When Revolutionaries Visit The General Assembly
by Kevin L. Kobe
Just Two weeks ago, members of Kansas City’s Liberty Restoration Project arrived in Jefferson City just seconds before the 8:00a.m. Special committee on families meeting. Several persons were hoping to view a debate on abortion issues. However, one clause in HR 212 derailed the debate. LRP was hoping to state our case.
It was not our case to make, however, it was the case of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. It was the case of the sovereignty of the state of Missouri to stand superior in the creation of laws within its borders. It was something that I personally felt that Missouri Legislators should look at as job security.
This is exactly what I had testified to during my few moments to speak to the house committee. When the federal government can overturn state laws at their every whim, why even have a body to make state laws?
The opposition to the bill, argued the normal Abortion rights issues, and argued that this bill seemed to be in opposition to a bill on the Federal level that had not been presented yet. They argued that Missouri’s laws were not in immediate danger, and that even if the Federal government overstepped their bounds, that these issues would be determined by the courts, as women’s health issues.
Again, The Constitution does not allow for multiple legislative bodies to be equals in conflict, with the courts deciding which differences are sovereign based on an individual’s rights. This would be legislating from the court bench. Also, the opposition offered an interpretation of the tenth amendment that focused on the last part of it. “Amendment X : 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.” They focused on a claim that the rights of a sovereign person are superior to the state. (assuming they mean the right to choose an Abortion is a person’s right first, superseding bodies of established government.) The question here is, How does a sovereign individual make a law? Through petitioning, and changing of the body of laws through a vote or through petitioning their elected representatives in State or Federal government.
The issue is not whether the “Freedom of Choice Act” or similar legislation becomes law in Missouri, the issue is whether the law is passed by the US Congress or the Missouri General Assembly (or the courts if you happen to agree with those who were in opposition to this legislation). We are a Republic. That means that even the voices not in the majority should have a say in the laws imposed on them. This is why we have state government. The United States may be one large body, but the insurance of freedom is dependent on different sections of the population being able to live under their own sets of values. What works for south-central Los Angeles might not work in rural Missouri. This is why it is clearly defined in the United States Constitution that it is a right of the state to decide how to proceed with dealing with these issues.
After the committee hearing on this bill, the members of Liberty Restoration Project were introduced on the floor of the General Assembly as special guests of Representative Cynthia Davis of District 19 – St. Charles County. Then we spoke with Representative Jim Guest momentarily, as the session began, before we went to some offices to request meetings with our own district officials. The whole day was very exhilarating to see in person the types of debates that go on in the halls of government, however, the brightest point for this activist did not happen inside the capitol building, but outside as we were leaving. There were protesters outside holding signs. One of them said “Tell Barack to get his peace on!” That is a federal government issue I can get behind!
Catherine’s Note: This bill was passed in the Missouri House under HR 294 last week!!
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Missouri bill HR 212 purports to declare Missouri’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and urges the United States Congress to reject the passage of the federal Freedom of Choice Act(FOCA).
The 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States.
We all agree that this is very important and we don’t want congress passing unconstitutional laws.
Now let’s look at FOCA and see if it is unconstitutional or if there is a delegation of these powers in the Constitution.
It is a short bill, you can read it here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.2020:
The purpose of this bill is to do the following:
Assert that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
Ok, now let’s look at the Constitution to see if this power is delegated to the federal government.
The 5th Amendment says that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
The founding fathers gave the federal government the authorty to protect a persons god given right to life, liberty and property.
The 14th Amendment section 1, says that No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
If the founding fathers granted the authority to protect a person right to life, liberty and property in the 5th amendment and further stated in the 14th amendment that these rights can’t be taken away by the states, explicitly the rights to life, liberty, and property. Then the federal government could conceivably pass as law that is intended to protect these rights from state laws that would limit a person’s right to life and liberty.
Now let’s look at FOCA and see if it is protecting a persons life and liberty.
First is the right to bear a child. Certainly this is reasonable to protect a person’s life and liberty.
Second is the right to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability. This one is difficult to determine. Particularly because is depends on how you define “person.” Some would argue that it is destroying the life of a “person”, and is therefore unconstitutional. Others would argue that it protects the health freedom and therefore the liberty of a person. I personally don’t believe that a non-viable fetus meets the criteria of “person” as it is used in the constitution. Whether or not terminating a pregnancy protects the mothers life and liberty is questionable but I tend to lean toward the opinion that it does. I hold this opinion mainly because I believe that the woman has sovereignty over her own body. This is the liberty part of the right to life, liberty and property.
Third, and last is the right to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman. Clearly if it is done to protect the life of the woman than it is protected by the Constitution. That is not to say that it is the morally right thing to do. Killing someone who is threatening your life may be your right but it doesn’t mean it is always the morally right thing to do. If the termination is only protecting the health and not the life of the woman then you have to go back to the weaker argument that the woman health freedom is her liberty, and that she has sovereignty over her own body.
Clearly, this is not a simple question of applying the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. My analysis is that FOCA exercises powers that are constitutionally delegated to the federal government by the 5th and 14th Amendment of the Constitution. While I understand the point of view that these powers are not delegated to the United States, I respectfully disagree. In my opinion the state laws that violate a woman’s health freedom and therefore take away her liberty, violate the Constitution of the United States. I believe that the 14th amendment gives the federal government the authority to keep states from passing laws that deprive a person of their rights to life and liberty. In my reading of FOCA, that is what it intends to do.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
I’m sorry. Individual reproductive “rights” (as you call it) are not reserved to be guaranteed in the constitution (as being under the jurisdiction of the federal government) and are therefore delegated to the states and individuals respectively.
The 10th amendment is clear, powers NOT RESERVED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT are clearly a state issue.
The constitution does not call for federal oversight of reproductive law.