The Democrats' strategy between now and Election Day (or week or month depending upon where you vote) is (1) to persuade voters that Republicans and President Trump intend to "destroy" democracy and (2) that restoring a nationwide right to abortion in Congress (after Roe v. Wade was overruled) can only be accomplished by defeating the evil Republicans.
This is a strategy built upon multiple layers of fiction and the false premise that Americans are incapable of thinking for themselves.
This is lengthy because it has to be, but freedom is not free. I'm not asking you to dodge bullets on some foreign battlefield (like we ask of our brave military personnel). I just want your time. I seek to kill these two birds with this one stone a/k/a the truth a/k/a the Dobbs decision. I would ask to lend me your ears (thank you, Mr. Shakespeare), but I need more than your ears. I need more than your eyes. I need your mind. An open one, please.
What I would like more than anything is an unbiased mind. If you can start from scratch on these issues, then add the misinformation you have been conned into believing by the Democrats, I believe I stand a fairly good chance of persuading you to enlightened conclusions that may well make a difference in how you vote this time around.
DEM STRATEGY #1: "Look, folks. Donald J. Trump is a grave existential threat to our democracy. I'm not kiddin'." Joe Biden and the Democrats.
The use of fad terms like "existential" are meant to convince the audience that the speaker really knows what he/she is talking about. My, how deep. In fact, the adjective adds nothing to the substance of the conversation. Cross it out and what are you left with? Same idea, right? But, oh my, it sounds so authoritative.
Perhaps, however, the term "democracy" should be defined. You might note that no one who uses the term (and few in the media) take the time to tell you just exactly what they are talking about. Could that be because they want you to remain ignorant? To the deceiver goes the spoils, so to speak?
The term "democracy" does not appear in the Constitution. Nor does it appear in the Declaration of Independence. It is derived from the Greek words "demos" (meaning "the people") and "kratia" (meaning ''power").
So, in a democracy, power (the ability to make laws) is vested in the people. In a pure (or direct) democracy all issues or wanna-be-laws are voted upon by every eligible citizen - a bit unwieldy in a nation of over 160 million registered voters. Clearly, our form of government is not a pure (or direct) democracy.
In a representative democracy the power to make laws is vested in elected representatives of the people. In the federal government, each state is represented by two senators and a number of representatives in the House determined by population with each state represented by at least one, with the total federal representatives maxed out at 435. Illinois presently gets 17 representatives in the House. We are also represented nationally by a president. Then, of course, the citizens of each state elect representatives to their own respective state governments.
In a purely representative democracy, majority rules, all the time, winner take all. This form of government has been described as mob rule where the "rights" of 49% of the voters through their representatives can be taken away by 51% of the voters through their representatives. With this form of government, for example, 51% could establish one national religion and compel a tax to support it.
The framers were leery of the potential for "tyranny of the majority," so they added a Constitution that establishes limits to the power of the majority which can only be changed by amendment that takes a supermajority (three-fourths) of the state legislatures to ratify. Amendments are difficult to attain on purpose. Therefore, in our example, a majority of Congress doesn't have the power to mandate one national religion because the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits it.
We are not a pure democracy. We are not a representative democracy. We are a constitutional republic a/k/a a representative democracy with limits - limits we care enough about to adopt in our Constitution to prevent a tyranny of the majority on certain topics. So, if 51 wolves decided they would like to eat the 49 lambs in the room for lunch, they would not have the power to do so if their constitution prohibited lamb consumption.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands... " Got it?
If, by "democracy," the fear-mongering Democrats are referring to our form of government, then they are referring to the only form we have - a constitutional republic (i.e., representative democracy with a twist.)
If, by "democracy," the fear-mongering Democrats mean "freedom" or, more broadly, simply our "American way of life," then we are truly dealing with the pot calling the kettle black, otherwise known as hypocrisy. It is the Democrats who seek to limit free speech on college campuses; who seek to limit free speech with ever broadening definitions of "hate" crimes; who seek to manipulate the free press; and who fight the freedom of religious expression as though it were a plague on a nation which ironically acknowledge God-given rights in our Declaration of Independence.
The best example is President Biden who calls criticism of a judicial system that convicted Donald Trump on 34 bogus "felonies" as despicable and un-American, while contemporaneously chastising the Supreme Court for doing its job when he doesn't like the outcome. Joe, surely you know that the freedom to criticize government is the hallmark of being an American.
Before exploring the President's alleged "threat to democracy" in vivid color, I present just a few basics. (1) Article 1 vests the power to make laws in Congress, not in the judiciary and not in the executive branch. (2) Article 1 §8 lists the limited powers of Congress - I repeat "limited" powers.
(3) Every act of Congress must be supported by powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. And, (4) per the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States.
