by KrisAnne Hall, JD

 Here are 6 little known facts about the Bill of Rights to help you defend Liberty.

1.  The Bill of Rights is not an afterthought of the founders to “correct” the Constitution. It was actually a negotiated condition for ratifying the Constitution.

The delegates of of 5 States were refusing to ratify the Constitution, Virginia was one of those States. Virginia delegates agreed to ratify the Constitution only if there would be a guarantee of debate on provisions to add a Bill of Rights.

On 7 Mar. 1788 the Virginia Baptist General Committee discussed the Constitution:

“Whether the new Federal Constitution which had now lately made its appearance in public, made sufficient provision for the secure enjoyment of religious liberty; on which it was agreed unanimously that, in the opinion of the General Committee, it did not.”

Without Virginia’s consent there would be no Union, no Constitution, & no federal government. In order to form the Union, the other 8 States agreed to adding a Bill of Rights.

2.  The Bill of Right was not established to “control” the federal government. It was written to “remind” the people to never let government control their inherent rights. 

In the debate of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the argument was made proving the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights.  Not a document to control government, but a document to remind the people.  In The Letter From A Federal Farmer To The Republican #6 this truth is articulated:

“…Fortunate it is for the body of a people, if they can continue attentive to their liberties, long enough to erect for them a temple, and constitutional barriers for their permanent security: when they are well fixed between the powers of the rulers and the rights of the people, they become visible boundaries, constantly seen by all, and any transgression of them is immediately discovered: they serve as centinels for the people at all times, and especially in those unavoidable intervals of inattention.”

The Bill of Rights was permanently placed within the Constitution to be a “constant reminder” to the people to control the limited power of their government.  The Constitution is not a restraint on government, as it is simply a paper with ink.  Our founders said the Constitution was simply a “parchment barrier” without the “true republican jealousy and vigilance [of the people], the strongest guard against the abuses of power.” 

***Therefore, the Bill of Rights did not “establish” or “grant” rigths to the people.  It recognized the rights of the people that already exist!***

3.  “You have the right to remain silent and everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to an attorney and have him present during questioning.  If you cannot afford one, an attorney will be provided to you for your defense” is not from a Supreme Court case, it is a summary of a few of the principles in the 5^th & 6^th Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The 5^th Amendment reminds us: No person…shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

The 6^th Amendment reminds us: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

These are not rights “bestowed” by judges in a courtroom.  These are rights that are essential to the protection of the inherent rights of all citizens.

4.  There is only one exception to the rights of the people to be secure in their property & privacy and it is clearly outlined in the Bill of Rights.

Today’s courts have devised a laundry list of reasons why those in government and their agents can search and seize all forms of property from the people without a warrant or proper due process.  These are all inventions by those in government to increase the power of those in government contrary to the explicit language of the 4^th Amendment.

The 4^th Amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,”

The 4^th Amendment then continues to outline the only exception to that right that “shall not be violated” and that one exception contains five elements that must be present, at the same time, for a search a seizure to respect the rights of the people.  Every search and seizure must contain:

1. A Warrant
2. Based upon probable cause
3. Sworn by a supported by Oath or affirmation
4. That warrant must particularly describing the place to be searched
5. And that warrant must particularly describe the persons or things to be seized

Without those five elements the search and seizure is a violation of the rights, regardless of the excuse anyone in government can imagine.

5.  The 9^th & 10^th Amendments are the most important parts of the entire Constitution as they establish the rules for the application of every article, section, & clause of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The 9^th & 10^th Amendments look different from all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights and that is because they serve a different purpose.  They are not reminders of rights like the first eight, they are recitations of powers. 

In legal terms they are referred to as “rules of construction.”  The 9^th and 10^th Amendments provide the rules for the application of every term and delegation of power in the Constitution & Bill of Rights.  Rule #1 is the 9^th Amendment which tells us that all the Rights in the universe belong to the people.  It doesn’t matter if they are enumerated or not; all the right belong to the people.  Rule #2 is the 10^th Amendment that tells us all the powers of government belong to the State and the People unless they are specifically listed in the Constitution.  That means if the power is not specifically delegated to the federal government, then it is specifically reserved to the States and the people.  Rule #2 does not allow “plenary powers” or “interpreted powers” to exist in the federal government.  If it is not in writing, it does not exist at the federal level.

