.

See: Supreme Court voids Texas abortion regulations as “undue burden” on abortion providers (Updated)

”The current test for evaluating the constitutionality of state-level abortion restrictions is the so-called “undue burden” test from the Court’s 1992 decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.”

In striking down a Texas regulatory law governing abortion clinics by saying the law creates an “undue burden”, our Supreme Court has actually refused to preform it’s assigned duty to establish if the law is within the reserved powers of the State of Texas protected by the Tenth Amendment, or if the law violates the text of our written federal Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

The “undue burden” test is nothing but another “test” invented by our tyrannical court to circumvent both the text and legislative intent of our written constitution and impose its personal sense of justice, fairness or reasonableness as the Supreme Law of the Land while second guessing the wisdom of a state’s legislative function.

But this kind of test crap is nothing new. Keep in mind the Court has invented a number of tests unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s scrutiny that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s approval. Of course, this “test” is merely designed to allow a majority on the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not constitutional, to a subjective question having nothing to do with a law’s constitutionality.

Whether rational or not, a legislative act which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! In fact, to do so is to usurp legislative authority and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

In the instant case we are told by a majority on the Court that the Texas Law creates an “undue Burden” on those it seeks to regulate, and therefore, the law is struck down. But where is the court delegated a power to second guess the wisdom of legislation and that it imposes an undue burden? It is nowhere to be found in our Constitution.

In fact, the Court’s only job in this case is to determine if the power to regulate abortion is one delegated to the United States, or is a power reserved by the states. Additionally, if it is a reserved power of the states, a legitimate question to be answered is, has it been exercised by the state of Texas in a manner which is specifically prohibited by the wording of our federal Constitution?

In answer to the first question Federalist No 45 confirms the power to regulate abortions is not a power delegated to the federal government.

Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Keep in mind the 10th Amendment specifically protects the reserved powers of the States!

And with respect to the second question there is no wording in the federal constitution which can be pointed to which prohibits the regulation of abortions as written by the Texas Legislature.


The bottom line is, our SC is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and is acting as a despotic sitting Constitutional Convention imposing its personal sense of justice, fairness and reasonableness as the supreme law of the land.

JWK



"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968