Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Portions of a Texas Law Dealing with Abortion Ruled Unconstitutional by a District Federal Court Judge

On October 28, 2013, a lower district federal court in Texas ruled portions of a recently passed Texas law dealing with abortion (the MURDER of unborn children) unconstitutional. Nothing new about lower federal courts ruling against a State law. Nothing new about lower federal courts violating a provision of the Constitution of the United States. The federal courts have because the single greatest usurper of the Constitution. The very Constitution the courts supposedly are trying to protect.

From: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2013/40/28/breaking-federal-judge-declares-texas-abortion-restrictions-unconstitutional-n1732666?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

“This July, lawmakers in Texas passed a bill that restricted abortion after 20 weeks gestation, required clinics to comply with higher health standards, mandated that doctors have admitting privileges in nearby hospitals, and mandated an FDA-approved protocol for RU-486 administration. Following a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood, a judge has ruled that the parts of the law are unconstitutional.

‘District Judge Lee Yeakel wrote Monday that the regulations violated the rights of abortion doctors to do what they think is best for their patients and would unreasonably restrict a woman’s access to abortion clinics.

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers brought the lawsuit, arguing that a requirement that doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic would force the closure of a third of the clinics in Texas. They also complained that requiring doctors to follow the Food and Drug Administration’s original label for an abortion-inducing drug would deny women the benefit of recent advances in medical science.’

The judge found that requiring that a doctor have admitting privileges is unconstitutional, and that the requirement of an FDA-approved protocol for administrating RU-486 maybe lifted in cases necessary to preserve the life of health of the mother. The restriction of abortion after 20 weeks was not challenged in this case.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is expected to file an appeal.”

As a result of this ruling, I sent the following letter to the editor by e-mail to the Abilene Reporter-News.

“Again, the will of the people of Texas has been subverted by one lone, unelected federal court judge. It was the judge who usurped the Constitution not the Texas legislature which passed a legitimate law in relation to abortion. No inferior federal court judge has jurisdiction over the State of Texas and its laws. The Constitution declares in Article III, Section 2, 2:

“In all Cases … in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

For far too long, States have allowed inferior federal courts control where none exists. Thus, we have the absurdity of one federal court judge nullifying the will of millions of California voters by declaring a California State constitutional amendment to be unconstitutional.

There is a method to change this unconstitutional practice. Demand that our elected State officials uphold their oath of office to preserve and protest the Constitution. In the upcoming 2014 election, vote for the Attorney General and Governor candidates who pledge in writing to not be involved in any federal court case where the State is a party unless that court case begins in the Supreme Court as required by the Constitution.

The lower federal courts have had unlawful jurisdiction over sovereign States for far too long. The way to stop it is to refuse to participate in an unconstitutional process. It is time to end the dominance of inferior court judges over sovereign States.

If not now, when? If not Texas, who?

Don L. Vance”

We the people need to start demanding that our States follow the procedures established within the Constitution even if the courts do not desire to uphold the Constitution. As I have stated repeatedly, inferior federal courts do not have jurisdiction over States. That jurisdiction, if any, belongs only to the Supreme Court.

Article III, Section 2, 2:

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”

The courts will not change unless forced to do so. The courts enjoy their extra constitutional power. In returning to the federal system established by the Constitution, it is essential that this judicial activism be reined in.

Watch this video about Obamacare