6.  The “Supremacy Clause” does not make all federal laws and regulations supreme to the States or the people. 

Article 6 clause 2 is what we refer to as the Supremacy Clause.  The Supremacy Clause is titled so because it declares the Constitution to be the “supreme law of the land.”  It does NOT make all federal laws, federal regulations, or Supreme Court opinions supreme laws of the land.  The Supremacy Clause very clearly declares that only laws made by Congress that are made pursuant to the limited terms of the Constitution are supreme over State laws.  If Congress makes a law, if the executive makes a regulation, if the Supreme Court issues an opinion an these acts are not made consistent with the limited enumerations of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause actually declares these acts to be not binding on the States, they are legally “null and void.”  And the drafters of the Constitution, made this principle more than clear in their statements:

“No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing, therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law. ~ James Wilson, Madison’s Notes on the Convention

I will propose to you, that if these were widely known facts about the Bill of Rights, rather than little known facts, America would be a very different place today.  Kindle the spirit of Liberty with this education and watch as it spreads to ignite, unite, and activate Americans to Make America Liberty Again!

by KrisAnne Hall, JD

Great study and deliberation was conducted in designing the office of the president.  What was the designers of our Constitutional Republic chief concern? That the president would become a king.

“The safety of the people in a republic depends on the share or proportion they have in the government; but experience ought to teach you, that when a man is at the head of an elective government invested with great powers, and interested in his re-election, in what circle appointments will be made; by which means an imperfect aristocracy bordering on monarchy may be established.” Anti-Federalist #67

When creating the office of the president our founders had many things to consider.  The first consideration was, would this executive purpose be best fulfilled with a committee, a tribunal, or one person.  In the current climate, it was concluded that the power of the executive should be vested in one person, as an ambassador behalf of the States, to other nations.  But having just thrown off the bonds of kingly rule, how could the designers of our Constitution ensure that this one person, over time, would not accumulate power and become the king they never wanted?  The answer, limited and concurrent authority.

Article 2 of the Constitution enumerates the limited authority delegated to the executive.  The student of the Constitution will have to admit that the power delegated to the executive is considerably less than the power delegated to congress.  As a matter of fact, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison describe the power of the president of being less than the power of most Governors of the States.

The president is intended to have very few powers and practically no autonomous power.  The primary purpose of the executive is the be an ambassador on behalf of the States to foreign affairs.   Therefore, the majority of the power exercised by the president must be approved by the Senate (the representative body of the States) before it becomes binding.  In that limited capacity, the president is authorized to negotiate treaties with foreign governments.  However, the president cannot make any treaties autonomously.  Before a treaty becomes law, it must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate and be found to be consistent with the delegation of the authority in the Constitution.

“The President is to have power, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur. The king of Great Britain is the sole and absolute representative of the nation in all foreign transactions. He can of his own accord make treaties of peace, commerce, alliance, and of every other description.” Federalist #69

The president is the commander in chief of the military, but only under a declaration of war by congress.  The president is denied the power to declare war specifically because of this desire to prevent him from becoming a king and so America could avoid the kingly consequence of frequent wars.  James Madison explained;

“The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legisl.” James Madison to Thomas Jefferson 2 Apr. 1798

The president is authorized to nominate members of the supreme Court and cabinet, but the official appointments are a power reserved to the Senate.

“The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices …The one (the President) would have a like concurrent authority in appointing to offices; the other (the King) is the sole author of all appointments.” Federalist #69

The president is tasked with making suggestions to the Congress, he is not empowered to make demands or circumvent the legislative authority.  The president is able to veto a law, but his veto can be overturned by Congress. The president is not authorized to write laws, make laws, or overturn laws that are constitutionally valid.

