The Left Is Using The Issues Of Guns & Abortion To Manipulate The People
With the recent US Supreme Court decisions on abortion and gun rights, the political opportunists and agendized media are doing everything they can to play on the emotions of the people. Both disingenuous (or constitutionally illiterate) politicians and so-called “journalists” are employing deceitful headlines and false narratives to serve a far-Left ideology and agenda.
In both the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (Bruen) and Dobbs, State Health Officer Of The Mississippi Department of Health v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Dobbs), the narratives being used by the political and activist classes and the mainstream media complex to mislead the public on the meanings of the rulings is nothing less than intellectually criminal and in the least exploitative.
In A Nut Shell...
Those seeking to exploit the public are doing so through the targeting of emotions and the purposeful disregard for the actual legal questions at hand. They are dangling the bright and shiny thing of emotionalism to lure the public’s attention away from the core facts of each of the cases and away from the facts used to arrive at the decisions and the reality of the rulings.
The Dobbs ruling does not – does not – outlaw abortion at the federal level. Nor does it “remove” federal protection for a woman (amazing how we are all in agreement on what the definition of a woman is right now) to seek out an abortion.
With regard to Bruen, that decision does not – does not – open the flood gates for anyone and everyone to freely and without license purchase a firearm in the State of New York or any other state that employed a “proper cause requirement.”
Yet to listen to the mainstream media complex and the exploitative elected officials and activists from the Left, these decisions see weapons being passed out with every McDonald’s Happy Meal, and any woman seeking an abortion is now traveling shadowy alleys using backwater payment methods to seedy de-certified doctors with an assortment of rusty coat hangers.
Both narratives – and all their variations – are demonstrably false.
The Overturning Of Roe v. Wade (Roe)
What the Dobbs decision does is countermand a Supreme ruling that even the hyper-liberal Ruth Bader Ginsberg said – on many occasions – was a horrible ruling. But while Ginsberg’s criticism of Roe centered on the fact that it used “privacy” as the constitutional vehicle and that the law was “physician-centered” not “woman-centered,” the fact of the matter is the Roe ruling was steeped in judicial activism and was ineligible to be heard by the SCOTUS.
The simple explanation for this claim comes in a proper understanding of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Simply put, the federal jurisdiction over abortion doesn’t exist; abortion doesn’t fall under any of the enumerated powers and, therefore, the federal government’s authority in the matter falls prey to the 10th Amendment, which reads:
“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.”
The US Supreme Court never should have heard Roe because the dispute was a state matter per the US Constitution. The SCOTUS never should have ruled in the first place. So, with the Dobbs ruling, the authority to preside over the issue of abortion returns to the states. It does not outlaw abortion.
One life-long friend and prominent attorney out of Chicago (of all places) explained it thusly:
“Folks, the reality is that this decision does not ban abortions; it sends the issue back to each individual state where it should have stayed all along. Despite the emotions involved, it’s an interesting decision to read and I think is correct because it reaffirms what the 10th Amendment states...The federal government every single day for years has encroached more and more into our lives, including an increased reliance by presidents on ‘Executive Orders,’ which are really just a way of circumventing the legislature. Hopefully, this is the start of a trend to limit the growth and expansion of the federal government.”
So What Does This Mean For Access To Abortion?
The Framers abhorred the idea of an all-powerful centralized government. In the creation of our Republic (not a Democracy), they had just thrown off the shackles of an all-power centralized government in the British Monarchy. This is precisely the reason they limited the federal government’s purview to those enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, reserving the overwhelming bulk of governmental authority to the States.
That establishes the core intent for what our nation is and what it was set up to achieve. We are, literally, fifty separate states with fifty separate constitutions that have engaged in a compact to form a federal government with enumerated and limited powers to conduct government on behalf of both the states and the sovereign citizens of the Republic created by that compact.
