Have you ever stopped to think about the bizarre reversal of precedent supposedly set by the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. the Topeka, Kansas Board of Education (1954), by a unanimous vote of the nine very different-minded justices of the Earl Warren Court? That was the first time in the history of the American republic that something so amazing was done in overturning a long-standing judicial precedent, and the only reason it happened was that each of the nine justices was personally courted by the Chief Justice. Supreme. Earl Warren to see the former, Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 as simply wrong, if not unconstitutional.
You see, the 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson established in that year by decree that racial segregation based on the doctrine of “separate but equal” was constitutional; but although it was “constitutional”, many jurists considered it as morally incorrect, applied and forced on the States. However, the powers given to the states by the framers of the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights were deliberately intended to be very broad and pervasive, while the powers given to the federal government over the states were deliberately intended to be very restricted. There were not, and still are not, powers given to the federal government in the US Constitution to allow the creation of any “social” legislation or laws governing race relations in or between the states. The “Equal Protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, of 1865, which was created by a vengeful northern sectional congress and imposed on the southern states (formerly the Confederacy) in 1865, is most prevalent for a “federal power “to legislate social laws. and regulations, but does not contradict, add to, or diminish the specific federal powers set forth in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. The Honorable Framers intended that federal law be standardized in the states according to the powers specifically assigned to the federal government by the Constitution, but the Constitution allowed states to be very different in law and appearance under the 10th Amendment. If an individual did not like a piece of legislation created by a particular state legislature, it was that person’s right to seek a change in that law at the state level of the state legislature, or to either move to another state where the law was approved. different. Only if the State did not conform to the standardized laws imposed on all States by the federal government in accordance with the powers assigned to the national government by the Constitution, could the federal government impose its federal will on the State in accordance with Supremacy. Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
Perhaps, in 1954, the eight associate justices of the United States Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative, were persuaded by Chief Justice Earl Warren that Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was not a true judicial precedent because the federal government should not have imposed the “separate but equal” doctrine on the states. Perhaps Warren could have viewed the Plessy ruling as a matter that should have been declared originally in 1896 as a state-only matter, that should not have been tried and adjudicated by a US district court and appealed through federal courts. appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Warren was a liberal jurist and a Wilsonian progressive (who mistakenly believed that the framers of the Constitution were not written in stone, but rather highly changeable) and probably considered Plessy v . Ferguson as a socially deplorable, if not immoral, failure. Warren probably also believed that the only way to rectify an “immoral” ruling, applied to all states, would be to completely ignore it as precedent. For liberals looking for judicial activism, Brown v. The Board of Education ruling was a blessing. For most conservatives it was a curse and a vile mark on the 10th Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Although he did not, Warren could have chosen to get up on a platform and declare aloud that “if the people, or the states, wanted the federal government to have the power to legislate social rules and regulations in the states, the Constitution would have to be properly amended to give the federal government that power. I don’t know if Earl Warren had come to believe that the 14th Amendment had been rightly or wrongly intended in 1865 to nullify the power of the federal government. United under the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Having been a liberal advocate of judicial activism and not a vocal advocate of the first ten amendments, I sincerely doubt it. Earl Warren did not clarify before he died why he assiduously courted the votes of every one of eight associate justices, culminating in the unanimous decision to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and dismiss it as precedent I believe the ruling was for Warren an act of judicial impersonation of what he thought was evil with a ruling that was questionably constitutional. I, however, don’t think you can have it both ways. If a US Supreme Court decision, or legislated act of Congress, is fundamentally unconstitutional, there is no reasonable way to justify the results of its implementation.
In much the same way, the John Roberts Supreme Court of the 21st century, with a prevailing conservative majority today, could, in the very near future, declare with those five conservative votes the evil and immorality of Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973), and that it should not have been considered in 1974 to have arisen under the laws of the United States or under the Constitution of the United States to be determined by the federal judiciary. Those conservative justices currently have the power to rule that Roe v. Wade “should not” have been originally tried and adjudicated by a US district court and appealed to the US Supreme Court; but it should have been considered originally and forever as an exclusively state affair. This is an issue that Senator Lindsay Graham focused on in his confirmation questioning of then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, when the Senator asked Kavanaugh if the historical precedent that abortion was a state-only matter outweighed the legal precedent of Roe v. Wades (1973). At the time, Kavanaugh refused to properly answer the question, saying only that he would “follow precedent.” Historically, however, abortion was a state-only matter that was regarded as narrowly as homicide, or the unlawful killing of one human being by another, during the four-hundred-year period when the original thirteen states were British colonies. The original thirteen states, formerly colonies, established a standard for defining the unborn as human beings by declaring that the murder of a pregnant woman constitutes the unlawful murder of “two or more” human beings rather than one under the authority of the colonial and colonial authorities. State constitutional law, and common law. Whether that fetal human being in the womb of a pregnant woman killed by another human being is wanted as a son or daughter by the pregnant woman, or by the man who impregnated her, that human life is, historically, both a human being who breathes like a pregnant woman. The law cannot be twisted to be ambiguous on this most basic issue. Because if the wife of a prominent New York City attorney is pregnant, and she is in the ninth month of the pregnancy of that couple’s firstborn child, and the proud mother and father of that child hope that the child will be born on time, the premeditated decision to murder that woman and child by a criminal during the commission of a convenience store robbery constitutes the murder of two human beings, instead of just one; and that the husband/father would, in all likelihood, seek the death penalty for such a heinous crime. This basic principle applies to the intentional killing of “any” normal, healthy child in the third, fourth, fifth, or sixth month of gestation through the abortion process when the mother of that child could have expected and delivered the child alive and healthy for adoption. What is the basic difference in the outcome if the normal healthy child, in the mother’s womb, is deliberately killed by a gunshot (separate or together with the mother) or by the act of an abortionist? The baby, a human being, is dead as a result of the actions of another human being(s).
