The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”


The best intro to this essay submission from Justin Smith can be summed up from an excerpt:

 

Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

JRH 8/6/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

The Fallacy of “Separation of Church and State”

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 8/5/2017 3:36 PM

 

The Founding Fathers believed that government’s role in religion should be limited. We cannot discount that the First Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law” either establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Rather than articulate an affirmative responsibility for government to protect religion, the Founding Fathers felt it was enough to keep the government out. If nothing else, the language of the First Amendment makes it clear the goal was to restrain government when it came to religion. There is no suggestion the Founders felt the establishment clause and the free exercise clause were in any way competing. Otherwise, why would the Founders include the two clauses together?

 

The point was to keep government out of both realms. Both clauses were needed because it was not sufficient to restrain government from establishing a state religion; government also had to be restrained from any attempt to interfere with religious practices and beliefs. The negative language of the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from passing a law that promotes religion, provided the judgement does not promote one religion over others.

Before the bad law and judicial activism that started with the abuse of the Constitution by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v Board of Education (1947), the states were not prohibited under the First Amendment from establishing religion, and nowhere in the debate on freedom of religion in the first Congress is there any mention of “separation of church and state.” Our Founders own writings clearly show that they never intended for public officials to check their convictions and beliefs at the door to their offices. They would have been shocked by the Court’s excessively broad interpretation of the First Amendment, given the language the Founders crafted with the belief it would protect open expression of religious beliefs in America.

 

The Founders most certainly would have rebelled against the idea of an absolute “separation of church and state” and the use of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to eradicate all Judeo-Christian references to God from the public square, because these ideas are incompatible with the Original Intent and unalienable rights granted to each of us by our Creator, thus making them erroneous and historically unsupportable.

 

[Blog Editor: Here’s an interesting thought on how the Left and Activist Judges misused the 14th Amendment to rob the Original Intent of the First Amendment:

 

When did things change?

 

Charles Darwin theory’s that species could evolve inspired a political theorist named Herbert Spencer to suggest that laws could evolve. This influenced Harvard Law Dean Christopher Columbus Langdell to develop the “case precedent” method of practicing law, which influenced his student, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

 

This occurred near the same time the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, introduced by Republicans in Congress to guarantee rights to freed slaves in the Democrat South. The evolutionary “case-precedent” method provided a way to side-step the Constitutional means of changing the Constitution through the Amendment process.

 

Activist Justices began to creatively use the 14th Amendment to take jurisdiction away from the states over issues such as unions, strikes, railroads, farming, polygamy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

 

Freedom of religion was still under each individual state’s jurisdiction until Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

 

In 1937, FDR nominated Justice Hugo Black to the Supreme Court, who also concentrated power by writing decisions taking jurisdiction away from the states in the area of religion. He did this by simply inserting the phrase “Neither a state” in his 1947 Everson v Board of Education decision: “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another.” READ ENTIRE ARTICLE (THIS IS HOW ATHEISM BECAME OUR OFFICIAL ‘RELIGION’; By BILL FEDERER; WND; 1/15/16 9:01 PM)

 

Now I can’t vouch for this being Justin Smith’s thought on the 14th Amendment, but using the effect of Darwinism in the development of Case Law to have more authority than Original Intent is enlightening to me.]

On New Year’s Day 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists to assuage their fear that the federal government might one day attempt to condition religious freedom as a right granted by the state. Jefferson, an anti-Federalist [Blog Editor: Federalist/Anti-Federalist Perspectives – HERE, HERE & HERE], clearly stated his intention to keep government out of religious affairs rather than empower it to remove religion from the public arena: “Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in the behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.”

The First Amendment compels government not to eradicate religion from the public arena. If the expression of religious beliefs is an inherent God-designed part of human nature, as the Declaration of Independence proclaimed, then government acting to remove religion from the public sphere would have seemed to Our Founding Fathers to be acting in a manner antithetical to Our Founding Principles.

It is almost as if Justice Black decided the First Amendment was equivalent to the biblical admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s, under the assumption that a discernible distinction could be made without conflict between what was Caesar’s and what was God’s. The whole point of the First Amendment’s attempt to protect freedom of religion is that over time Caesar tends to intrude upon God.

 

In 1948, the Supreme Court ruled in McCollom v Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) that religious education provided by churches on public school grounds in Illinois during the school day was unconstitutional. Then in 1952, in Zorach v Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 (1952), the Supreme Court found that allowing New York students to leave school grounds for religious education was constitutional. Dissenting in Zorach, Justice Black wrote, “I see no significant difference between the invalid Illinois system and that of New York here sustained.” If Justice Black, the author of the court’s majority opinion in Everson, could not distinguish these cases, how could state, county, city or municipal school officials be expected to make the distinction reliably?

 

A Godless public square could not be more antithetical to what Our Founding Fathers thought they were achieving when drafting the First Amendment, and the Courts distort precedent whenever they use the Establishment Clause to crush all things religious Ironically, the very language crafted to protect religious freedom has now reached the point at which Americans can only be assured freedom from religion in all places within this nation, with the possible exceptions of prayer confined to church and free expression of religion confined to the privacy of one’s home.

Jefferson made a poignant remark in Notes on the State of Virginia, which clarifies his thinking: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?[Blog Editor’s Emphasis]

 

Why didn’t the Supreme Court choose this text for their ruling? [Blog Editor’s Emphasis] Or his use of “natural rights” in other documents? Justice Clarence Thomas once stated: “… this Court’s nebulous Establishment Clause analyses, turn on little more than “judicial predilections … It should be noted that the extent to which traditional Judeo-Christian religion is removed from the public square and the public schools, it is replaced by other religions, including Secular Humanism, which is specifically recognized as a religion by the Supreme Court.”
In order to combat this assault on religious freedom and religious liberty, to date, twenty-one states have enacted Religious Freedom Restoration Acts since 1993. Currently, ten states [5/4/17 – 9 States] are considering legislation on the topic this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Virginia amended their state RFRA, but otherwise no states have passed their legislation.
For eight decades, the ACLU has been America’s leading religious censor, waging a largely uncontested war, until recently, against America’s core values, utilizing every fallacy, piece of misinformation and outright LIE imaginable in its war against religious liberty, with the support of much of the current Marxist media; both are intent on destroying traditional America, including the nuclear family. We now live in a country where our traditional Christian and Jewish faith and religion — civilizing forces in any society — are openly mocked and increasingly pushed to the margins, and our weapon to stop them is the Founding Fathers’ own words and their Original Intent regarding the U.S. Constitution.
Ultimately, two very diverse thinkers, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams concluded, that without virtue based on a solid belief in God, Liberty was inevitably lost. In other words, if the Supreme Court, through the efforts of Communists, atheists and fools and ACLU prompting, succeeds in removing the Judeo-Christian God from American public life, a foundation pillar upon which American liberty has depended will have been removed, perhaps irretrievably. Without the open expression of religious freedom so fundamental to American liberty that it is written into the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, American Liberty will not long persist.

