Constitutionally Yours
Sustaining the Constitution
Destroying the Constitution
Constitutional Candidates
Constitutional Links
New World Order Program
American Free Press News
Chaos to Jesus
Contact Us
On this page:
-> Sustaining the Constitution <-
Speaking like a Lamb (Christ)
"And I beheld another beast coming up out
of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon." -
Revelation 13:11
A nation speaks by its laws. If it upholds the laws of God, it speaks like Christ.
There is a connection between the Laws of God and the Laws of men. If that connection is not
found there is lawlessness.
Remember ... Governments do not grant you your rights.
Judge for yourself if these measures strengthen the Constitution!
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2007 - (House)
Introduced by U.S. Representatives. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.)
and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).
Apparently this House legislation has not yet been assigned a number
because it is not on the House calendar even though it has been introduced.
Section 1. Short Title -
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT - S.48 - (Senate)
Introduced in the Senate.
Section 2. Findings -
(1) The founding fathers held dear the fundamental rights associated
with the ownership of private property.
(2) In 1788, James Madison recognized the connection between freedom
and property rights when he wrote in Federalist No. 10 that the right to own property originates
in free thought and that it is the Government's job to protect such rights.
(3) In 1792, in an essay entitled 'Property', James Madison wrote, 'where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his
opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.'
(4) In the 'Property' essay, James Madison also wrote, 'Government is
instituted to protect property of every sort. . . This being the end of government, that alone is
a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.'
(5) In 1775, the Virginia patriot Arthur Lee wrote, 'The right of
property is the guardian of every other right, and to deprive a people of this, is in fact to
deprive them of their liberty.'
(6) In 1783, Benjamin Franklin wrote, 'All the property that is
necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is
his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of.'
(7) In 1787, John Adams wrote, 'The moment the idea is admitted into
society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law
and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
(8) In 1795, Supreme Court Justice William Patterson wrote, in the case
Vanhorne's Lessee vs.Dorrance: 'From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring
. . . property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights
of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and
correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects, that
induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could
not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property then is a
primary object of the social compact, and... was made a fundamental law.'
(9) In 1798, the Supreme Court considered the case of Calder vs. Bull,
in which Justice Samuel Chase recognized that government action which is 'contrary to the great
first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative
authority' which he explained with the following example:'. . . a law that takes property from A
and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature
with such powers...'
(10) On March 6, 1860, Abraham Lincoln stated that the institution of
slavery is reprehensible because it offends the right of man to keep the fruits of his own labor
and thus denies man the right to own property.
(11) In a stark departure from the honor and recognition given
individual private property rights under the United States Constitution, the United States
Supreme Court in the cas of Kelo vs. City of New London, issued a decision on June 23, 2005, by
a 5 to 4 vote, that emminent domain may be used to seize property for the purpose of private
economic development.
(12) Justice Sandra Day O'Connor rightly stated in her dissenting
opinion in Kelo, 'the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer
resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.'
(13) Justice O'Connor further wrote, 'any property may now be taken for
the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The
beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the
political process, including large corporations and development firms.'
(14) Justice O"Connor also wrote about the effects of the Kelo ruling:
'To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent
ordinary use of private property render economic development takings 'for public use' is to wash
out any distinction between private and public use of property -- and thereby effectively to
delete the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.'
(15) Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, 'I do not believe that this Court
can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constituion.'
(16) The City Council of New London, Connecticut, created the New
London Development Corporation (NLDC) as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and authorized the
NLDC to purchase property or to acquire private property for economic development purposes by
exercising eminent domain in the City's name.
(17) NLDC's actions, which were the subject of the lawsuit in the Kelo
case, were made possible by numerous Federal grants and direct appropriations, including:
$2,000,000 from the Economic Development Administration in 2001, $750,000 from the Department of
Labor in 2000, $125,000 from the Fannie Mae Foundation in 2000, and an earmark of $100,000 in the
FY2001 VA-HUD appropriations Act (Public Law 106-988).
(18) The Kelo decision stands as a repudiation of the principle of the
Fifth Amendment, as embodied by the writings of James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams,
and Abraham Lincoln, and also as had previously been recognized by the Supreme Court.
