Amendment which is almost impossible. Or we keep waiting for the Republicans to appoint apoint life majority to overturn wade. If Wade were over turned it would just go back to the juridiction of the states. The Republicans keep selling us out by putting in people like Sandra Day O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and trying to put on Harriet Meirs. If they were sincere about over turning Wade they would have made Bork the first justice named instead of the last. Sandra Day O'Connor was a pro abort from the get go.
Drek| 1.23.12 @ 5:30PM
Adjusting jurisdiction would ignite in Megyn Kelly some rabid frenzy.
Recall the last debate she moderated where she was asking Newt some questions on his proposals for reining in a "grotesquely dictatorial" judiciary. She was all but jumping out of her chair while she pronounced the words "wild" "crazy" and "irresponsible."
Of course the Newtster put her in her place.
Maybe that's why the womenfolk have gravitated to him over the years.............
LOL
Oh watching the establishment rave is getting good!
Scott| 1.23.12 @ 6:45PM
Didn't Congress try to strip the courts of jurisdiction in the military commissions issue only to have the Supreme Court ignore it and rule anyway?
Clint| 1.23.12 @ 7:40PM
Dr.Ron Paul Introduced:
The Sanctity Of Life Act
"Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to limit jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts.
And this new legislation in Congress would do just that.
By removing all authority from the courts to rule on cases involving abortion, the Sanctity of Life Act of 2011 [H.R. 1096] would restore the authority of popularly elected officials to pass laws to limit or ban abortion without interference from unelected, activist pro-abortion judges."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is In Florida.
Kingofthenet| 1.23.12 @ 8:25PM
So you want to basically allow one Co-Equal branch of Govt.(Congress) to render another meaningless?
Nick| 1.23.12 @ 11:36PM
Hey KooK!
The U.S. Congress is where the Framers put most of the power. Look at all the powers Congress has been endowed with as compared to those of the Executive and Judiciary branches. Congress, if it decides to so do, can remove the president and all of the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. Try reading the Constitution some time.
By the way, I answered your insipid questions about IUDs and RU-486, and you never answered my question, in that abortion thread from Friday. You obviously aren't a man of your word.
What a shock!
FeFe| 1.24.12 @ 7:45PM
In the second SC debate, Santorum explaining that legislators, many in the audience, know how the sausage of legislation gets made in reference of taxpayer dollars allocated to abortion via courts unless specified was a point well worth the electorate learning. I thought Paul taking the opportunity to call Rick "overly sensitive" was a condemning display of Paul's loyalty to legacy over the pro-Life conservative cause. Paul might as well have tossed glitter.