 

Americans cannot and must not allow the Communists and atheists of this nation and the ACLU to secularize America to the point where our tolerance is turned into silencing and punishing religious speech. Life is valuable; marriage is a God-ordained institution between one man and one woman, and families are comprised of a male father and a female mother with any number of children. Any attack against Christianity and Judaism in America using the fallacy of “separation of Church and State” is simply an attempt to further undermine, not only Our U.S. Constitution and Religious Liberty, but Our entire traditional American way of life. Do not accept the Fallacy.

 

By Justin O. Smith

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

All links and any text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

 

Explaining ‘End/Telos’ of Romans 10:4


Christ is the End of the Law

 

More Thoughts on SCOTUS and Same-Sex Marriage

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2015

 

I belong to a secret Facebook group pertaining the First Amendment. A comment was left on this group pertaining a SlantRight 2.0 post entitled “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations”. Since the group is listed as “secret” I am hesitant to reveal the exact Facebook name or the name of the commenter. My sense is that those who post there may not wish to be harassed for their opinions. Thus I will identify the commenter as JP for anonymity reasons.

 

Just as a brief synopsis of “Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” that post was about then future oral arguments pertaining to homosexual same-sex marriage being a States’ Rights issue rather than a Federal Government issue. If the supporters of Family and Biblical Values are to win validation of their arguments before SCOTUS then Leftists and homosexual activists will be prohibited from making same-sex marriage a Federally mandated national law and would place that decision in the hands of each individual State of America’s Union. This would reinstate State Laws that made it a matter of the rule of law that marriage would be defined as between man and a woman rather than Adam and Steve or Adriana and Eve.

 

With that in mind here is JP’s comment edited with spellcheck because comments made on the fly are often grammatically flawed (and even though I also I am guilty of on the fly grammatically flawed comments it is a pet peeve of mine):

 

I don’t understand why you reference the Old Testament for Christian Canon. Romans 10:4 – “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” KJV (Comment by JP)

 

The common mistake people make is that the Scriptures preached on by Early Christians and Jesus Himself were based on the Old Testament. And another comment mistake by Jim within Romans 10:4 is the word “end”. The Koine Greek word used in the days of the Apostle Paul was “telos”. That word has a more versatile meaning than just “end”. The explanation I found on the Denominational website from the United Church of God – an International Association:

 

In Romans 10:4, Paul’s words are translated: “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” Regrettably, most translators render the Greek word telos simply as “end” instead of giving Paul’s intended meaning of that word in this context. Reasoning incorrectly that faith makes the law void, they have adopted an illogical assumption that Paul plainly rejected in Romans 3:31. This passage reads: “Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.”

 

To discover the proper translation of a word that can be used in more than one way, its context has to be understood correctly before any effort is made to determine the right nuance of meaning that the author intended. Here is a simple example. One might ask a college student, “To what end are you attending college?” The word “end” in that context would refer to the “objective” or “goal” the student has in mind. Receiving a degree would be only the “end result” of his college years of learning, not the end to his ability or desire to learn.

 

The Greek word telos, translated “end” in Romans 10:4, can convey variations in meaning, including “’the aim or purpose’ of a thing” (Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, “End, Ending”). This is very clear in the New King James Version’s rendering of 1 Timothy 1:5, where telos is properly translated as purpose in the clause “the purpose of the commandment is love.” In this same verse the NRSV translates telos as “aim” and the NIV renders it as “goal.”

 

Paul uses telos in Romans 10:4 to convey that the objective or goal of the law—the “aim or purpose” of it—is to point us to the mind and character of Jesus Christ (Galatians 4:19; Philippians 2:5).

 

Jesus Christ, the living Word of God, is a perfect replica of what God’s law teaches. Pointing us to His character and work is the aim” of the law. Rendering of telos as “end” in Romans 10:4 distorts Paul’s intended meaning—something Peter forcefully warns us not to do (2 Peter 3:15-16).

 

[What Did Paul Mean by ‘Christ Is the End of the Law’? From UCG.org; 2/2/11]

 

The point is “the end” does not convey termination but rather the goal as in completeness. Christ completes the Law of the Old Testament by His Blood shed in death convicted under false accusations and human greed and arose from death three days later fulfilling the reasons for the existence of the Law. This does not make the commands of the irrelevant but encompassed in Blood bought Redemption which eliminates the penalties for breaking the Law.

 

In full disclosure about the secret Facebook group, at the time I posted these thoughts on this First Amendment group I had forgotten the secret group’s purpose was a bit more specific than all the aspects of the First Amendment. When I shared these Christian concepts to the secret Facebook group the main focus of this group was Islam in relation to the First Amendment. I posted Arise Christians against SCOTUS Violations” straying from the groups designed purpose. I chose the First Amendment issue of Free Speech and the Religious Freedom to my opinion allowing Christian Americans to practice their Biblical faith which finds the homosexual lifestyle abhorrent before the sight of God Almighty. Thus on a State to State basis a plurality of Americans could vote individually as a Tenth Amendment Right on the definition of Marriage since the subject is not specifically addressed by the U.S. Constitution.

 

Tenth Amendment

 

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.

 

As I shared the secret group I posted on focused on Islam described in the right hand column as:

 

DESCRIPTION

For the creation & promotion of an amendment of the First Amendment which will permit proscribing Islam by law.

First Rough:

Any institution which recruits or retains members by force, seeks to supplant this constitution with its canon law, promotes offensive warfare or was created for the personal emolument of its founder is not protected under the free exercise clause of the first amendment and may be proscribed by law.

 

There is very little chance of congressional passage and state ratification, but if properly publicized, the proposal will cause Muslims to s**t bricks, exposing themselves and their cult to full scrutiny.

 

On a personal level I have no problems with Muslims practicing a peaceful Islam that excises the portions of the Quran regarded as the very words of their Allah deity that commands violent Jihad in the present time forcing non-Muslims to submit to Islam by conversion. OR if choosing not to convert then submitting to the superiority of Islam over one’s own religious beliefs on penalty of offending Islam, the Allah deity or Mohammed resulting in a death sentence, violent punishment or imprisonment. Also Muslims should endeavor to transform (as opposed to the current purist Islamic reform flowing globally) the Hadith and Sira that supports the violent portions of the Quran advocating present time death, physical punishment or imprisonment for rejecting and thus offending Islam. Also Christians and Americans in general should realize that the Quran recorded in Mecca prior to Mohammed fleeing to Medina are peaceful and tolerant of non-Muslim faiths especially calling for an appreciation for Jews and Christians, BUT from Medina onward the Quran recorded is violently hostile toward non-Muslims which singles out forced submission of Jews and Christians who don’t convert with an OR ELSE caveat in the Medina suras. AND Christians and Americans should be aware that the Quran IS NOT recorded in chronological order – the Mecca and Medina suras are interspersed according to size rather than time frame.

