Abortion Died for Ordered Liberty
Abortion Dies, Ordered Liberty Will Persist.
Tim O’Connor – CPH President – 6/24/2022
I am absolutely ecstatic about what the Supreme Court just did:
“Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”
I’m sad that this decision went 5 to 4. The 4 baby murderers on this judicial panel need to be committed to a psychological ward where they are also evaluated for reading comprehension.
But I am also extremely concerned. There is a term called ‘ordered liberty’ that will manifest itself in very negative ways in the very near future. The following is a list of the clauses within the Supreme Court’s opinion which include the clause ordered liberty:
“Next, the Court examines whether the right to obtain an abortion is rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of ‘ordered liberty’ [syllabus (2)].
“In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to this Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty’ [syllabus (2)].
“Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion [syllabus (2)].
“The Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated [syllabus (2)].
“That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ and ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.’ Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted) [Opinion of the Court].
“Second, we examine whether the right at issue in this case is rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition and whether it is an essential component of what we have described as ‘ordered liberty’ [Opinion of the Court II].
“In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the Court has long asked whether the right is ‘deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition’ and whether it is essential to our Nation’s ‘scheme of ordered liberty’ [Opinion of the Court A 2].
“In concluding that the Eighth Amendment’s protection against excessive fines is ‘fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty’ and ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’ 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7) (internal quotation marks omitted), her opinion traced the right back to Magna Carta, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and 35 of the 37 state constitutions in effect at the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment [Opinion of the Court A 2].
“Only then did the opinion conclude that ‘the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty’ [Opinion of the Court A 2].
“Instead, guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of our Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, we must ask what the Fourteenth Amendment means by the term ‘liberty’ [Opinion of the Court A 2].
License to act on the basis of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of ‘liberty,’ but it is certainly not ‘ordered liberty’ [Opinion of the Court II C1].
“Ordered liberty sets limits and defines the boundary between competing interests [Opinion of the Court II C1].
“Our Nation’s historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people’s elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated [Opinion of the Court II C 1].
“The concurrence does not claim that the right to a reasonable opportunity to obtain an abortion is ‘“‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’”’ and ‘“‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’”’ [Opinion of the Court V B 2].
“Such a right is neither ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’ nor ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ [Justice Thomas, concurring].
“To be sure, this Court has held that the Constitution protects unenumerated rights that are deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty [Justice Kavanaugh, J. concurring I].”
What is ordered liberty? Find Law defines the term as:
“freedom limited by the need for order in society NOTE: The concept of ordered liberty was the initial standard for determining what provisions of the Bill of Rights were to be upheld by the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Today the Fourteenth Amendment is generally seen as encompassing all of the guarantees bearing on fundamental fairness that are included in or that arose from the Bill of Rights rather than a small class of provisions essential to ordered liberty.”
Encyclopedia.com does a better job of defining the term and why it may turn out awfully:
“A loosely used term, diversely applied in scholarly literature and judicial opinions, ‘ordered liberty’ suggests that fundamental constitutional rights are not absolute but are determined by a balancing of the public (societal) welfare against individual (personal) rights. In this dialectical perspective, the thesis is ‘order,’ its antithesis ‘liberty’; the synthesis, ‘ordered liberty,’ describes a polity that has reconciled the conflicting demands of public order and personal freedom.”
I’m pretty sure that if you are reading this you love the idea that abortion has been sent back to the States, just as I am. But, please understand that what ordered liberty portends.
Specifically, think about what has transpired in the Fauci-funded COVID-19 drama, which is on-going. Fauci funded the gain of function ‘research,’ lied over and over about coronavirus mitigation efforts which work, and is getting richer from, not only his murderous poison remdesivir, but also from the mRNA garbage he is now having administered to SIX-MONTH OLD BABIES. He gets rich and we are all supposed to die.
Think carefully upon the way the Supreme Court used this particular phrase to render Roe v. Wade an issue for the States. By using the argument of balancing individual rights against the greater population’s right, the Court has actually stated that there is a collective right which can outweigh an individual right. Further, it means no right granted by God to each and every human being, as the Bill of Rights correctly recognizes, is absolute.
Even with the current configuration of Supreme Court Justices, that means all rights are subject to their whims. The less-Constitutionally-inclined Justices will use this determination in a variety of ways through a process called stare decisis - “When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, then the court will make their decision in alignment with the previous court’s decision.”
Now, maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court would rule forced medical procedures unconstitutional. But I doubt it. 1973, when Roe v. Wade was considered and passed into ‘law’ by the Court is a lot closer to the current date than Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905).
While the Supreme Court has recently ruled on being able to carry a gun WITH A LICENSE out of one’s home (Read The Second Amendment, PLEASE), which is a step in the right direction, the status of the medical procedures being conducted on the US population was merely stayed. Barrett, has already signaled her willingness to enforce vaccine mandates.
The awful part is that the court can now decide what is best for an individual if that individual’s perception of rights would, in the Supreme Court’s opinion, violate the collective rights or security of the ‘citizens’ of the United States. Not only does Joe Biden and his illegitimate administration think they can dictate our rights, the Supreme Court will begin to do it with much more regularity.
The result will be that we have no rights unless given by mankind. The Supreme Court may grant us the right to avoid getting medical procedures until the Supreme Court’s composition changes. Or, the very same Supreme Court may just decide that because of the need for ‘public safety’ all people need to take a vaccine, disarm, or be able to be arrested for speech similar to mine.
“Round up everyone violating their oath to the Constitution, try them, and set a new record for public mass hangings when they are found guilty.” Quote me on that. I gave my, our, ‘representatives’ THEIR due process, they did not afford me or you, nor any other US citizen the same. They voted to disarm US citizens.
Let’s see how resolute the Supreme Court is in it’s desire to even entertain challenges to this ‘law.’ Well, once they come back several months from now. And once they hear the case. And once they decide to write the opinion. And once they decide to publish that opinion.
What I am saying is that the precedent is being set in the Supreme Court to balance our rights. The framers of the Constitution saw balancing of rights as a Separation of Powers. That Separation of Powers was largely negated with the 17th Amendment which the Supreme Court should rule unconstitutional, as well as the 16th Amendment. But they will not do that. Instead the Supreme Court will build precedents upon the idea of collective versus individual rights.
In the end you will do whatever is ‘good’ in the Supreme Court’s eyes. Why do we need a legislature when the Supreme Court can decide what is right and wrong? Are you starting to see where this goes?
Yes, we got the Supreme Court to rescind their illegal ruling in Roe v Wade. We, the People; however, did not achieve that victory without a heavy burden upon out rights, our freedom, our liberty, not the preservation of separation of powers.
We are all slaves, slated to be exterminated, through public safety and public pronunciations. The Court will no longer assist our existential needs for anything because of the way they ruled this. Any future Court could (more like probably would) rely on this ruling to declare that any ‘right’ as not absolute. Then it’s up to the composition of the Court of how the resolution comes about.
In my opinion, the Court will turn around and declare that Biden’s 100 employee’s vaccine mandates will be able to be enforced. And where does that get any of us? Subjugated, dependent, and dead.
Keep that in mind.