(19) Congress has encouraged the State and local governments' practive
of using eminent domain to further economic development by using the Federal purse strings to
incentivize such practices through Federal grants and direct appropriations.
(20) Congress has also created extensive tax-based incentives to
encourage State and local governments to condemn private property for economic development
purposes.
(21) In a joint amicus brief, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People and the American Association of Retired Persons stated, 'The
takings that result [from the Court's decision in Kelo] will disproportionately affect and harm
the economically disadvantaged and, in particular, racial and ethnic minorities and the elderly.'
(22) The Supreme Court's decision to expand eminent domain is also
troubling for religious institutions, as this ruling will disproportionately negatively impact
these institutions as they are often non-profit and almost universally tax-exempt. As a result,
the property owned by religious institutions is particularly vulnerable to this type of taking,
as the ruling of the court disfavors non-profit, tax-exempt property owners in favor of
for-profit, tax generating businesses.
(23) It is in the best interest of the American people for Congress to
prohibit Federal funding and to restrict tax benefits from accruing to any person, party, or
governmental authority who would seek to acquire private property through seizure by eminent
domain for economic development purposes.
(24) Congress can restrict the use of Federal funds and the availability
of Federal tax incentives to discourage the activities of State and local governments.
(25) It is the responsibility and obligation of Congress to act to
protect private property rights and to further the protections afforded to private parties by the
United States Constitution under the Fifth Amendment and to prevent the unjust use of the power
of eminent domain.
Section 3. Definitions -
For purposes of this Act:
(1) ACQUIRING PARTY - The term 'acquiring party' means any person or
party that acquires a real property interest from a condemning authority, which took title to
such real property interest by the use of eminent domain or the threat of the use of eminent
domain, including any --
(2) BLIGHTED PROPERTY - The term 'blighted property' includes any --
(3) CONDEMNING AUTHORITY - The term 'condemning authority' means any
authority, utility, or co-operative which exercises the power of eminent domain either directly
or by a delegation of power, including any --
(4) GOVERNMENT - For purposes of sections 6,7,and 8, the term
'government' --
(5) INCIDENTAL ECONOMIC BENEFIT - The term 'incidental economic
benefit'--
(6) PROPERTY OWNER - The term 'property owner' means any person with a
real property interest, whether possessory or not, that is being taken under the power of
eminent domain.
(7) PUBLIC PURPOSE - The term 'public purpose' --
(8) PUBLIC USE - The term 'public use' --
(9) REAL PROPERTY INTEREST - The term 'real property interest' means
any --
SEC. 4. DENIAL OF FEDERAL FUNDS FOR TAKINGS NOT FOR THE PUBLIC USE.
(a) Denial of Funds - A condemning authority or acquiring party that
engages or participates in a taking or condemnation of any real property interest not for a
public use or public purpose, without the consent of the owner of such real property interest,
under the power of eminent domain pursuant to the Fifth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, or under any revelant State Constitution, statute, or regulation, shall not be
eligible to receive any Federal funds, including any funds appropriated by Congress or otherwise
expended from the Federal treasury.
(b) Certification of Eligibility to Receive Funds -
(1) IN GENERAL - Any entity applying for Federal funds shall certify to the appropriate Federal
agency, under penalty of perjury, that any funds it receives will not be used to --
(2) REGULATIONS REQUIRED - The Secretary of the Treasury shall
promulgate rules and regulations to establish the procedures and rules regarding the
certification required under paragraph (1), including --
(3) NOTICE TO THE IRS - Each Federal agency shall forward a copy of
each certification required under paragraph (1) that it receives to the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.
(4) AUDITS -
To view this document source see:
http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN)48.html#toc0
See also State Legislation: HJ 723 (Virginia House of Delegates)
Sponsored by:
Sen. John Ensign (Rep. - Nevada)
Co-Sponsored by:
Sen. DeMint (Rep. - South Carolina)
110TH Congress 1st Session.
H.R.618
To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 22, 2007
Sponsors:
A bill to implement equal protection under the 14th article of
amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE - This Act may be entitled as the "Right to Life Act".
SECTION 2. RIGHT TO LIFE:
To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and
preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress'
power under Article 1, Section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress' power under
Section 5 of the 14th Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress
hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human
being.