 

In moving along back to the homosexual lifestyle pertaining to same-sex marriage vs. Traditional Marriage let it be known I probably should not have shared that particular post to the secret Facebook group focused on Islam in relation to the First Amendment; ergo I must say to my fellow members of the group I say, “Oops”.

 

This is an apology to the secret group, but I stand with God Almighty to assert a homosexual lifestyle is an abomination to His Presence. This is when I typically a homosexual activist claim something idiotic like, “God made me Gay and hence I was born Gay.” I find the homosexual activist assertion idiotic not based on science, but rather based on the God inspired Word in the Holy Bible.

 

Homosexuality condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. Thank God the Father emptied His Divine characteristics to be born as a man from a woman in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In Christ the penalty of the Law that is in the Old Testament has been rendered complete in Jesus. The penalty is not terminated but postponed in this life. The Last Judgment determines each person’s final eternity based on the heart-faith in following the Way of the Risen Savior thus determining if their name is in the Book of Life or not. Since Christ rose from the dead the final penalty or blessing occurs in that Last Judgment. That which is important that God finds homosexuality an abomination in the old covenant and the new covenant sealed in Christ’s Blood:

 

Leviticus

 

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

 

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

 

Romans

 

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

 

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Leviticus 18: 22; 20: 13; Romans 1: 18-19 NKJV)

 

If SCOTUS rules in favor of homosexual activism making same-sex marriage a part of the rule of law without the path set forth in the U.S. Constitution, then SCOTUS is unconstitutionally enacting a law that should either be left to the described Amendment process through the vehicle of Congress and/or the States.

 

Article V

 

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.

 

TAKE NOTE that the Supreme Court of the United States and the Executive Branch are not a part of Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

 

The only way that SCOTUS can act constitutionally to assuage the lot of homosexuals is to rule that it is more than a lifestyle but is a genetic occurrence. Even though you will homosexuals claim biological science is in their favor the actual science is hardly concrete in people being genetically born a homosexual. And ironically committed homosexuals are not even united on the OPINION of genetics.

 

If clear cut genetics is ever proven then science might be created by the heterosexuals that are actually needed to make children to engineer genes or the workings of inner anatomical organs responsible for sexual preference to eradicate the homosexual gene. Such genetic engineering would not fall under the category of murder but on the medical procedures that Leftists so often demand for women called “Choice”.

 

Homosexual activists point to the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for claiming specific rights for homosexuals just as any other citizen of the United States. I’m not a lawyer but it seems if homosexuality is a choice rather than a genetic occurrence then how can the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to assign specific rights as equal to genetically born individuals?

 

People are not born a Democrat or Republican. People are not a Communist or a Capitalist.

 

People born into a human race is mentioned into the Constitution. Ironically people are not into a specific genetic religion, but they choose a religion or atheism or I could care less. BUT the Constitution specifically gives genetically born human beings the Constitutional Freedom to choose a religion or no religion.

 

NO WHERE in the Constitution are people who choose to be a homosexual have named specific rights for choosing that as a lifestyle to be respected by race, creed, religion or lack of religion.

 

The Constitution does provide for independent ideology in the First Amendment with Free Speech. The Constitution does not provide marriage between a same religion, a different religion, a religious person and an atheist, only Democrats can marry, only Republicans can and I think you get the idea. People marry as people.

 

If a majority of people in a given State view male/female marriage as natural law then marriage can so be entered. Frankly if homosexuals choose to enter into some kind of contractual mutual obligations and expectations I don’t see anything unconstitutional with that choice. But defining same-sex marriage a natural part of nature is ungodly in the sight of God. How do I know that? HE SAID SO IN THE HOLY BIBLE.

 

America is a secular nation founded under the platform of Christian Religious Liberty. Forcing a Christian to accept something as lawful is unconscionable and according to the First Amendment infringes on the right of a Christian to practice their faith which is unconstitutional.

 

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to after the Civil War to ensure liberated African-American slaves had the same protections and rights as pre-Civil War free non-slaves. In other words the Fourteenth Amendment dealt with civil protections and civil rights based on the genetics of human beings not on the choices of aberrant lifestyles.

 

Here are insightful words about the Original Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment:

 

The most decisive of these reasons is the fact that when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, homosexual behavior was a felony in every state in the union. So if the 14th Amendment was intended to require same-sex marriage, then every state in the union intended to throw the new couple into prison as soon as the marriage was consummated!

 

Some may say, “Who cares what they believed in 1868 about homosexuality? We’ve evolved since then.”

 

That’s addressed by the second reason: laws and words have specific scopes and meanings. They don’t have unlimited flexibility as liberal justices tend to think. Neither the intent nor the text of the Constitution requires the states to redefine marriage. If the people of the United States have “evolved” on the issue, then the Constitution provides them with a very clear and fair way for the document to intelligently “evolve”—they need to convince a supermajority of federal and state legislatures to amend the Constitution. That’s the very reason our Constitution has an amendment process!

 

 

… the 14th Amendment was intended to prevent states from discriminating against newly freed slaves. At that time blacks and women didn’t even have the right to vote, yet no court ever thought it could use the “equal protection” clause to change state voting laws. So why do some district courts think they can use it now to change state marriage laws? Are we to believe that “equal protection” does not guarantee a woman’s right to vote but does guarantee a woman’s right to marry another woman?

 

 

… Every person has the same equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That law treats all people equally, but not every behavior they may desire equally. If people with homosexual desires do not have equal rights, then people with desires to marry their relatives or more than one person don’t have equal rights. The “born that way” justification doesn’t work either because that same justification could make any desired arrangement “marriage,” which means the logic behind it is absurd. …

 

 

Does the U.S. Constitution require same-sex marriage? No, the U.S. Constitution requires the Court to leave this issue to the states. If you believe otherwise, then amend the Constitution. READ ENTIRETY (Why the 14th Amendment Can’t Possibly Require Same-Sex Marriage; By Frank Turek; Townhall.com; 3/17/15)

 

Here is the Fourteenth Amendment of which SCOTUS will issue an opinion on same-sex marriage:

 

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

 

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (The US Constitution: 14th Amendment; website author – Fred Elbel; 14thAmendment.us; Copyright 2007-2014 – all rights reserved.)

 

Here is some truth to read pertaining the homosexual activist propaganda that a majority of American voters support same-sex marriage:

 

The headlines of most opinion polls and news stories say the same thing: Gay marriage is inevitable, by the people’s choice.

