It really isn’t his fault. In the Senate, he can’t even bring a federal codification of Roe to the floor. In the House his minority can’t get it on the floor either. But it is a good sucker bet to try to get women to vote. Instead of using the 14th Amendment Section three to get all the insurrectionists banned from the House and Senate (those who voted for the illegitimate Trump electors), with the margins he would need to do that thrown away. Worse, the Dobbs decision is a fraud on the constitutition, the Supreme Court itself, and no one does anything about it, not VP Harris, or even Planned Parenthood.
First there are some legal fundamentals to get out of the way. Even Republican Supreme Court Justices agree that the Canons (Principles) of Statutory Construction apply to the Constitution.
Canons of Statutory Construction
-
Supremacy-of-Text Principle. The words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means.
-
Principle of Interrelating Canons. No canon of interpretation is absolute. Each may be overcome by the strength of differing principles that point in other directions.
-
Presumption of Validity. An interpretation that validates outweighs one that invalidates (ut res magis valeat quam pereat).
-
Ordinary-Meaning Canon. Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings — unless the context indicates that they bear a technical sense.
-
Fixed-Meaning Canon. Words must be given the meaning they had when the text was adopted.
-
Omitted-Case Canon. Nothing is to be added to what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est). That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.
-
General-Terms Canon. General terms are to be given their general meaning (generalia verba sunt generaliter intelligenda).
-
Negative-Implication Canon. The expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius).
-
Whole-Text Canon. The text must be construed as a whole.
-
Presumption of Consistent Usage. A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text; a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning.
-
Surplusage Canon. If possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect (verba cum effectu sunt accipienda). None should be ignored. None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence.
-
Absurdity Doctrine. A provision may be either disregarded or judicially corrected as an error (when the correction is textually simple) if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner are co-authors of Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts (West, 2012). Which makes the deception in Heller galling
Second, the Supreme Court has some powers, and does not have some other powers. The Constitution says:
1. The supreme court may not modify the constitution
ArticleFive of the United States Constitution says [The Congress,whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state,without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.] The supreme court hasno part whatsoever in this process. In short, the Supreme court doesn’t get to rewrite the constitution.
2. The supreme court may not ignore the constitution
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States (ArticleVI, Clause 2) says [This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding.] The SupremeCourt is bound by the Supreme Law of the Land.
3. The supreme court may not remove rights from theconstitution
The supreme court removed the communal right of a “well regulated militia” in Heller1from the text of the second amendment to find the preferred “individual right” of the modern republican supreme court justices. The crime of brandishing, well known to the founders, is now protected in many states thanks to these justices violating the Constitution (and their own “originalism doctrine”). In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent,and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law". Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which is missing in the text of the U.S. Constitution yet present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont, which they use to supercede it.
1District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
Justice Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points ofdisagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual rightaspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended;that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keepand bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendmenttouches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later"collective-right" reading of the Miller decisionconstitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at greatperil; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g.,the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes,"The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, theFramers made a choice to limit the tools available to electedofficials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."(from the text of the Constitution)
The supreme court removed the Ninth Amendment (and the jurisprudence relying upon it) from the Constitution which says [The enumerationin the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.] in Dobbs1which used the “Four Corners Doctrine” to write the privacy rights found in the Ninth Amendment in fifty years of stare decisis out of existence. There was no reliance interest analysis which is required by previous jurisprudence of the court. The removal of rights from the Constitution by the Supreme Court is forbidden by Article Five and the Supremacy Clause. Thus these five justices playfast and loose with “Four Corners Doctrine” in their fraud upon the court. They repeatedly hammer the point that “abortion” in various forms is nowhere mentioned in the text of the Constitution, and is therefore not protected. Yet the rights fround in Roe and Griswold, not enumerated in the text are construed to deny the rights retained by the people for fifty years.
1Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court
4. The supreme court must correct the injustice of its decisions
The expansion of individual rights in Heller is accompanied by the castration of community rights in Heller. This is not what the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court may not modify the Constitution to fit its own political ideology, even implicitly. However, once the right is granted, it may not be removed, otherwise the entire Constitution is a mockery which may be freely ignored at any time by the resulting fascist hegemony which results and thereby is endorsed by the Supreme Court. The correction which must therefore result is to retain the individual right, as balanced by the community safety rights as written in the Constitution(perhaps in a ‘balancing test’). Likewise, the individual right found in Roe1, Griswold2,andCasey3mustbe restored in every jurisdiction within reach of the Supremacy Clause with a prima facie test for attempting to override federal law and jurisprudence.
2Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) [“Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention ‘privacy’,” Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship."] Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in (1992), which upheld Roe and established an undue burden standard on restrictions. In which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.]
3Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), which upheld Roe and established an undue burden standard on restrictions. Dobbs is an undue burden.
5. The justices who ruled in favor of frauds against the Constitution must be disqualified
The majority decision in Dobbs was written by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. They did this by the fraud that the common law contract doctrine of the “Four Corners” of the document can be applied to overrule rights protected by the Ninth Amendment, or to fifty years of rights protected by stare decisis using laws passed in states overriding the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
There are many ways to unravel this Gordian Knot but most of them are unraveled by the secessionists still in the House and Senate, or the Supreme Court itself. The ethics problems of the court, while obscene, cannot be dealt within the current composition of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court. Planned Parenthood and V.P. Kamala Harris reject the method outlined here, and prefer to find a political solution, siding with the fraud over the rights of the people. Instead, we propose the shame mechanism, where every case before the Supreme Court files a motion to disqualify the justices involved in the fraud for cause:
1. The Supreme Court must disqualify the named justices whoparticipated in a fraud upon the Constitution from the Supreme Court, since a fraud upon the court, a fraud upon the United States Constitution, and an intentional error of statutory construction demonstrates bias in the subject matters before the court.
2. The Supreme Court must order Heller, Dobbs, all their progeny and concurring opinions void, as they were improvidently granted due to a fraud upon the court, and issue binding precedent that they are precedent void of binding force in any jurisdiction under the Supremacy Clause, as that is Ultra Vires, beyond the courts power to sustain decisions based upon fraud.
3. The Supreme Court must issue binding precedent that no order of the Supreme Court is valid which modifies the text of the Constitution orits amendments, as that is Ultra Vires, beyond the courts power.
4. The Supreme Court must issue binding precedent that no order of theSupreme Court may remove a previously established right under the Constitution, as that is Ultra Vires, beyond the courts power. Supremacy-of-Text Principle: The words of a governing text are of paramount concern, and what they convey, in their context, is what the text means.
At the very least, we must have Justices who are constrained by the laws of ethics which apply to all other judges in the federal system. At the very least, justices who commit frauds upon the court, pretending they have the power to rewrite the Constitution of the United States to suit their personal preferences (despite their sworn testimony to the Senate that it is ‘settled law”) must not be allowed to hear any case about the Constitution, Supremacy Clause or laws of the United States since they cannot perform the basic mechanics of ststutory construction required ro pass a paralegal course. These are are Justices, they are wholly owned subsidiaries of dark money republicans. We must shame them publically until they resign, since no ethics violation or professional standards violation can hold them to account.