Have you seen the book titled, "What Roe Should Have Read"?  I've seen the cover.  Read the sleeve.  And promptly picked up a 'Calvin and Hobbes' compilation instead.  Call it 'wiping the mind clean with a sanitary cloth.'

Well-titled book!  Poorly conceived.  Apparently people have forgotten that the Law is based not on medical history and terminology, as was Roe, just as the author forgot that States are supposed to determine issues for themselves that are not included in the Constitution.

Fact:  The words 'abortion,' 'pregnancy,' 'mother,' and 'sex' do not appear in the Constitution.

Logic:  The Spirit of the Constitution holds that States have all power, each for themselves, and the Constitution simply set up a government that the States imbued with Supreme, though limited, powers.  But the key ideas there are that the States imbued the Federal with powers.  The Federal did not just simply spring out of the earth, seize control, and start taking on more as it saw fit.  And the Federal government is limited, specifically by the 10th Amendment, generally by the Spirit of the Constitution itself, from any other powers not cedede to it from the States.

Take Roe v. Wade (1973) as an example.  Prior to this Landmark Supreme Court decision being handed, I have not found one single law, State or Federal, that allowed unfettered abortion.  And in the proceedings in the twin cases Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (Georgia), I don't believe that the Plaintiff (pro-choice) won prior to the January 1973 Landmark opinion being handed down.

Now, this gets a little bit technical, and we delve into a bit of Constitutional and Political Theory here, so bear with me.  Townhall readers are a smart bunch--I have faith in you!

Constitution, right?  Written by the States through their delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia.  Ratified by the States in form of their Legislative bodies.  Ever since then, amended by the States 27 times.  So the Constitution is in place, and it neither mentions anything remotely related to abortion, nor does it cede such powers to the Federal level of government whatsoever.

I was listening to a local city council candidate a few years speak about abortion and it stopped me in my tracks!  "Wait a minute," I observed.  "You don't have anything to do with abortion one way or the other!"  And I was right!  So I started thinking about who did and why they did.

Who controls abortion?  Congress?  Nope.  The President?  Nope.  Despite all those spam mails asking us to please write President Bush seeking the abolition of abortion and the return of prayer to public schools, the Chief Executive has no impact on either of these issues.

So who controls aborion?  Answer:  The Supreme Court of the United States of America, ironic term that it may be.

The Supreme Court struck down State laws prohibiting and regulating abortion and has regulated every single facet of abortion ever since.  From overturning State laws in Roe, to revising portions of that decision, to outright declaring partial-birth abortion Unconstitutional earlier this year, the Supreme Court controls abortion completely.

But should it?

The answer to that question requires a walk down memory (and history) lane.

Begin with me at the beginning.  The Constitution is ratified, Congress is elected, things are running smoothly, and then the Supreme Court steps in and issues a ruling that really torqued off the Congress, so they counter this ruling by amending the Constitution.  After the Bill of Rights comes the 11th Amendment--the first slapping the Supreme Court down.  It would not be the last.

1803 brought a little family feud that became known as Marbury v. Madison, a case whose name resonates loudly in your memory and history as the case in which Chief Justice John Marshall declares that the Supreme Court has the power to say what the Constitution says.  Judicial Review is born!

Now, Marbury was a Federal matter between two Federal officials, so it only makes sense that the Federal Judiciary would decide the matter.  However, Chief Justice Marshall opened the Pandora's Box that led to future Courts striking down State Laws--an occurence completely contradictory to the Spirit of the Constitution!

Granted, slavery was a hideous practice, and anybody today not wearing a sheet would agree with that.  But one of the chief concerns of southern delegates to the Constitutional Convention was their ability to amass property--meaning land and slaves among other things.  Slavery was recognized by the Constitution, but its regulation was completely left to the States.  For the Federal government to force an end to slavery was extremely damaging to the Constitution, and an occurence that nearly destroyed not only the Union, but the Constitution as well.

The Congress later amended the Constitution three times to right the wrong done by the Court in Dred Scott v. San(d)ford in 1857, bringing to four the total number of amendments due to Judicial actions.

By now, the Supreme Court was in high swing, so declaring segregation Constitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was par for the course.  While this actually went along with the idea of States' Rights under the 10th Amendment, the Court had no right to even hear such a case, the matter being strictly the realm of the States.  Having the Supreme Court declare slavery acceptable after a Civil War, Reconstruction, and three amendments, all in response to Dred Scott, is unconscionable, and was an error that took over a half-century to correct.

Upon the reversal of Plessy in 1954 in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, and the subsequent era of racial strife that resulted in the Civil Rights Act, we enjoyed a brief respite from Supreme Court Landmark decisions over-stepping the boundaries of States' Rights.  This ended with the ruling in Roe v. Wade in January 1973.

One must understand, regardless of one's stance on abortion, what the Constitution says about deciding such cases.  The Constitution, and not the Supreme Court, is what is relevent.  For Marbury is not Constitutional Law, nor an amendment to the Constitution--it is simply an opinion.  An 'interpretation' of one man.

Now, what do we hear from Libera atheists when confronted with texts from the Bible?  "Oh, that's your interpretation."  An opinion, if you will.

But when the Supreme Court, which really isn't, hands down an opinion, it becomes hard, cold, gospel truth!  And bubba, don't even think of countering it!  Oh, man--"Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble!"

No, the Supreme Court now depends on multiple interpretations of an interpretation in order to do its job.  It no longer refers to the Constitution, but to Precedent.  Meaning that the Court listens to "itself," not to the Constitution.  "What did previous Court's say?"  Not, "What does the Constitution say?"

Simply stated, there should have been no ruling in Roe.  There should have been no hearing.

For the Constitution simply states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are hereby reserved to the States, or to the people."

Translation:  "Abortion is not delegated to the United States Supreme Court by the Constitution, nor is it mentioned in any amendment thereof, thus it is reserved to the States."

I leave off the "or to the people" part for a simple reason.  Who decides law as it relates to motor vehicle law?  Who determines corporate law?  Who determines law pertaining to capital punishment?  Not individuals!  Not people!

The States!  The States!  The States!

Truth be told, the entire Federal Judiciary should be impeached and replaced with the most capable State Judges in the nation.  That is how strongly I feel about the topic of States' Rights!