State “Interposition” To Roe v Wade

“America’s Rabbi’ proposes a new avenue of attack

“Judicial Activism” has evolved into a commonly accepted practice in America’s federal courts. Many liberal judges clearly feel that their appointments empower them with the prerogative to create constitutional rights based upon their particular views of society’s needs and ills. And the beginning of this corruption of our judiciary can be directly traced back to the 1973 Roe v Wade Supreme Court decision.

In Roe v Wade, the US Supreme court arbitrarily created a constitutional right to abortion in America by deciding that such a right was implied as a “privacy right” in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Nothing, of course, about abortion is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment, as Justice Byron White pointed out in the dissent: “I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action… The Court “values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries.”

To anyone with a true understanding of the principals of the founding fathers, Roe v Wade is clearly unconstitutional because it denies an entire group of citizens, America’s most helpless citizens, the fundamental right to life. And the pro-life movement has worked tirelessly for 36 years to overturn this unjust ruling. But considering the current composition of the Supreme Court, and the political climate in Washington, Roe v Wade will likely stand for the foreseeable future.

So other paths must be pursued in defending the rights of the unborn, and a new avenue of attack was suggested by Rabbi Yehuda Levin during the 2010 March For Life in January. One of the keynote speakers at the March, Rabbi Levin called for individual states to simply invalidate Roe constitutionally via Interposition or Nullification.

Tenth Amendment protections
Interposition and Nullification are derived from Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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”. Founding Father, and 4th President, James Madison wrote that states are “duty bound to interpose” federal encroachment on the rights of a sovereign state.

Rabbi Levin offered a clear cut example of how Interposition could be used by states to protect their citizens from unjust federal legislation. “If Congress or the Court were to impose an evil law ordering the killing of Jews, gypsies or other so-called undesirables, the sovereign state led by a courageous governor can interpose himself between the horrific federal law.”

In the case of abortion, state governors should thus be empowered to protect the unborn citizens of their states by “interposing” themselves against the unconstitutional Roe V Wade ruling.

Such an interpretation of the Tenth Amendment might seem quite hypothetical. Wishful thinking almost. But the concept of employing Interposition to oppose the constitutional excesses of the Obama Administration and democratic congress is gaining traction in many circles. FOX News legal contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses the history of Interposition and how it might be implemented today in this video clip Interposition, Nullification and Secession on Freedom Watch

The first state interposition against Roe v Wade would require a courageous governor indeed. South Dakota Governor Michael Rounds displayed such courage on March 6, 2006 when he signed into law a bill passed by the SD state legislature which banned all abortions except those necessary to save the mother’s life. Governor Rounds admitted that the law was intended to provoke a court challenge to Roe v Wade. Interestingly enough, the usually quick to sue pro-abortion lobby refrained from challenging the SD law in court. The law instead was overturned in a ballot initiative the following November, primarily because the legislation provided no exceptions for instances of rape or incest.

An Interposition on grounds of protecting the unborn citizens of South Dakota would be an entirely different approach. And, as Rabbi Levin points out, the advances in medical technology since 1973, providing irrefutable evidence of complete human development and the ability of a fetus to experience pain far earlier in pregnancy than previously believed, lends legal credibility to such a position.

For a variety of obvious reasons, an imminent interposition of any of the 50 states against Roe v Wade is unlikely. But, ironically, it is the most radical pro-abortion administration since Roe darkened our land that is provoking state governors and legislators to ponder their constitutional options in opposing the excesses of the federal government. And the pro-life community needs to closely monitor any cases of state Interposition that may develop over the course of the year.

An incredible long shot?

Think Scott Brown. And start thinking Interposition.

RadiantCross.org is naming Rabbi Yehuda Levin “America’s Rabbi”. Make sure to view Rabbi Levin’s inspiring speech at the 2010 March For Life Rally

Visit the Rabbi’s websites RabbiLevin.com and God Reign Over Us

For in-depth information on Interposition and Nullification as they pertain to the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution visit The Tenth Amendment Center

“The Tenth Amendment Center works to preserve and protect Tenth Amendment freedoms through information and education. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of state and individual sovereignty issues, focusing primarily on the decentralization of federal government power.”