- Obama military downsizing leaves U.S. too weak to counter global threats, panel finds
- Sen. Tom Coburn vows to slow down budget-busting bills ahead of recess
- Obama fantasizes about more executive power, signs new order on federal contractors
- Clintons call Klein, Halper, Kessler ‘a Hat Trick of despicable actors’: report
- Boehner accuses Obama of ‘legacy of lawlessness’
- Pro-marijuana group claims responsibility for Brooklyn Bridge flag swap
- Young adults shun Obamacare mostly due to cost: survey
- Stabbing attack on transgender girl, 15, was ‘bias motivated,’ police say
- LGBT adults still lean overwhelmingly toward Democratic Party
- Lawmakers rattled by Syria genocide horrors, call on Obama to act
Supreme Court’s abortion overreach
Question of the Day
All government officials in the United States pledge to uphold the Constitution as written. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any person or group.
This principle requires that each branch of government act only within its stated constitutional authority. The courts may have power to rule that a law is unconstitutional and void, but do not have authority to substitute a new law for the old.
Currently, legislators in Iowa are planning to introduce a bill that will ban abortion after 20 weeks except where the mother’s life is in jeopardy. Abortion advocates claim that this would be unconstitutional because it departs from the viability rule set out by the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade (1973).
When the Supreme Court ruled that the Texas abortion statute was unconstitutional, it should have stopped right there. But the court went on to legislate a new trimester system of rules for the whole nation to follow. It did not have constitutional authority to substitute these rules as new law. It should have been left to the legislature of each state to craft its own new abortion law.
In his Roe dissent, Justice Byron White wrote that the court had “constitutionally disentitled” the people and the legislatures of the states from their right to weigh and balance the relative rights of the fetus and the mother.
By enacting abortion rules, the U.S. Supreme Court exceeded its constitutional authority. Therefore, the rules should be voided and not allowed to stand in the way of the new abortion law proposed in Iowa.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
TWT Video Picks
Both parties recognize the Democrats' scam
Get Breaking Alerts
- Inside the Ring: Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- CRUZ: A tale of two hospitals: One in Israel, one in Gaza
- Obama military strategy too weak for future security, panel reports
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- CIA admits improperly hacking Senate computers in search of Bush-era information
- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- HUSAIN: Fleeing Iraqi Christians find safe haven at the Shrine of Imam Ali
- Israel surprised by Hamas tunnel network
- Iraq Christians get meeting with top Obama aide
- 'Big Bang' star Mayim Bialik helps send bulletproof vests to IDF
- EDITORIAL: Pols' misrepresentations fuel public's cynicism about politics
- EDITORIAL: 'Operation Choke Point': A noose for business
- EDITORIAL: For too many gays, 'tolerance' is a one-way street
- EDITORIAL: The real Lois Lerner exposed in newly released emails
- EDITORIAL: Meriam Ibrahim's happy immigrant story