 

In February, a CNN/ORC survey of more than 1,000 people found 63 percent support for same-sex marriage.

 

This “supermajority of Americans” reflects the constant growing and widening support for the nuptials, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry.

 

In recent days, USA Today, The Washington Post and ABC News also have declared an end to the national battle on marriage.

 

“There’s no turning back,” said an April 19 article in USA Today, citing its poll of 1,000 adults taken with Suffolk University. Some 51 percent of those adults said they favored allowing gay couples to marry, with 35 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided.

 

An ABC News/Washington Post poll released Thursday found 61 percent support for same-sex marriage — with 78 percent support in the under-30 age group.

 

A Public Religion Research Institute survey of 40,000 Americans — which also found majority support for same-sex marriage — revealed …

 

 

In contrast, an amicus brief filed at the Supreme Court says it is “simply not true” that large majorities of Americans support a redefinition of marriage.

 

Real opinions are made at voting booths, and in 39 elections, in which nearly 85 million votes were cast in 35 states, more than 51 million people voted to keep marriage as a man-woman union, campaign and polling analyst Frank Schubert and the National Organization for Marriage said in their brief in Obergefell v. Hodges.

 

With a margin of 60.9 percent to 39.1 percent for traditional marriage, that is “an overwhelming landslide in American politics,” they wrote.

 

Although some polls indicate wide support for same-sex marriage, others show majority opposition to it or public support starting to drop, the brief said.

 

Also, many polls showing support for same-sex marriage may be worded to catch a “yes.”

 

“People generally want to be ‘for’ something, rather than ‘against’ something,” the National Organization for Marriage brief said.

 

Another factor, intended or not, is the “priming” of people with questions about legal rights before asking them about the right to marry. Without such priming, the Gallup Poll’s support for same-sex marriage dipped by an average of 6 to 7 points, the brief said.

READ ENTIRETY (Gay marriage defies opinions of American majority, legal brief tells Supreme Court; By Cheryl Wetzstein; Washington Times; 4/23/15)

 

What you should notice in that Washington Times article is that polls controlled by a Left-oriented Mainstream Media supports the agenda to restructure Family Values in America to reflect a decimation of Biblical Morality to be replaced with a Secular Humanism in which a mercurial humanity decides which morals have value and which morals are pointlessly archaic.

 

When a majority of American voters lean to defining American culture to an antichrist motif rendering Christianity irrelevantly archaic that will be the real beginning of the end of Constitutional Liberty America’s Founding Fathers intended for the United States of America.

 

JRH 5/30/15

Please Support NCCR

*************************

See Also: “Focus on the Family President Reacts to Oral Arguments in SCOTUS Marriage Case

 
Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment’s First Section

Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?

The Biological Basis for Sexual Orientation

Nobody is ‘born that way,’ gay historians say

 

Homosexuality & Choice: Are Gay People ‘Born This Way?

 

SCOTUS, Gay Marriage and Need for Constitutional Amendment


Sodomites struck blind for angelic attempted rape

Attempted Rape of Angel of God – Sodomites Struck Blind

 

 

John R. Houk

© September 8, 2014

 

 

On October 6, 2014, in an unexpected move, the United States Supreme Court declined to review petitions challenging the legalization of same-sex marriage in five states, including Indiana, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The effect of this refusal to hear these petitions, or this non-decision on the legality of, or the right to, same-sex marriage for all 50 states, is that stays are now lifted on the three federal appeals courts’ decisions upholding such same-sex marriages. With these stays lifted, same-sex marriages are now legal in 24 states, up from 19.

 

Other states in those federal circuits are also affected by the Court’s actions on Monday, including Colorado, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. It is thought that the three federal appeals court will uphold same-sex marriages in these states as well, where such marriages are currently banned. If those bans are struck down, then the number of states legalizing same-sex marriage climbs from 24 to 30 in short time. (The Supreme Court’s “Non-Decision” On Same-Sex Marriage: The Impact On Employee Benefits After ‘Windsor’; By Jenny Kiesewetter; JD Supra Business Advisor; 10/7/14)

 

Activist Judges from the Lower Courts to the Appellate Courts have used the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868 after the Civil War to drudge Leftist ideology for homosexual rights as if that was the Original Intent inclusively for the moral depravity of homosexuality becoming normalized in our society. The very slow process of acceptance of the normalizing of the homosexuality began in 1960s with gay PhDs and MDs pushing academic flawed research to counter the Word of the Creator of ALL that exists materially and spiritually.

 

… [I]t’s been 50 years since Alfred Kinsey published his infamous 1948 report, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which has so profoundly and grievously affected not only American society, but the moral, social, and political order worldwide. It is difficult to exaggerate the horrendous effects of the widespread promotion and acceptance of his work. Kinsey’s “research” shook America’s moral foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. Its terrible results are obvious in the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc. We cannot hope to reverse this destructive, downward spiral if we do not recognize and openly confront the Kinseyite falsehoods and subversive premises and ideas that undergird popular attitudes and official policies today. (Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman; Interview found at Whale.to [yeah I know – Conspiracy Theory Website]; Interview took place in 2005; Dr. Judith Reisman exposed Alfred Kinsey as a fraud in his experimental findings justifying homosexuality among many other challenging moral foundations)

 

Do you think homosexuality was even remotely acceptable as a normal lifestyle in 1868?

 

Amendment XIV

 

Section 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. [If 14th Amendment stopped perhaps a stretch to a modern inclusiveness of gender more than race, BUT it is still a stretch and emancipated former Black Slaves is the Original Intent here and NOT same-sex normalcy.]

 

Section 2.

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. [Nothing to do with gender here, but only voting age – which has since been amended as well.]

 

Section 3.

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. [AGAIN, nothing about gender in service of any form of local, state or federal government. Specificity is given to those members of Southern States that attempted to forcefully secede from the Union of the USA.]

 

Section 4.

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. [No gender here but the promise of federal government to pay debts incurred during the Civil War but NOT any debts incurred by the rebelling Confederate States.]

 

Section 5.

 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. [Here it becomes a part of the rule of law to constitutionally enforce the civil rights to emancipated Black Slaves and not same-sex lifestyles. Based on Original intent, offering normalcy to moral depravity is NOT justified.] (Bracketed bold text is by this Blog Editor; 14th Amendment; present on Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute)

 

Unless you are a Leftist Living Constitution moron the 14th Amendment wasn’t even close to extending normalcy and special civil rights for followers of a homosexual lifestyle.

