Commentary
For those who wonder what the rule of the Roe v. Wade has to do with other nations, the fact is that as a dominant Western power, the US system and culture, including its jurisprudence, has a global impact. It means that you have power.
From the beginning of the 20th century, it was inevitable that the United States would surpass Britain as soon as it made an economic and military decision. The United States was uncertain and often reluctant to play a leading role, but with the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States finally embraced global political leadership.
This is the first time that the old and new dominions have the same language and legal background as their predecessors, both of which were constitutional democracy as well as the British dominions and colonial families.
This meant that the cultural, moral, and legal developments of the United States would have a tremendous impact, first in the English-speaking world and then beyond.
Other countries are possible and many will be influenced by the American constitutional structure.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the founders of the United States, is undoubtedly based broadly on the British Constitution with a separation of powers, including jurisdiction, and respects the notion of unjustification as much as British courts.
In other words, the Supreme Court was expected to respect the roles of the legislature and the executive branch and not be able to effectively change the Constitution in the guise of an interpretation. Judges, or their majority, were never expected to make the Constitution mean whatever they wanted to mean.
Activist judiciary
A central feature of the American constitutional structure was to set up checks and balances to prevent abuse of power, but what the Supreme Court did not expect, the uncontrollable and irresponsible legislator.
The worst example of this is Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), who said that African Americans, even if free, could not be citizens and slavery was constitutionally protected. I have determined that there is.
As a result, the North-South Missouri Compromise was cancelled. This sadly led the country to the path of civil war.
Later, after the Civil War, the court ruled in favor of the famous “separate but equal” separation law, and that Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) should have been achieved in the post-Civil War era. Retreat, true legal equality for more than half a century.
Now, at the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, courts have overturned what the constitutional texts and meanings of the judiciary can never justify, as originally intended by the people who drafted the constitution and the countries that adopted it.
The Supreme Court activist role has served as a precedent and encouragement to Western activist judges, seeing that their courts may play an unexplained legislative role. Therefore, in one Australian state, as in Brazil, one judge was able to impose the same result.
But in other areas of law, judges will extend their interpretation far beyond their original intentions, and the Dobbs reversal will encourage judges who stick to the role of justice to oppose activism. I think.
Country of believers
Do we need to stop a bit to ask why mass abortion was effectively legislated by judges? Why wasn’t it done by a politician who has the sole role of drafting and introducing legislation? And why did this judicial approach continue in several other countries?
The answer is simple. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been possible.
At that time, politicians who went to constituencies with legislative policies such as the Law vs. Wade case would have lost elections, perhaps the major US elections equivalent to Australia’s preliminary elections, but far more, especially in the Republicans. It was democratic.
It is important to understand that America in the Roe v. Wade era was more than most comparable nations, nations of believers, essentially Judaism and Christianity.
One of the greatest explanations of madness that exists in the West today is contained in what GK Chesterton has never actually written, but I think is in line with his ideas.
This can be formulated in my words, not in Chesterton’s words. He will believe in anything. “
This is everywhere today. It describes much of the modern world. If people do not believe in God, or more likely do not know if God exists, it can be argued that it is a good practice to admit that God may exist.
This is because rationalism is not the only true alternative to religious beliefs and beliefs. Rationalism involves another so-called gear shift.
Marxist onslaught and moral degeneration
When you completely remove religious beliefs from your area of belief, other beliefs come in. And the strongest doctrine in the West today is modern Marxism. This is where the proletariat, which refused to work with Marxists, was replaced by the moveable feasts of racial, sexual, and so-called “gender” victims.
Marxist enemies, whether classic or modern, are still the same. It is an institution or person who can command higher loyalty and charm than Marxists. This clearly includes family and private property at the forefront.
As seen in Engels’ famous book “Family Origins, Private Property and States” (1884), Marxists have always feared and hated families as an independent and autonomous system. Poison the children’s hearts about their parents.
The long-term Marxist ambition was to reduce family influence and longevity, and family influence. Women, in particular, are encouraged to play the role of mother as a mere occasional aid to their lives, with many of the roles of mother being superficially taken over by the country. Only then, Marxists say, women can be free.
Therefore, the US Supreme Court’s encouragement of abortion has unleashed the killing of babies on a truly extraordinary industrial scale.
However, imposing anger like the Roe v. Wade case had another purpose. It is to remove or reduce the decency and respect for life that the average American had in 1973 from similar anger. If they were ready to accept the phlebotomy of such an innocent person, it would be more acceptable. Especially among the elite, the sense of dignity can be paralyzed.
Not surprisingly, household names such as Disney, Netflix, JP Morgan, and Amazon are now subsidizing workers to get rid of babies they don’t want. Is this virtue signaling, cold-blooded cost savings by having no maternity leave, not hiring a mother, or both?
This is because the ugliness of what was happening under the Roe v. Wade case was parablely brought back to Americans and the world when they saw the managers of the abortion industry a few years ago. Regardless.
Peak miscarriageists, planned filiation executives, were captured Undercover video He joked in 2015 while negotiating a sales contract for an intact baby’s body part. In one example, senior management Dr. Mary Gutter allegedly joked, “I want a Lamborghini,” over pricing for each liver, lung, and brain specimen. These videos have caused great anger not only nationwide but all over the world.
Moreover, since this time, the world has seen demands and progress on the introduction of infanticide and euthanasia without consent and / or for purposes other than end-stage disease.
As a result, activist judges did more than just preside over the innocent slaughter. They normalized acceptance of such anger and kept people away from religion in order to accept evil. The damage is enormous.
The impact of the Roe v. Wade incident was extremely harmful worldwide. It has been reversed, but can the effects of the loss of underlying sense of decency on human life, and above all, the respect for life be restored?
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
follow
David Flint is an emeritus professor known for his Australian leadership for a constitutional monarchy and his tenure as head of the Australian Broadcasting Station. He is also a former president of the Australian Press Council and the World Press Council Association.