“The President of the United States is to have power to return a bill, which shall have passed the two branches of the legislature, for reconsideration; and the bill so returned is to become a law, if, upon that reconsideration, it be approved by two thirds of both houses. The king of Great Britain, on his part, has an absolute negative upon the acts of the two houses of Parliament.” Federalist #69

Executive orders of a president are not equivalent to law, nor can they change or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress.  Executive orders were created so the president, as the leader of the executive branch, could send orders and instructions to agencies and agents within the executive branch.  Any executive order that attempts to alter or eliminate a law constitutionally created by Congress; any executive order that attempts to exercise authority over a person or a State outside the executive agency, is an unlawful executive order, contrary to the Constitution, and is therefore invalid.

The president cannot create a tax, eliminate a tax, or even raise or lower a tax, that power is reserved to the House of Representatives alone.

“The one (President) can prescribe no rules concerning the commerce or currency of the nation; the other (a King) is in several respects the arbiter of commerce, and in this capacity can establish markets and fairs, can regulate weights and measures, can lay embargoes for a limited time, can coin money, can authorize or prohibit the circulation of foreign coin.” Federalist #69

The president is only authorized to spend the money Congress apportions to the executive branch, therefore any debt incurred by the federal government is not the product of the president, but due to the spending of Congress.

Even the autonomous powers of the president are limited.  The president is authorized to issue pardons but only for federal offenses and not in the case impeachment.

“…and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” Article 2 section 2 clause 1

Finally, as Alexander Hamilton pointed out in Federalist #69, the president is not authorized to make citizens out of aliens and he is not authorized to confer the benefits of citizenship on any person.  These, again, are powers reserved to Congress.

“The one (the President) can confer no privileges whatever; the other (the King) can make denizens (citizens) of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.” Federalist #69

The American colonists didn’t simply separate themselves from Great Britain, they declared independence from kings forever.  Their purpose was to ensure the Blessings of Liberty not just to themselves, but to all future generations.  They knew the only way to do that would be to keep the president very limited in power. Their purpose was that America would never again have a king.

Our government is traveling down a very dangerous road. We have neglected our duties as responsible employers and we are about to pay a dear price. We must arm ourselves with the truth to educate our employees and assist them in doing the right thing. The following is an open letter to our Senators and Representatives to educate them in this “gun debate” and allow them to make the right decisions. By giving this information, we not only educate them, but we identify which employees are willing to do the right and which are not. If we do not educate, they can claim ignorance. If we provide them with the proper tools and they refuse to use them and continue to destroy our Constitution, we must mark them as enemies and eliminate their ability to do further destruction.

Please assist me in educating our Representatives. Please share this letter your Representative AND Senator. Sign your name and send it to them multiple times, once is not enough.  Be sure they KNOW you are serious.

Thank you.

In Liberty,

KrisAnne Hall

Read more

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

My inbox is being inundated with the question du jeur: “If President Trump declares a ‘State of Emergency’ to build the wall on the border of Mexico, is that Constitutional?” 

I am certain that is not the right question or perhaps not the right way to ask it, but to ask it and answer it correctly, let’s briefly remind ourselves of America’s Constitutional structure and function.

A Reminder

The Constitution of the United States defines the powers for the three branches of federal government.  Each of these branches are delegated specific enumerated powers that are not only limited and defined by the Constitution but also separate and distinct in their delegations.  The branches of government do not share powers unless that specific cooperation is ascribed by the Constitution.  For example, the power to create treaties (today referred to with the obfuscatory label – “deals”) is not an autonomous power belonging to the president but one that requires specific concurrence by the Senate. 