 

GASP! This is where all the Leftist transformers and Homosexual rise up and paint a picture these sentiments as the words of a homophobe bigot. This is where I stand up and look depravity apologists in the eye and tell them first I don’t fear homosexuals and second I join feel safe in joining the Creator of all that exists that homosexuality among males and females is an abomination in the Creator’s eyes.

 

Practicing homosexuals should be grateful that the mercy of God extending by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ the Son of God extends forgiveness through faith in God’s Grace toward those who choose the Lord as their Savior and dedicate themselves to following Christ understanding that sinful passions are forgiven.

 

SHAME on the Supreme Court dodging the issue as a final authority in the rule of law by not looking at same-sex depravity and step up to the plate to make the right decision to join Nature’s God in upholding Natural Law to overrule activist Judges that validate UNNATURAL moral practices.

 

Here are some quotes/excerpts for Christian Bible Believers to think on when Leftists and Homosexual Activists distort the Truth in God to manipulate American opinion via a guilt complex imposition:

 

Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences” describes the allegedly scientific research of Alfred Kinsey and colleagues, which largely shaped modern Western society’s beliefs and understanding of the nature of human sexuality.

 

Today, half a century later, Kinsey’s unchallenged conclusions are taught at every level of education – from elementary school to college – and quoted in textbooks as undisputed truth.

 

Incredibly, Kinsey’s research involved illegal sexual experimentation on several hundred young children. And his survey was based on a non–representative group of Americans — including hundreds of sex offenders, prostitutes, prison inmates and exhibitionists. Yet Kinsey’s grotesquely fraudulent research has served as the very foundation of modern “sex science,” and his claim that one in 10 people are homosexual is central to the gay—rights movement. And now comes the greatest hypocrisy of all — the pretense of providing safe-sex instructions to children while in reality advancing Kinsey’s agenda, including indulgence in high—risk lifestyles and behaviors. (Church History – the Homosexual age: [subtitle] Jesus warned us these times would come! – Subtitle by Dr. Judith Reisman; From BibleProbe.com)

 

*******

 

The Homosexual Agenda is a self-centered set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don’t have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.

 

 

Strategies and psychological tactics

 

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.[32] This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be “judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”[33], as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.

 

 

Influence in the academic world

 

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled First Things (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

 

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as “homophobia – a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality – is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.[63]

 

… READ ENTIRETY (Homosexual Agenda; Conservapedia article entry; Last Modified September 10, 2014 at 19:26)

 

 

******************

 

“It is beyond dispute that when the 14th Amendment was adopted 146 years ago, as a necessary post-Civil War era reform, it was not imagined to also mandate same-sex marriage, but that is what the Supreme Court is implying today. The Court is making the preposterous assumption that the People of the United States somehow silently redefined marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment.

 

“Nothing in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the 14th Amendment or any other constitutional provision authorizes judges to redefine marriage for the Nation. It is for the elected representatives of the People to make the laws of marriage, acting on the basis of their own constitutional authority, and protecting it, if necessary, from usurpation by the courts.

 

“Marriage is a question for the States. That is why I have introduced legislation, S. 2024, to protect the authority of state legislatures to define marriage. And that is why, when Congress returns to session, I will be introducing a constitutional amendment to prevent the federal government or the courts from attacking or striking down state marriage laws. – Senator Ted Cruz via The Atlantic (Ted Cruz to introduce constitutional amendment on gay marriage after Supreme Court ducks appeals; By ALLAHPUNDIT; Hot Air; 10/7/14 2:01 PM)

 

*************************

 

“According to the majority of this very Supreme Court in the Windsor decision, states and their citizens have the right and responsibility to define their marriage laws. It is shocking that at least six Supreme Court justices would allow unelected lower court judges to simply ignore the majority decision – and the Section of DOMA upheld in the Windsor decision.

 

“The only alternative to allowing these unelected liberal judges to impose their morality on all of America is to pass a constitutional amendment. To that end, last year I introduced the Marriage Protection Amendment (HJ Res. 51) to define marriage as only between one man and one woman.

 

“Like so many other states, the citizens of Kansas made an overwhelming decision to stand for traditional marriage when they adopted the Kansas Marriage Amendment. No one justice – no one court – no elite judicial activists should be permitted to redefine or un-define marriage to suit their distaste for traditional marriage.

 

“This most recent non-decision by the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates the need for a constitutional amendment on this issue.” (Huelskamp: We need a Constitutional Amendment on Same Sex Marriage; By Post Staff; Salina Post; 10/7/14)

 

*******************

 

The Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) would amend the United States Constitution to protect marriage, family and children by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Congressman Tim Huelskamp introduced the FMA on June 28, 2013.

 

… (Federal Marriage Amendment; By Tim Huelskamp Gov webpage)

 

******************************

 

H.J.RES.51 — Marriage Protection Amendment (Introduced in House – IH)

 

HJ 51 IH

 

113th CONGRESS

 

1st Session

 

H. J. RES. 51

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 

June 28, 2013

 

Mr. HUELSKAMP (for himself, Mr. BROUN of Georgia, Mr. PITTS, Mr. JORDAN, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. PITTENGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. BARTON, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. BROOKS of Alabama, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JONES, Mr. MEADOWS, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. FLEMING, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. PALAZZO, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. HALL, Mr. BRIDENSTINE, Mr. SCHWEIKERT, Mr. WOLF, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. STOCKMAN, Mr. HULTGREN, and Mr. LANKFORD) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

 

JOINT RESOLUTION

 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment’.

 

SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

 

Article–

 

`Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’. (Bill Text: 113th Congress (2013-2014), H.J.RES.51.IH; Thomas Library of Congress)

 

JRH 10/8/14

Please Support NCCR

Personhood Defeats Baby Killing Abortion


Truth of Abortion

 Personhood for All - No Matter how Small

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John R. Houk

© March 3, 2014

 

The Personhood Movement does not get a lot of publicity from the Mainstream Media because of an opinion set down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The decision of the SCOTUS Roe v. Wade made abortion on demand legal regardless of any legislation or people’s initiatives on a State or Federal level. The irony of the Roe v. Wade decision is SCOTUS then and in later decisions not necessarily about abortion but of personhood left the door open legislatures – State & Federal – to define personhood which would have a huge effect of the Secular Humanist Leftist agenda of demoralizing America. Which is probably the reason the MSM does not give a lot of attention except for occasionally printing anti-personhood propaganda.

 

“Nevertheless, the Supreme Court justices enshrined this logical inconsistency in their 1973 decision to legalize abortion. By allowing mothers to abort their babies, the Court implicitly operated on the assumption that in this instance it is acceptable for one person to end the life of another, giving no regard to the innocence of that person or his God-given right to life.

 

This could only be done by denying the personhood of the fetus (a Latin term for the unborn child, meaning “little one”). In the face of the state of Texas’ argument that “the fetus is a ‘person’ within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Justice Harry Blackmun responded, “If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.” Justice Blackmun nevertheless concluded that, “the word ‘person’ as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.”

