As I'm sure you know, Chief Justice Rehnquist died over the weekend. May GOD have mercy on his soul and bless his family in their time of grief. As a liberal Democrat I was not pleased with his appointment in 1971. In 1973, I began to chance my position as an out of control court stunned knowledgeable Constitutional authorities by discovering that the Constitution allowed the murder of unborn babies. (A dissenting opinion is an opinion in which a Justice(s) does not agree with the majority opinion of the court.) A dissenting Justice Rehnquist wrote that "the majority had misinterpreted the Constitution by relying on the 14th Amendment's due-process guarantees to support a 'right to privacy.'

Noting that 36 states already had enacted abortion statues by 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, Rehnquist said the majority had found 'within the scope of the 14th Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.'" (Microsoft Encarta Reference Library 2004, Source: Los Angeles Times, January 23, 1973.) In other words, if the original writers of the 14th Amendment had intended that amendment to be used to disallow laws against abortion, those 36 laws that were already on the books would have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

The activist Supreme Court in 1973, over one hundred years later, rewrote the Constitution to fulfill their own value judgments. They were not following the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, if one actually reads the Constitution, there is absolutely no mention of the word privacy or the phrase "right to privacy." It is not in the Constitution! No Justice could rationally reach the conclusion that a person can murder an unborn baby from any portion of the U.S. Constitution as written and amended!!!

During the time Justice Rehnquist was on the Supreme Court I did not always agree with his decisions. However, it was obvious from his decisions that he was trying to uphold the Constitution as written. He was not reaching his decision first based upon his own value judgments and then trying to use the Constitution to justify those value judgment decisions.

While he was Chief Justice, he was almost yearly invited to speak to law students at the University of Arizona. Sadly, almost yearly some law students would protest his appearance trying to prevent the Chief Justice from speaking. Here were future lawyers trying to deny freedom of speech to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court because they did not approve of his using the Constitution to reach Constitutional decisions. How perverted!

The following is a quote from a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court written as part of a dissenting opinion in a Supreme Court case. "When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its (the Constitution's, my addition) meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men (a Courtocracy, my addition), who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean." (Quoted from: Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America; page 15; Mark R. Levin; Regnery Publishing, Inc.; One Massachusetts Avenue, NW; Washington D.C., 20001; 2005.)

The quote is very similar to what I have been repeatedly saying. GUESS WHAT COURT CASE IT COMES FROM! (I will discuss more tomorrow and identify the court case the quote comes from.)