Recall that the Tenth Amendment declares that any power not delegated through the Constitution remains in the hands of the States. This is the opposite of Teddy Roosevelt’s “stewardship” doctrine that says the feds can do whatever they want as long as the Constitution doesn’t say they can’t. Federal Supremacists love this perspective. That was NOT the discussion or conclusion of the ratification debates. There are no unnamed powers floating in the ether waiting to be snatched up by the central government. Roosevelt’s Secretary of War William Taft rightly conveyed the framers’ positions, “a specific grant must be either in the Federal Constitution or in an act of Congress passed in pursuance thereof. There is no undefined residuum of power which (the federal government) can exercise because it seems…to be in the public interest…”

The specific delegations of power, as well as NON-delegations, were created thoughtfully, deliberately, with knowledge of history and human nature.  The limitations of those powers involved considerable debate and study into past history and ancient governments.

Patrick Henry said in his famous “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech: “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past.”  Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #20: “Experience is the oracle of truth…”

However, it is not uncommon in the evolution of the American Republic to see the government AND the citizenry cast off the wisdom and experience enshrined in the founding documents to address some “urgent necessity.” Instead of taking the intentionally cumbersome path to do it right, Americans willingly run roughshod over Constitutional barriers because – “we have to get this done ,” or “there is no other way to do it!” These instances have slowly transmuted the Republic into the nearly limitless federal behemoth we know today.  We would be well-served to paste a banner over our televisions and computers reminding us of what William Pitt said in 1783:

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

The Question

So when people ask questions like “Can the president do…?” “Can the House, Senate, or Supreme Court do…?” the first sources that must be consulted are the Constitution and the people who drafted it.  If the Constitution provides no authority for the activity, then the power does not Constitutionally reside in the hands the federal government. So more to the root of the question being asked, “Does the Constitution enumerate a power to the President to declare a state of emergency?” The short answer is No.

Every state of emergency refers to the National Emergencies Acts as the source of its authority. So the real question is “Does the Constitution authorize Congress to alter (expand or contract) executive power by legislative act?”  The constitutional answer to this question is obviously no.  Congress cannot add powers that the Constitution has not delegated to the president nor can they take away powers that have been delegated.  For Congress to have the authority to add power to the executive branch, they would have to possess the authority to actually amend the Constitution by congressional act, and they do not.  Additionally, for Congress to delegate a power to the executive branch that has been constitutionally delegated to Congress, is a per se violation of the Constitution by crushing the principle of Separation of Powers.  James Madison, quoting political philosopher Montesquieu, was very direct with his words regarding separation of powers:

“There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates…” Federalist #47

Spending, war, appropriations, national defense, and naturalization are all powers specifically delegated to Congress.  For Congress to abdicate its power to the executive branch is not only not authorized by the Constitution, it is necessarily forbidden by the principle of Separation of Powers to ensure the security of the Liberty of the people.

Shockingly, this debate over states of emergency has raged for decades and nobody seems to offer the obvious correct answer – if we want the President to have such powers we must amend the Constitution.

Yet if you consider how far we have strayed and how long we have been off the path, President Trump is doing nothing out of the ordinary, he is following a long history of extra-Constitutional (aka unconstitutional) action.  We have just accepted a broken government as the norm since at least 1861 when it comes to “national emergencies.”

How did we get here?

If you tell a lie long enough, people believe it to be truth and the lie of expanded executive power has a long history.  I think this principle is even more powerful when that lie comes from someone you like, or applies to a situation you happen to agree with.  But that lie can only operate as truth with very dire consequences, the most obvious consequence would be that the lie operates as truth not only for the people you like but also the people you don’t like.

Some claim expansion of executive power began with the George Washington administration’s response to the whiskey rebellion. Yet in this instance, Congress authorized Washington to quell an “insurrection” which falls within the constitutional authority of both Congress and President. It was Congress that then began creating “stand-by laws” to give the President powers beyond the grant of the Constitution in time of “national emergency.” They should have proposed a Constitutional amendment, not passed a law. (Interestingly, Washington later pardoned everyone who was arrested during the rebelling, if they were not already acquitted.)