 

The High Court’s confusion over the nature of personhood was again demonstrated on January 21, 2010, when it ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations are considered persons under the Constitution. Although technically corporations are identified as “legal fictions,” by extending to corporations “personhood,” the Court affirmed their right under the First Amendment to engage in political campaign speech.

 

Thus we have the supreme irony—which only our American judicial system is capable of —corporations are now considered persons, but unborn babies in the womb are not.” (A Person’s a Person, No Matter How Small; By Dr. Karen Gushta; Stop the War on Children; 2/21/11)

 

AND SO the very SCOTUS decisions that activist courts made child murder legal has given an out to make abortion murder by law.

 

With this in mind Senator Rand Paul has been involved for some time to get voters to sign a Personhood petition to support a Federal (U.S. Congress) Life Begins at Conception Act. I will post the most recent email signed by Rand Paul but is actually sent out by the National Pro-Life Alliance momentarily. Prior to that though I am going to post a page from Personhood USA that clearly presents the Personhood case. Personhood USA must be on to something for when I Googled “Personhood Movement” that organization came with a number of Left Wing blogs and news sites doing hit pieces on it. I even noticed in a one Google summary (sorry I didn’t pay attention at the time to the link) that suggested that Personhood USA might cause a rift in the Pro-Life movement. This kind of press makes Personhood USA an organization and website to be attentive toward if irritates Leftists so much.

 

If you don’t want to wait to get to Rand Paul to sign the petition you can go HERE. BUT I would hope you would read through the Personhood USA definition to get a clearer understanding.

 

JRH 3/3/14

Please Support NCCR

***************************

What is Personhood?

 

Personhood USA About Us Page

 

Personhood is the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings.

 

VIDEO: Pro-life? What is it?

 

“Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

When the term “person” is applied to a particular class of human beings, it is an affirmation of their individual rights. In other words, to be a person is to be protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

This terrifies the pro-abortion foes!

 

They know that if we clearly define the preborn baby as a person, they will have the same right to life as all Americans do!

 

This then also begs the question, is every human being a person?

 

There is a very real sense in which the need to answer this second question is, in itself, an absurdity.

 

If you look up the word “person” in your average dictionary (we’ll use Webster’s), you’ll find something like this: “Person n. A human being.”

 

“After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. It is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, “Father of Modern Genetics”

 

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons, and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law.

 

Personhood holds the key to filling the “Blackmun Hole,” a startling admission in the Roe v. Wade majority opinion:

 

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”

Justice Harry Blackmun, Roe v. Wade

 

VIDEO: Roe v. Wade

 

In 1973, the science of fetology was not able to prove, as it can now, that a living, fully human, and unique individual exists at the moment of fertilization and continues to grow through various stages of development in a continuum until death.

 

However, pick up any embryology book today and you will find that your life and every person’s life began at fertilization (Click to read more). [Blog Editor: Unfortunately the link is missing where it reads “Click to read more”.]

 

“[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being.”

Keith L. Moore in The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

 

For nearly forty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is that, in America, there is a group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. It is truly astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

 

“In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.”

Virginia Supreme Court, 1858

 

VIDEO: A Day To Advance!

 

Throughout history, certain people groups have felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood, and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such horrors possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for preborn Americans.

 

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the United States today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in this shameful injustice.

 

What is a person? A person is a human being at every age.

 

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice”

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

__________________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

By Senator Rand Paul

Sent: 3/1/2014 9:08 AM

Sent From: National Pro-Life Alliance

 

For over 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

You see, in the coming year it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record.

And your petition today will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.

Please click here to sign your petition right away.

 

By turning up the heat on Congress in 2013 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the next election.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act.

 

The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

 

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

 

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S.

 

The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade, along with a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

________________________

Personhood Defeats Baby Killing Abortion

John R. Houk

© March 3, 2014

_________________________

What is Personhood?

 

About Personhood USA

 

What is Personhood?

 

Personhood is a movement working to respect the God-given right to life
by recognizing all human beings as persons who are “created in the
image of God” from the beginning of their biological development,
without exceptions.

 

What is Personhood USA?

 

Personhood USA desires to glorify Jesus Christ in a way that creates a
culture of life so that all innocent human lives are protected by love and
by law.

 

Personhood USA serves the pro-life community by assisting local
groups to initiate citizen, legislative, and political action focusing on the
ultimate goal of the pro-life movement: personhood rights for all
innocent humans.

 

We intend to build the support of at least two thirds of the states in an
effort to reaffirm personhood within the U.S. Constitution.

 

Personhood USA opposes vigilante violence.

 

Personhood USA is a 501(c) (4) Christian ministry that welcomes those who believe in the God-given right to life.

 

Approved by the Personhood USA Board and Advisory Board 8/7/2010

 

What can we do to help?

 

This is the first question Personhood USA asks READ THE REST

_________________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

National Pro-Life Alliance Mission

 

Because every human life is precious in the eyes of God, and science and common sense dictate that life begins at conception, it is clear that abortion is the wanton taking of human life and no truly great nation can allow this practice to take place.

Ever since the dreadful Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, more than 55 million precious unborn babies have lost their lives.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s members, staff and volunteers are dedicated to halting this slaughter once and for all. And despite the many remaining obstacles, there is light at the end of the tunnel.

National Pro-Life Alliance’s Focus Is Passing Substantive Pro-Life Legislation

The National Pro-Life Alliance occupies a unique and important role in the pro-life movement. The focus of many other pro-life organizations is research, publications or counseling.

These are all important and worthy activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn from the moment of conception onward.

We believe that it is not sufficient to merely support minor regulations on abortion in a few outrageous cases.

Instead, members of the National Pro-Life Alliance lobby both incumbents and candidates for office to come out clearly for measure like a Life at Conception Act to legislatively define constitutionally-protected “personhood” as beginning at the moment of conception.

Grass-Roots Pressure Has Built Record Support in Congress for Ending, Not Merely Regulating, Abortion-on-Demand

The grass-roots lobbying efforts of our 650,000 members have garnered a record level of support and cosponsors for such substantive measures.

The fact is, even with pro-abortion politicians still in leadership positions in the Senate and a radical President in the White House, pro-lifers have record support in Congress. More than 80 new members of Congress were elected on pro-life platforms. Now pro-lifers must hold the feet of each and every self-proclaimed “pro-life” member of Congress to the fire and demand meaningful legislation to limit, and ultimately end, abortion-on-demand.