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS:
For the purposes of this Act:
(2) STATE. -- The term "State" used in the 14th Article of Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States and other applicable provisions of the Constitution
includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or
possession of the United States.
************
The Life at Conception Act:
Provides Basis for Protection of ALL Unborn by Legislatively Establishing Personhood.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privleges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property; without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the law." - The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Uses existing provisions of the Constitution, since Congress may define Personhood.
Corporations have been found to be "persons" under the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court has
upheld this notion providing a clear precedent for legislatively defining who or what is in fact
a "person" under the Amendment. A human being, possessing its own unique set of human DNA is
more worthy of the term "person" than a legal construct defining a business.
"Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this
article." - The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Roe v. Wade would be Effectively Reversed.
Abortion was Never Declared an Absolute Right! Abortion was never declared by the Supreme
Court to be an absolute constitutional right. Justice Harry Blackmun wrote:
"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins... the judiciary at this point
in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."
The Court then admitted:
"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appelant's case [ i.e. "Roe" who sought
the abortion ], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the
[ 14th ] Amendment."
Technological Advances Settle Question of When Life Begins - Abortion was legalized more than
thirty years ago. Since 1973 there have been major breakthroughs in medical technology. We
can now detect a fetal heartbeat only 5 weeks after conception and fetal brain waves can be
measured at just 8 weeks. Ultrasound allows us to see a baby as he moves, sleeps and sucks
his thumb in the womb.
Today human DNA is used as irrefutable proof of a criminal suspect's guilt or innocence. The
fact that each of us possesses a full and unique set of human DNA from the moment of conception
if irrefutable proof that we are members of the human race or "persons".
Most Americans Agree that Life Begins at Conception. - Recent polls have demonstrated that
a clear majority of Americans believe that life begins at the moment of conception. One such
poll, conducted by Newsweek was published as a cover story. It showed that 58% believe that at
the moment an egg is fertilized a new human life begins.
A new Constitutional Amendment is not necessary to deal with Roe v. Wade. - The
Constitution guarantees the right to life (14th Amendment); it just needs to be enforced.
The Life at Conception Act Ends Experimentation on Humans Without Prohibiting Effective Stem Cell
Research. - This legislation protects human life from the moment of conception. Since adult
stem cells are not and cannot become human life, this bill will have no effect on adult stem cell
research, which has been successfully used for many years in the treatment of a variety of
diseases.
The Life at Conception Act would be Enforced Through Elected Legislatures, NOT by a Hostile
Federal Court System. - By legislatively defining life as beginning at the moment of
conception, the Life at Conception Act provides all human life with the protection of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects "life, liberty and property."
The Life at Conception Act is Consistent with Supreme Court Precedent. - Since the Life at
Conception Act must pass by majority vote in both Houses of Congress, and be signed into law by
the President, the measure will go to the Court with considerable backing in the likely event it
is challenged.
The Life at Conception Act (Right to Life) is the Best Vehicle for Making Progress in Defense
of the Sanctity of Human Life. - The bill will be considered by the Subcommittee on the
Constitution in the House and by the Judiciary Committee in the Senate. To get action on the
bill, it is essential to recruit a large number of cosponsors.
************
Pro-Life Wisconsin also supports The Right to Life Act - (The Life at Conception Act) and
has been circulating petitions to amend our State Constitution to protect the unborn and give
them "personhood".
************
PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION
National Sanctity of Human Life Day 1988
By the president of the United States of America - A Proclamation.
America has given a great gift to the world, a gift that drew upon the accumulated wisdom derived
from centuries of experiments in self-government, a gift that has irrevocably changed humanity's
future.
Our gift is twofold: the declaration, as a cardinal principle of all just law, of the God-given,
unalienable rights possessed by every human being; and the example of our determination to secure
those rights and to defent them against every challenge through the generations. Our declaration
and defense of our rights have made us and kept us free and have sent a tide of hope and
inspiration around the globe.
One of those unalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence affirms so eloquently, is the
right to life. In the 15 years since the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, however,
America's unborn have been denied their right to life. Among the tragic and unspeakable results
in the past decade and a half have been the loss of life of 22 million infants before birth; the
pressure and anguish of countless women and girls who are driven to abortion; and a cheapening of
our respect for the human person and the sanctity of human life.