The first unilateral act of a president arose when Lincoln blockaded American ports and expanded military forces without Congress.  The Congress and the courts eventually went along and this became the confirmation and justification of the President’s emergency power.  Woodrow Wilson and FDR faced similar emergency power controversies and  were not thwarted by Congress.  In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson started the “Presidential Proclamation” that triggered the availability of all so-called stand-by laws for these declarations of emergency.  The process came to a head when, after Truman proclaimed an emergency in response to Korean hostilities, the same order was used to wage war in Vietnam 22 years later.  Congress, led by Senator Church, launched an investigation. One of numerous Congressional studies in 1973 showed that the Congress had already passed over 470 statutes granting the President “EXTRAORDINARY POWERS” during time of emergency.  In an attempt to restrain and proceduralize the use of emergency powers, perhaps restrain the monster they allowed to grow, Congress passed the National Emergencies Act on in September of 1976.

In light of the fact that Congress is not authorized through Congressional act to expand delegated authority, consider these two points from two constitutional delegates:

“There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void.  No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Federalist #78- Alexander Hamilton

“…the power of the Constitution predominates.  Any thing (sic), therefore, that shall be enacted by Congress contrary thereto, will not have the force of law.” James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787

Constitution as well, is not silent on this issue.  Article 6 clause 2 codifies the principles laid down by the above drafters of the Constitution when it says:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; …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 notwithstanding.”

Every law must be made, every federal action must be taken, “in pursuance” to the Constitution.  If that act is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, then the “Judges in every State” are NOT bound thereby.  What that means is the “National Emergencies Act,” “War Powers Act,” 8 US 1182- empowering the president to determine the admissibility of aliens, and many, many others are all unconstitutional delegations of power by Congress to the president.  Which makes them, by the terms of the Constitution AND the drafters of that document, null and void.

Where do we go from here?

So the question is NOT: “If the President declares a national emergency and builds the wall, is that Constitutional?” That’s an easy question to answer, No. The question is “Will we keep pretending to live in a Constitutional Republic, while making it up as we go along?”  Other than electing a Congress that actually cares for the security, safety and integrity of the nation, there are two simple options: Amend the Constitution and have the states give the president this authority or stop pretending, get rid of the Constitution and go back to monarchy.

by KrisAnne Hall, JD 

It seems to be growing increasingly popular to use the 10^th Amendment to justify carte blanche legislative authority within the States. Even some Presidential candidates have implied that because of the 10^th Amendment, States can “pass whatever laws they want.” Recently, others have said that if a State wants to legalize abortion, the 10^th Amendment gives the State the power to do so. I would like to assert that some issues cannot be legislated by the States and in particular abortion is NOT a State’s rights issue, and here’s why:

We cannot fully understand the 10^th Amendment until we understand of the 9^th Amendment as well. The 9^th Amendment says:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.- 9th Amendment

And to understand the 9^th Amendment we must understand the debate that produced it. The debate was over the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into our Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton was not in favor of incorporating the Bill of Rights. As he States in Federalist 84,

I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. (emphasis added)

It was Hamilton’s belief that the Constitution was very clear as to the limitation of powers for the Federal Government. His greatest fear was that by incorporating a “list” of rights, it would provide those in power the opportunity to spread tyranny and liberty through interpretation and regulation.

They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the National Government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for Bills of Rights. (emphasis added)

In other words he is saying that those in power would see the enumerated list of rights as areas that the branches of government must define and regulate – else why would they be listed?

In the end James Madison felt he had the solution to this problem.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. (Emphasis added)

Madison, when speaking of the “last clause of the fourth resolution,” was referring to what we now know as the 9^th Amendment. He was telling all of those who were not comfortable in ratifying Bills of Rights, that the 9^th Amendment would solve all those problems. Madison believed that specifically stating that the Bills of Rights do not in any way give the government more power than was already given and reaffirming that these rights belong to the PEOPLE and not the government, would create a barrier of protection against encroachment of these important rights belonging to the people.