The Dobbs decision rightfully returns the purview of authority over the issue of abortion to the states. Each state will have the autonomy to decide for itself whether or to what degree abortion will be legal or illegal. States like New York, Illinois, California, Oregon, and Washington will most likely have extremely liberal abortion laws, whereas states like Texas, Florida, Oklahoma, Montana, Idaho, and Missouri are likely to establish more rigid criteria for the acquisition of an abortion.
To wit, a woman who finds herself pregnant in the United States is not disenfranchised from acquiring an abortion because there is no prohibition on traveling between states to seek out the procedure. The same cannot be said for the portability of health insurance.
If State Sovereignty Is The Reason Why Doesn’t It Apply To Firearms?
The Bruen ruling held that “New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”
This was due to the fact that the New York law established a requirement to prove a special need to execute the rights held under the 2nd Amendment. In the ruling, Justice Thomas wrote:
“...American governments simply have not broadly prohibited the public carry of commonly used firearms for personal defense. Nor have they generally required law-abiding, responsible citizens to ‘demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community’ to carry arms in public...
“ The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees...The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.”
So if the argument for state sovereignty is good enough for the overturning of Roe in the Dobbs ruling, why doesn’t it apply to New York’s sovereignty as enumerated in the 10th Amendment? Because the Right to Bear Arms is enumerated; it is specifically mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, which reads in part:
“...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It is for this reason that each and every piece of gun-control legislation crafted by the power-grabbers in the federal government is vulnerable to challenge. Neither the federal government (because of the specificity of the language prohibiting the federal government from encroaching on the right to bear arms) nor the state governments (by virtue of their compact to the Constitution and the Bill of rights) have the authority to deny a law-abiding citizen who exists in good mental health the right to bear arms.
It’s Not About The Issues It’s About The Sanctity Of The Rule Of Law
Lost in the manipulation of the public’s emotions on both of these issues by opportunistically disingenuous politicians and their toady media lackeys are the points of law on which these decisions were based; the constitutional law of the matters.
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not – as one social media ignoramus put it – “vaguely worded.” The enumerated powers are clearly stated and the process for adding to or negating any of those enumerated powers is clearly outlined in the amendment process as outlined in Article V of the US Constitution.
Simply legislating a perceived “right” into existence or using Executive Branch authority to regulate such existence is not only unconstitutional, but it is also tyrannical and worthy of immediate and direct action to confront the challenge to our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Whole of the Charters of Freedom.
As my friend the attorney said so plainly:
“The federal government every single day for years has encroached more and more into our lives, including an increased reliance by presidents on ‘Executive Orders,’ which are really just a way of circumventing the legislature. Hopefully, this is the start of a trend to limit the growth and expansion of the federal government.”
There are still rulings pending from the SCOTUS from this session of the court and one of them has to do with the EPA’s ability to create regulations with the force of law without the constitutional authority to do so. The implications of this forthcoming ruling will touch every aspect of our lives in the United States.
Should the Justices rule in this matter along the lines they did in Dobbs and Bruen, the least likely player on the federal government stage will have actually served the people of the United States by crippling the federal government’s regulatory despotism and setting the stage for revisiting the Court’s Commerce Clause rulings in NLRB v Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), United States v Darby (1941) and Wickard v Filburn (1942).
Meanwhile, as Leftists politicians and agitators threaten our Supreme Court Justices and terrorize our cities with promises of “If we don’t get it, burn it down; every city, every town, burn the precinct to the ground,” it will be We the People who remove the ammunition of propaganda from the radical Left; the fascists who would see the complete control of our nation’s people enslaved to the whims and dictates of an all-power central government.
We must stand our ground on social media and in social settings holding to the facts and pushing back against the empowered ignorance held by the uninformed and emotionally manipulated Woke on the rulings of Dobbs and Bruen.
Sow the seeds of distrust in the uninformed masses toward their manipulators and you have provided them the pathway toward freedom and liberty for themselves and their loved ones. It is the American thing to do.