We are told that we may not interfere with abortion. We are told that we may not "impose our
morality" on those who wish to allow or participate in the taking of the life of infants before
birth; yet no one calls it "imposing morality" to prohibit the taking of life after people are
born. We are told as well that there exists a "right" to end the lives of unborn children; yet
no one can explain how such a right can exist in stark contradiction of each person's fundamental
right to life.
That right to life belongs equally to babies in the womb, babies born handicapped, and the
elderly or infirm. That we have killed the unborn for 15 years does not nullify this right, nor
could any number of killings ever do so. The unalienable right to life is found not only in the
Declaration of Independence but also in the Constitution that every President is sworn to
preserve, protect, and defend. Both the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no
person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.
All Medical and scientific evidence increasingly affirms that children before birth share all the
basic attributes of human personality -- that they in fact are persons. Modern medicine treats
unborn children as patients. Yet, as the Supreme Court itself has noted, the decision in Roe v.
Wade rested upon an earlier state of medical technology. The law of the land in 1988 should
recognize all of the medical evidence.
Our nation cannot continue down the path of abortion, so radically at odds with our history, our
heritage, and our concepts of justice. This sacred legacy, and the well-being and the future of
our country, demand that protection of the innocents must be guaranteed and that the personhood
of the unborn be declared and defended throughout our land. In legislation introduced at my
request in the First Session of the 100th Congress, I have asked the Legislative branch to
declare the "humanity of the unborn child and the compelling interest of the several states to
protect the life of each person before birth." This duty to declare on so fundamental a matter
falls to the Executive as well. By this Proclamation I hereby do so.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, by virtue of
the authority vested in my by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby
proclaim and declare the unalienable personhood of every American, from the moment of conception
until natural death, and I do proclaim, ordain, and declare that I will take care that the
Constitution and laws of the United States are faithfully executed for the protection of
America's unborn children. Upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted
by the Constitution, I invoke the considerate judgement of mankind and the gracious favor of
Almighty God. I also proclaim Sunday, January 17, 1988, as National Sanctity of Human Life Day.
I call upon the citizens of this blessed land to gather on that day in their homes and places of
worship to give thanks for the gift of life they enjoy and to reaffirm their commitment to the
dignity of every human being and the sanctity of every human life.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of January, in the
year of our Lord ninteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of the independence of the United States
of America the two hundred and twelfth.
Ronald Reagan
************
PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS RESTORATION ACT OF 2007
RIGHT TO LIFE ACT (Life at Conception Act)
Pro-Life Wisconsin supports State Constitution change to "personhood".
PERSONHOOD PROCLAMATION of President Ronald Reagan.
See Top Line Menu for other pages of interest.
1
2
3
4
5
6
If it
upholds the lawlessness of the Dragon, it speaks like Satan.
7
8
Only God grants you your rights and the Founding Fathers recognized that fact.
They set down what those rights were based upon the Word of God.
9
(Numbered Comments will be enclosed as you read.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
(A) individual; (B) trust; (C) charity; (D) corporation; (E) partnership;
or (F) limited liability company.
46
47
(A) property which because of physical condition, use, or occupancy
constitutes a public nuisance or attractive nuisance;
48
(B) dwelling which because it is dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin-
infested, or lacking in the facilities and equipment required by the housing code of the
municipality, is unfit for human habitation.
49
(C) structure which is a fire hazard, or is otherwise dangerous to the
safety of persons or property;
50
(D) structure the utilities, plumbing, heating, sewer, or other utility
services of which have been disconnected, destroyed, moved, or rendered ineffective such that
the property is unfit for its intended use;
51
(E) vacant or unimproved lot or parcel of ground in a predominately
built-up-neighborhood, which by reason of neglect or lack of maintenance has become a place for
accumulation of trash and debris or a haven for rodents or other vermin;
52
(F) property that has tax delinquencies exceeding the fair market
value of the property;
53
(G) property with code violations affecting health or safety that has
not been substantially rehabilitated within 1 year of the receipt of notice to rehabilitate
from the appropriate housing code enforcement agency; or
54
(H) abandoned property.