The key to the 10^th Amendment is understanding that our Founders went out of their way to make sure it was abundantly clear that the Rights enumerated belong to the PEOPLE and not to the Government – neither State nor federal. So when the 10^th Amendment says, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, our founders were NOT creating three separate seats of power in the United States: the Feds, the States, and the People. They were saying, in conjunction with the 9^thAmendment, hey United States, hey States, these rights belong to the PEOPLE through the States. The founders never intended for the States to disparage these rights, any more than they intended the Federal government of the United States to disparage them.  As a matter of fact, the Declaration of Independence makes this point as a primary focus for the creation of all government, principally applied to the States from the beginning.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,”

The entire purpose for creating the States was to SECURE THESE RIGHTS that belong to the people, among them; LIFE, LIBERTY, & the Pursuit of Happiness.  For example, our Founders never intended to invest in the States the power to remove someone’s right to bear arms, for instance, otherwise the Second Amendment would not say,

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

If a State could have power to eliminate the right of its citizens to bear arms, the objective of maintaining a free State would be defeated and that State would become a tyrant over its people and the “Right to Life and Liberty” are destroyed.  Our founders never intended for the States to have the ability to violate someone’s free speech, right to religious liberty, or takes someone’s person, property or life without due process, else the States again, would be the tyrant over its people. While there are many things, in fact most things, that the States should legislate, there are certain inalienable rights that cannot under our Constitution be legislated away.

Life is not something that should be legislated away. Life is an inalienable right the State was established to SECURE that Right.  The truth that this right begins at conception is a biological fact. This fact was not “overturned” by science in Roe v. Wade, but by manipulation of facts through law. If real science had been used and not legal manipulation, denying life in the womb at conception would have failed. The argument of viability, as established by Roe, is based upon the argument that if you remove the fetus from the womb at a certain point, that fetus (or if you prefer those cells) would die and therefore was not alive and not a person. Logically speaking, by admitting that this life will die implies that it was alive at some point. Using this same logic to determine that life never existed does not hold up in science either. There are many single celled organisms that will only survive on a particular growth medium. You will be hard pressed to find a microbiologist tell you that these organisms were never alive, because they failed to live outside their nutrient rich medium. Additionally, by the very definition of abortion, you must admit life exists at the time of abortion. You cannot abort an action that has never begun. Therefore, Roe is not only unconstitutional, but logically and scientifically unsound. Even the judge in Roe admitted if it would be established in court that life began at an earlier stage, this life would have rights. This error is not a matter of science, but a matter of incompetent legal argument.

Finally, to use the 10^th Amendment as an excuse to deprive someone of life is a misapplication of Constitutional principles. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are both very clear as to the founder’s understanding of the right to Life. If we do not have life, we have neither Liberty, nor an opportunity to pursue happiness. In fact, our founders repeatedly declared that they were pledging life, fortune and sacred honor for “ages and millions yet unborn.”  It is clear, by their own words, the founders of our America believed the rights of the unborn were worth dying for.  Abortion is not a State issue as assigned by the 10th Amendment, nor is it a “social” issue not to be discussed; it is that very matter of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness upon which our Constitution is based. A State cannot adopt laws to eliminate free speech and cannot pass laws to legalize murder and the 10th Amendment cannot be used to justify abortion. To claim to be a Constitutionalist and say the 10th Amendment permits a State to legalize abortion is to misunderstand the Constitution and the 10^th Amendment itself.

Some would use the same Constitutional argument against the death penalty. Just like abortion, one may be morally opposed to the death penalty, but there is a difference in these two issues from a Constitutional perspective. You have the ability to forfeit your Liberty, through the application of due process, by committing a capital offense. Abortion, however, is sentencing someone to death who has committed no crime, without due process.

We must remember that Liberty is not only freedom, but freedom fettered by morality. Some “social” issues that touch on morality are a matter of Constitutional relevance, and are essential to maintaining Liberty. Sadly, we live in a society that increasingly believes, as Suhas Sreedhar, 26, an engineer working in a computer company in Manhattan who States in a USA Today article, “God? Purpose? You don’t need an opinion on those things to function.” You do, however, need to have an opinion of these things to maintain Liberty.  A State that does not SECURE it’s citizens’ RIGHT to LIFE is failing to fulfil the entire purpose for its creation.

Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? -Thomas Jefferson.