Rowe vs. Wade’s decision is not about abortion. It’s about preserving a republic

It’s time for us Americans to remember that we have to manage our own lives

Although feminist and leftist activists across the country have condemned the leaked Rowe v. Wade Supreme Court decision as an attack on women’s rights, the real issue is not about women or even abortion. What happens next with Rowe v. Wade could help bring the United States back to the founding father’s intentions – a court that controls majority rule because it upholds the Constitution.

When debating issues like Rowe v. Wade, it is important that we all first and foremost understand that America is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. In a democracy, the minority of the population is always under the rule of the majority – no matter how morally bankrupt the majority is. The founders feared that scene and thanks to the wisdom and foresight of men like James Madison, our system of government does not work that way. Instead, we have a system of checks and balances under Republican rule, where minorities are not at the mercy of the majority. Over time, this essential feature of our government has been diluted and sometimes completely ignored, much like the original Row vs. Wade decision. In 1973, if the judges had respected the role of the courts in relation to the constitution, the abortion law would have remained in force at the state level. Making Roy’s case the law of the land for a small group of judges was, in fact, unconstitutional.

Nearly fifty years later, the Supreme Court has decided to reverse this bad decision based on the correct constitutional basis. Of course, the social consequence of this kind of wrong correction would be more civil unrest. America is already a very divided country, and our political and cultural departments have put increasing pressure on state governors and lawmakers to use their full constitutional powers. I believe it is best in the long run, because it will decentralize some federal powers that should never have been established. Unfortunately this has happened on a hot-button cultural issue. The fatigue of protest is real.

Abortion activists target U.S. Supreme Court justices

Depending on which side you are on the abortion controversy, you may be happy or angry at Governor California Newsom’s emotional commitment to make his state more abortion-friendly than ever before. In contrast, more conservative-leaning states are likely to restrict abortion or ban it altogether. But both of these situations present exactly the way our system works. Because the United States is a large and religiously diverse country, and thus incorporates a pattern of personal beliefs, inflammatory issues such as abortion are usually best decided at the state level. James Madison described it in Federalist 10 when he wrote:

“The influence of party leaders may ignite a flame in their respective states, but will be unable to spread a general tension through other states. A religious community can become a political party in a part of the Confederacy; But the various communities spread across its entire face must protect the National Assembly from any danger from that source.

As such, we have state law and federal law, but America’s ideal view is that in most situations, state law, not federal law, governs the lives of citizens. “

One of the great things about America is that if you don’t like the politics or the laws of a particular state, you can get up. And we do. Since 2020, we have seen people move into a stable immigration state that is more closely aligned with their political, cultural and worldview. If this trend intensifies in the coming years, as we simultaneously return power to states, such as with the abolition of Roe v Wade, America will look very different, even within a generation.

White House comments on Supreme Court protests

The knee-jerk reaction may be that we will be a more divided country than we are now, but in my view, limiting federal power will lead to peace and reconciliation across the country.

Let’s not forget that at one time, all Americans – red, blue and purple – believed and wanted Less Government, no more. I could have written a book about why we have retreated, but the important thing now is that we are back in our tradition. With solutions like the Convention of States we have a shot at doing just that. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, such a convention may be called legal for the purpose of proposing amendments and limiting federal powers. It would be a win-win for all Americans if at least thirty-four states came together to make it happen, and now is the right time. Given the biden administration’s pressure for more federal control, a convention of states will help address some of the overreach.

As Americans, it seems, we are slowly waking up to the realization that we have been sleeping with passengers on a ship for too long to carry us.

The statements, opinions and opinions expressed in this column do not merely represent the author and RT’s.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.