Every so often a ray of light breaks through the darkness and provides an extra boost of energy. Last week was one of those weeks. What a week it was for the U.S. Constitution, for liberty and for life. I am not going to review every decision, but I want to focus on three.
Carson v. Makin The Maine Department of Education had a tuition reimbursement program that provided aid to parents who decided to send their children to a private school, rather than the public education system. However, the program was not available to parents who chose to send their children to a private school with a religious affiliation. By a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed the lower court ruling that upheld this program.
The Supreme Court ruled the Maine program violated the free exercise clause in the First Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts noted in the majority opinion that most religiously affiliated schools in Maine were state accredited and adhered to Maine Department of Education attendance standards. They were excluded from the tuition program simply on the basis of religion.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen This decision pertained to a New York concealed carry gun law. The New York law stated in order for a New York resident to carry a concealed handgun in public, they had to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a permit. The applicant had to provide a reason for their self-defense need that satisfied the State of New York’s regulators. The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision 6-3. (Are you beginning to see a pattern developing here?)
Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion stating, “The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Thomas pointed out there was no other requirement for an individual to demonstrate “proper cause” to exercise any other constitutional right.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization The Supreme Court capped off the week by overturning the 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade that declared abortion a constitutional right. The Mississippi Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization law banned abortions after 15 weeks with exceptions for medical emergencies or serious fetal abnormalities. Lower courts first ruled the Mississippi law unconstitutional, as it violated the 1973 Roe decision.
In another 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision and upheld the Dobbs case. They could have stopped there. Thankfully, they did not.
The Supreme Court also overturned Roe and the 1992 opinion issued in Planned Parenthood vs Casey. In Casey, the court held that states could not impose significant restrictions on abortion before an unborn baby reaches viability where it could survive on its own. The court did not state specifically at what point that was, but estimated it was somewhere around 24 weeks.
We aren’t going to get into the weeds on this decision. There are numerous sources available for detailed analysis beyond my abilities and I encourage you to read them.
Yet, a commonality exists throughout each of these cases which is important to note. If you read the majority opinions, you’ll notice they refer to the U.S. Constitution, legal history and original intent. The dissenting opinions read as statements of policy. “We think this is the way things should be, so we will create the justification for it.” This is the very definition of judicial activism.
The purpose of the judicial branch is to take a case, apply the Constitution and decide which side is in agreement with the Constitution. This is the same thing that occurred in the Roe decision. The Supreme Court held that abortion was a constitutional right based on a “right to privacy” concocted in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut. The majority on the Court created the right to privacy from “emanations and penumbras” in the Constitution. Again, the majority on the Court created a justification for the result they wanted.
There are a couple reasons why I point this out:
1) If Supreme Court Justices trained in the law misinterpret or twist the words in the Constitution, the ‘Ordinary Joe’ will as well. These are emotionally charged issues. Be patient with people. Do not talk down to them. This is especially difficult on social media. Jesus taught by asking questions. If the question is thoughtfully framed and the person being asked is genuinely searching for the truth, they will find the answer and convince themselves of the truth.
2) The misunderstanding of our Constitution, founding principles, federalism and the proper role of government underscore our mission of education. These are teachable moments. Embrace them. Make sure that you have educated yourself and sought to find the truth even if your opinion is not supported by the truth.
What is our duty as the Supreme Court refers more and more issues back to the states where the decisions belong?
It is our duty to be self-governing citizens. It is our duty to be champions of truth and liberty. It has been said that when people are lost they will drink the sand and convince themselves it is water. If our Republic is to be saved, it will be saved by people like you. It will be saved at the dinner table, in the restaurant, in our workplace, in our churches, in the grocery store and the checkout line. That is our purpose. Speak up. The time to save our Republic is now.
In liberty,
Brett
Please bookmark the Missouri Information Page and share it with family and friends.
Past Blog Posts
Did you miss last week's blog post? No worries, we've got you covered!
Click here to access our archive and see the full history of the blog.