Yet pro-abortion politicians from both parties will use every trick available to stop pro-life legislation. Nevertheless, READ THE REST

SUPPORT Life Begins at Conception


abortion-is-murder-definition

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2013

 

I am a Pro-Life/ANTI-Abortion kind of guy. I don’t believe a woman has a right to kill an unborn baby’s life. The woman might carry the unborn life but that does not make the baby a portion of her body. The concept of Pro-Choice – i.e. a woman should be able to choose decisions about her own body – is a load of self-delusion by Leftist ideology more interested in controlling/managing the extent of the Earth’s population (See Also HERE) than the Civil Liberties of a person’s life (Personhood) that has not been born yet.

 

In early 1973 the Supreme Court exacted a piece of unconstitutional Judicial Activism by creating law rather than ruling on the constitutionality of a law. In essence the case of Roe v Wade the Justices decided by fiat and a 7-2 vote to allow women to kill their unborn babies on demand. The Heritage Foundation has a great summary of the Roe v Wade decision:

 

Summary

In a 7-2 opinion by Justice Harry Blackmun, the Court ruled that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a woman’s right to an abortion.  The Due Process Clause protects a broad right to privacy that is also found in the Ninth Amendment and the penumbras of the Bill of Rights.  This substantive due process right to privacy permits a woman to terminate her pregnancy for any reason during the first trimester.  Subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the state may reasonably regulate abortions in ways related to maternal health.  After viability, the state may regulate or proscribe abortions, but it must permit them if found necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother, an exception which was expanded in Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton.

 

Analysis

This case is activist because the Supreme Court relies upon notions of living constitutionalism, invoking the doctrine of “substantive due process” to create a right that is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution.  This doctrine, which was established in Dred Scott v. Sandford, is the prime example of judges reading broad constitutional terms divorced from any textual or originalist moorings, thereby making them empty vessels into which they can pour any policy preferences they desire.  The Due Process Clause, which is now being used by judges as a judicial wildcard, was simply meant to protect the citizens from government abuse by ensuring that no one be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by a fair process.  The fact that the Court has used the word substantive to describe a clause that is clearly about process creates an anachronism that defies language and logic.  The Court in Roe wields the Clause to support abortion rights without any reasoned justification: after citing previous Supreme Court cases that erroneously established a broad constitutional right to privacy, the Court blithely asserted that this right “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

 

The opinion, which received a wave of criticism from those on both sides of the abortion debate, is infamous not only for its foundationless assertions about the meaning of the Due Process Clause, but also for its flawed historical analysis.  In an attempt to evaluate societal opinions about abortion throughout history, Blackmun looks to ancient societies, such as the Persian Empire, as well as the views of modern American lobbying organizations, but completely skips over the state of abortion regulation at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Conveniently so.  In 1868 “there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion, stated Justice William Rehnquist in his dissent.

 

In his dissent, Justice Byron White accurately described this decision as “an exercise of raw judicial power.”  Under the guise of constitutional interpretation, the activist majority seized from the American people their ability to decide this controversial issue through the democratic process. (Roe v. Wade; Heritage Foundation)

 

There is an innovative Pro-Life plan to circumvent Leftists in Congress and in the Supreme Court. The plan is called the Life at Conception Movement (Personhood). Some Pro-Life Activists in individual States have been lobbying for such a law on a State basis. Senator Rand Paul has taken the Movement to the National level by introducing S. 583 in March 2013:

 

Calendar No. 30

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

 

S. 583

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

March 14, 2013

 

Mr. PAUL (for himself, Mr. WICKER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BURR, Mr. COATS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. ENZI, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. HOEVEN, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. MORAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, and Mr. JOHANNS) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

 

March 18, 2013

 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


A BILL

 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Life at Conception Act of 2013’.

 

SEC. 2. RIGHT TO LIFE.

 

To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child.

 

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

 

In this Act:

 

(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING- The terms ‘human person’ and ‘human being’ include each member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

 

(2) STATE- The term ‘State’, and as used in the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution, includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

 

Calendar No. 30

113th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 583

 

A BILL

 

To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.


March 18, 2013

Read the second time and placed on the calendar (S. 583: A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the rightGovTrack.us)

 

Here is the Library of Congress summary of S. 583:

 

3/14/2013–Introduced.

 

Life at Conception Act of 2013 – Declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being beginning at the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual comes into being. Prohibits construing this Act to require the prosecution of any woman for the death of her unborn child. (S. 583 Library of Congress Summary; GovTrack.us)

 

The only drawback I see about S. 583 is that it is a Bill rather than an Amendment. A Bill is easy to repeal depending on the Political Party in power in Congress and/or POTUS. An Amendment centered around the Life at Conception Movement is difficult if not also impossible to get through Congress with America’s current political spectrum divide. On the other hand if Congress managed to pass such an Amendment I suspect a sufficient number of States would line up behind it. The most populous States may be bastions of Leftist deception; however more States are Conservative on the Pro-Life stand pertaining to abortion. Amendments are ratified by State Ratification rather than a direct popular vote.

 

If S. 583 passed with the slimmest of margins in both Houses of Congress I suspect the voters’ choice for President in 2008 and 2012 – our Marxist-in-Chief – would veto the legislation. However, a successful Congressional campaign to enact the Life at Conception Act can lead to an annual thorn in Obama’s side until a Conservative President is elected in 2016. With the Life at Conception Act in mind it should be a no-brainer that Conservatives must win both the Senate and the House in the November 2014 General Elections.

 

At any rate the standard form of pressure that can be placed on our Representatives and Senators is via the petition method. Obviously petitions have no impact on the law on a Federal basis; however Representatives and Senators due pay attention to the numbers of their constituents that sign a petition. The petition numbers give legislators an idea on how to operate their campaigns for reelection.

 

The National Pro-Life Alliance (NPLA) has been at least one of the vehicles that Senator Rand Paul to educate voters on the Life at Conception Act and how such a bill would use the Supreme Court’s own guidelines to make abortion on demand as a birth control method to at least become limited. The NPLA is not only using petitions to influence Representatives and Senators but the organization is also using the petition method as a fundraiser. This a fantastic fundraiser to participate in particularly for Christians who still believe in Biblical Morality. The NPLA petition will lead you to a donation page that will offer choices of donations. Take note that if you are in my boat and have a tight budget and you desire to make sure you give to your Church you might feel a bit limited if you even can donate to the Life at Conception cause; nonetheless one of the options is “other”. So I say, “DO SOMETHING!’ even if it is just $1 buck.

 

JRH 10/25/13

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

By Senator Rand Paul

Sent: 10/24/2013 3:23 PM

Sent by National Pro-Life Alliance

 

Dear Concerned American,

For 40 years, nine unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with innocent human life.

They have invented laws that condemned to painful deaths without trial more than 56 million babies for the crime of being “inconvenient.”