55
56
(A) State; (B) county; (C) municipality; (D) city; (E) town, whether
private or public; (F) corporation, whether for profit or not for profit; and (G) district.
57
58
(A) means --
59
(i) a State, county, municipality, or other governmental entity created
under the authority of a State;
(ii) any branch department, agency, instrumentality, or official of an
entity listed in clause (i); and
(iii) any other person acting under color of State law; and
60
(B) includes the United States, a branch, department, agency,
instrumentality, or official of the United States, and any other person acting under color of
Federal law.
61
62
(A) means the use of any property for any project that is neither --
63
(i) a public use; or
(ii) a public purpose; and
64
(B) includes projects which rely on eminent domain to acquire property
and which are done --
65
(i) for the purpose of enhancing or increasing the tax base of a
condemning authority;
(ii) for the purpose of creating jobs within the jurisdiction of a
condemning authority; or
(iii) in furtherance of economic development.
66
67
68
(A) means the use of property acquired by eminent domain that furthers a legitimate governmental
purpose to directly and substiantally protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and
69
(B) includes --
70
(i) condemnation of any severely blighted property.
(ii) the development of any property to provide public utilities including --
(1) electric; (2) gas; (3) phone; (4) cable; (5) water service and sewer; and (6) wi-fi
networks;
(iii) hydo-electric projects and flood control measures;
(iv) development of waste, recycling, and waste treatment facilities; and
(v) development of any property to provide and essential public health or safety service such
as a privately operated prison or hospital.
71
72
(A) means any use of property acquired by eminent domain that is --
73
(i) used by a governmental entity;
(ii) owned, operated, or maintainned by a governmental entity and used by the public as a
right-of-way; or
(iii) used by a common carrier; and
74
(B) includes --
75
(i) right-of-ways;
(ii) roadways;
(iii) highways;
(iv) interstates;
(v) interchanges;
(vii) waterways, and navigable waters;
(viii) airports, railroads, and other transportation needs; and
(ix) public parks and public buildings, including --
(1) schools; (2) hospitals; (3) prisons; (4) government buildings; and
(5) sports stadiums, theaters, or
other public entertainment venues provided that any takings
for these projects is limited solely to the
real property necessary for --
76
(aa) the construction of such stadiums, theatres or venues; and
(bb) parking facilities and public transportation and access roads to
and from such stadiums,theatres
or venues.
77
78
(A) fee title interest;
(B) lease interest;
(C) easement;
(D) development rights;
(E) mineral rights;
(F) water rights;
(G) rights in real property related to sky, air, or vision which affect the value of such real
property or:
(H) future interest in any of the real property interests or rithts described in
subparagraphs
(A) through (G)
79
80
81
82
83
(A) develop any real property which is subject to or otherwise
subsequently becomes subject to a Fifth Amendment property protection statement;
(B) further any economic development associated with an exercise of eminent domain power which
is not in furtherance of a public use or public purpose; or
(C) provide, further, or enhance an incidental economic benefit.
84
85
(A) certification language; and
(B) application forms.
86
87
88
(A) AUTHORITY - The Commissioner of Internal Revenue may conduct an audit of any condemning
authority or acquiring party that has made a certification under paragraph (1) and may review
such books, records, and materials as the Commissioner determines appropriate.
89
(B) REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION - If after an audit of a condemning authority or acquiring party,
the Commissioner of Internal Revenue determines that the condemning authority or acquiring
party violated the terms of the certification required under paragraph (1), the condemning
authority or acquiring party shall reimburse the Department of Treasury for any funds --
90
(i) received from any Federal Agency;
(ii) expended by the Secretary of the Treasury in conducting the audit;
and
(iii) together with interest, compounded annually at a rate of 12 per
centum, calculated from the date
of disbursement of such funds until the obligation has been
repaid.
91
(C) AUDIT OF PRIOR PERIOD - An audit conducted under this paragraph --
92
(i) shall not be limited to the year in which a suspected violation of
the terms of the certification
required under paragraph (1) occurs; and
93
(ii) may extend back to cover any year or years in the period beginning
10 years prior to the year
such audit commences.