In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling forced abortion-on-demand down our nation’s throat.

In the past, many in the pro-life movement have felt limited to protecting a life here and there — passing some limited law to slightly control abortion in the more outrageous cases.

But some pro-lifers always seem to tiptoe around the Supreme Court, hoping they won’t be offended.

Now the time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over.

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.

That is why it’s so urgent you sign the petition to your Senators and Congressman that I will link to in a moment.

You see, in the coming year it is vital every Member of Congress be put on record.

And your petition today will help do just that.

Signing the Life at Conception Act petition will help break through the opposition clinging to abortion-on-demand and get a vote on this life-saving bill to overturn Roe v. Wade.

A Life at Conception Act declares unborn children “persons” as defined by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, entitled to legal protection.

This is the one thing the Supreme Court admitted in Roe v. Wade that would cause the case for legal abortion to “collapse.”

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined “right of privacy” which it “discovered” in so-called “emanations” of “penumbrae” of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster.

But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

“We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man’s knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”

 

Then the High Court made a key admission:

“If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case [i.e., “Roe” who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment.”

The fact is, the 14th Amendment couldn’t be clearer:

“. . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

Furthermore, the 14th Amendment says:

“Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

That’s exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

But this simple, logical and obviously right legislation will not become law without a fight.

And that’s where your help is critical.
Please click here to sign your petition right away.

By turning up the heat on Congress in 2013 through a massive, national, grass-roots campaign, one of two things will happen.

If you and other pro-life activists pour on enough pressure, pro-lifers can force politicians from both parties who were elected on pro-life platforms to make good on their promises and ultimately win passage of this bill.

But even if a Life at Conception Act doesn’t pass immediately, the public attention will set the stage to defeat radical abortionists in the next election.

Either way, the unborn win . . . unless you do nothing.

That’s why the National Pro-Life Alliance is contacting hundreds of thousands of Americans just like you to mobilize a grass-roots army to pass a Life at Conception Act. The first thing you must do is sign your petition by clicking here.

They are the key ingredient in the National Pro-Life Alliance’s plan to pass a Life at Conception Act. They’ll also organize:

 

Hard-hitting TV, radio and newspaper ads to be run just before each vote, detailing the horrors of abortion and mobilizing the American people.

 

Extensive personal lobbying of key members of Congress by rank and file National Pro-Life Alliance members and staff.

 

A series of newspaper columns to be distributed free to all 1,437 daily newspapers now published in the United States.

 

An extensive email, direct mail and telephone campaign to generate at least one million petitions to Congress like the one linked to in this letter.

 

Of course, to do all this will take a lot of money.

Just to email and mail the letters necessary to produce one million petitions will cost at least $460,000.

Newspaper, TV and radio are even more expensive.

But I’m sure you’ll agree pro-lifers cannot just sit by watching the slaughter continue.

The National Pro-Life Alliance’s goal is to deliver one million petitions to the House and Senate in support of a Life at Conception Act.

When the bill comes up for a vote in Congress, it is crucial to have the full weight of an informed public backing the pro-life position.

I feel confident that the folks at National Pro-Life Alliance can gather those one million petitions.

But even though many Americans who receive this email will sign the petition, many won’t be able to contribute. That’s why it’s vital you give $10, $25, $50, $100, or even more if you can.

Without your help the National Pro-Life Alliance will be unable to gather the one million petitions and mount the full-scale national campaign necessary to pass a Life at Conception Act.

A sacrificial gift of $35 or even $100 or $500 now could spare literally millions of innocent babies in years to come. But if that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know that a National Pro-Life Alliance supporter wants to make your decision to give easier by agreeing to match your donation, no matter the size, increasing its value by 50%!

So please respond right away with your signed petition.

 

And please help with a contribution of at least $25 or $35. Some people have already given as much as $500. Others have given $50 and $100.

But no matter how much you give, whether it’s chipping in with $10 or a larger contribution of $150, I guarantee your contribution is urgently needed and will be deeply appreciated.

That’s why I hope and pray that you will not delay a moment to make a contribution of $1000, $500, $100, $50, $25, or even $10 if you can.

Your contribution to the National Pro-Life Alliance and your signed petition will be the first steps toward reversing Roe v. Wade and waking up the politicians about where our barbarous pro-abortion policy is taking us.

Sincerely,

Rand Paul,
United States Senator

 

P.S. The Supreme Court itself admitted — if Congress declares unborn children “persons” under the law, the constitutional case for abortion-on-demand “collapses.”

 

Please help make that happen. Sign your petition today to the National Pro-Life Alliance to reverse Roe v. Wade, along with a sacrificial contribution of $100, $50, $25.  If that’s too much, please consider chipping in with a donation of $10.

You should also know a generous donor has agreed to match all contributions, no matter the size, increasing your gift to the National Pro-Life Alliance by 50%!

_______________________________

SUPPORT Life Begins at Conception

John R. Houk

© October 25, 2013

______________________________

Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade

 

NPLA Legislative Agenda

 

The National Pro-Life Alliance occupies a unique and important role in the pro-life movement. The focus of many other pro-life groups is research, publications or counseling.

These are all important and worthwhile activities, but the National Pro-Life Alliance is singular in its focus on passing pro-life legislation that will protect the unborn from the moment of conception.

A wide array of legislative opportunities exists today upon which pro-life Americans must capitalize. Every year, National Pro-Life Alliance members are polled to set legislative and tactical priorities. Please click on the links below to learn more about the initiatives the National Pro-Life Alliance and its members rank as top priorities.

None of these battles will be easy. But they are all ultimately winnable. Pro-lifers owe the unborn nothing less. Thanks again for your interest in our program and your support for the unborn.

Life at Conception Overturns Roe v Wade


John R. Houk

© July 28, 2013

 

Senator Rand Paul explains how Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision allows for legislators – State level and Federal level – to define when life begins for an unborn baby. Thus defining life beginning at conception effectively ends abortion murder. Why? Because the 14th Amendment protects life.

 

VIDEO: Rand Paul on the Life at Conception Act

 

Amendment 14

 

SECTION 1.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

SECTION 2.

 

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

 

SECTION 3.

 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

 

SECTION 4.

 

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

SECTION 5.

 

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

Section 1 is the reference giving rights to humans. I highlighted the relevant portions in bold print above, but for the sake of brevity below is the highlighted bold print of Section 1:

 

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

In the matter of Texas disallowing abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy when the kid is fully formed and recognized as a human, you can see the outrage I feel toward Leftists that feel a21 Week Old Baby on Delivery woman’s Right of Choice outweighs a human being’s Right to Live.

 

Here is a link to the petition Senator Rand Paul is talking about.

 

JRH 7/28/13

Please Support NCCR