94
(D) APPEAL - The United States Court of Federal Claims shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over any appeal by a condemning authority or acquiring party of any reimbursement
obligation imposed under subparagraph (B).
95
96
97
98
99
100
Sen. Inhofe (Rep. - Oklahoma)
101
Information taken from: www.prolifealliance.com
102
103
104
Constitution for the right to life of each born and unborn human person.
105
106
107
Mr. Duncan Hunter, Mr. Smith (New Jersey), Mr. Hayes, Mr. Davis
(Kentucky), Mr. McCaul (Texas), Mr. Franks (Arizona), Mr. Johnson (Illinois), Mrs. McMorris
Rodgers, Mr. Session, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Wamp, Mr. Westmoreland, Mr.Renzi, Mr. Norwood, Mr. Rogers
(Kentucky), Mr. Wilson (South Carolina), Mr. Boustany, Mr. Bishop (Utah), Mr. Gary G. Miller
(California), Mr. Herger, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Manzullo, Mrs. Cubin, Mrs. Jo Ann Davis (Virginia),
Mr. Inglis (South Carolina), Mr. McCotter, Mr. Lincoln Davis (Tennessee), Mr. Forbes, Mr. Souder,
Mr. Hall (Texas), Mrs Musgrave, Mr. Pickering, Mr. Chabot, Mr. Boozman, Mr. Sam Johnson (Texas),
Mr. Conaway, Mr. Tiahrt, Mrs. Myrick, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. Akin, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Gingrey, Mr.
LaHood, Mr. Hoekstra, Mr. Smith (Nebraska), Ms. Foxx, Mr. Sali, Mr. Lewis (Kentucky), Mr. Terry,
Mr. Pitts, Mr. Tancredo, Mr. McKeon, Mr. Jordan (Ohio), Mr. Goode, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. Hensarling,
Mr. Gillmor, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. Kline (Minnesota), Mr. McHenry, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Carter,
Mr. Goodlatte introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
(1) HUMAN PERSON; HUMAN BEING. -- The terms "human person" and "human
being" include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life,
including, but not limited to, the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which
an individual member of the human species comes into being.
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
An amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress
and must be ratified by 38 states.
Since a Life at Conception Act uses existing language in the 14th Amendment to protect the
unborn, it requires only a simple majority vote in both Houses and the President's signature for
passage.
132
However, it would prohibit experiments on baby embryos where the human life is intentionally
created and destroyed. Such experiments on human babies have been unproven and unpredicitable.
133
With judicial obstacles gone, Congress and State legislatures can then craft language with the
specific protections and penalties.
In that way, this legislation will remove all obstacles in which unelected judges, by judicial
edict, prevent the people and their elected officials from enacting any protection of human life.
134
If the court attempts to backpedal on its language in Roe v. Wade permitting this legislation,
Congress could use its power under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution to change the
jurisdiction of federal courts and eliminate their jurisdiction over abortion.
This legislative power has been used by Congress before to reign in the Courts on other themes
(see Norris LaGuardia Act). At that time, judges would know that being "fired" from
jurisdiction over abortion would be a real threat to their power since it would require the
same majority as the Life at Conception Act.
The threat of limiting jurisdiction is a check and balance written by our Founding Fathers that
would be very persuasive in deterring judges from setting themselves up as absolute dictators.
135
The National Pro-Life Alliance is stressing that cosponsoring the Life at Conception is the
true measure of an elected official's commitment to the pro-life cause.
Since the House and Senate have recently overwhelmingly passed measures like the Partial-Birth
Abortion Ban and the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the political climate is favorable to the
question of defining personhood.
A candidates vote on this issue will give pro-life activists a reason to mobilize for those
candidates who truly support the sanctity of human life.
136
137
The current Wisconsin Constitution applies rights only to those people who are "born".
To obtain copies of the petition to protect the preborn in the Wisconsin Constitution, download
them at www.prolifewisconsin.com or call (1-877-463-7945). Mail petitions to the Pro-Life
Wisconsin state office at:
Pro-Life Wisconsin - P.O. Box 221 - Brookfield, WI 53008-0221
138
139
140
- by Ronald Wilson Reagan - 40th President of the United States
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154