The foregoing rules of engagement, otherwise known as the "rule of law," were established by democratic principles (i.e. by the "people").
Ironically, one of the best examples of the Democrats' deception is found within the four comers of the very Supreme Court decision the Democrats accuse as "threatening democracy" - Dobbs v. Women's Health Organization. Dobbs, for short, is the case that overruled Roe v. Wade.
With the foregoing education under your belt, you now have the tools to determine for yourself whether or not this alleged threat is real. Let's look at Dobbs to see whether or not the Supreme Court respects "democracy" and the corollary of whether or not Biden and the Dems do.
It is extraordinarily important for the reader to understand that for this inquiry, the morality of abortion is not on the table. For now, I am not coming close to addressing the moral issues ranging from the morality of killing a child to the morality of telling a woman what they can or cannot do with their body. Those issues will be addressed in DEM STRATEGY #2, below.
Before I begin, you can determine for yourself whether or not I am presenting this material honestly by reading Roe v. Wade at
https://www.ellconstitutionclubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/9AAP4-Roe.pdf and by reading Dobbs v. Women's Health Organization at https://www.ellconstitutionclubs.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/DOBBS.pdf.
If just 1% of the electorate would educate themselves by reading these cases, the knowledge would spread and we would no longer be ruled by ignorance. It's up to "we the people" to educate ourselves. Self-government and ignorance cannot live side by side for long.
FACTS THAT EXISTED WHEN ROE WAS DECIDED:
1. For the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution, each State was permitted to address the abortion issue in accordance with the views of its citizens. That is democracy (representative government) in action.
2. At the time of Roe, 30 states prohibited abortion at all stages. That is democracy (representative government) in action.
The plaintiff in Roe (decided in 1973) asked the Supreme Court to find that the Constitution establishes a right to an abortion and that, therefore, the Texas law in question that prohibited abortion should be struck down as unconstitutional. She was asserting, in our constitutional republic form of government, that the rule of the majority (i.e., the will of Texans) should fail when that majority exceeds its federal constitutional limitations. And, of course, if there was a right to an abortion in the Constitution, Texas would not have the power to ban it.
To the surprise of most serious legal scholars, she won! But few serious legal scholars were surprised in 2022 when Justices Alita, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett reversed the Roe decision in Dobbs.
The issue before the Dobbs Court was not the policy or morality of abortion.
In fact, the Court does not weigh in on how they would decide the policy/morality issue. They did weigh in on what the Constitution says about the subject, which is nothing.
The Roe Court found a right that does not exist in the Constitution and then proceeded to establish rules of their own design to implement that right. In other words, they legislated even though they were not elected by the people.
As Justice Alito said: "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand...Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth...The Roe Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people... The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion."
I cannot imagine the frustration of the Dobbs majority who, after giving the power to decide these issues back to the people, are raked over the coals for "destroying democracy." The manner in which they have been treated is despicable.
FACTS THAT EXISTED WHEN DOBBS WAS DECIDED:
1. Twenty-six States asked the Dobbs Court to overrule Roe.
WAS DOBBS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY?
If you believe that the High Court's role is to set policy normally reserved to elected representatives as opposed to interpreting the Constitution, then apparently you do not believe in our form of democracy. You apparently believe in an oligarchy, where a few unelected folks decide the fate of millions. How could you then criticize a Supreme Court decision where the personal philosophy of five of them favors either a ban on abortion or creates, out of thin air, rules that forbid it after 15 weeks?
Does the Dem fear-mongering threat that the Dobbs Court and Republicans are out to destroy democracy hold any water? The last time I looked:
30 states banning abortion at Roe> ½ of 50 (i.e., a majority); and,
26 states seeking to overturn Roe at Dobbs> ½ of 50 (i.e., again, a majority).
SUGGESTED CONCLUSION AS FOR STRATEGY #1/YOU DECIDE:
The Dobbs Court gave up power stolen from the people by the Roe Court and turned it back over to the States (to the people) where it belongs. Sounds like democracy to me. Sounds like the Democrats pose the greatest threat to democracy to me. Sounds like they would prefer that a majority of nine unelected lifetime appointees decide all abortion issues in the future. Sounds like they could care less about democracy.
HEAD-SCRATCHER #1: If the fear-mongering Democrats really believe in representative democracy, how could they opt for an oligarchy when it comes to the abortion issue? How could they opt for a system where a majority of nine unelected lifetime appointees decide all abortion issues in the future? For, if that is how they believe these issues should be decided, then they cannot object when five justices that view policy differently from them either ban abortion or limit it to 15 weeks. The Dobbs Court did neither.
DEM STRATEGY #2: "Look, folks, the only thing standing in the way of restoring Roe and your right to abortion are the evil Republicans. I'm not kiddin'." Joe Biden and the Democrats.
Let's explore how Roe could be restored to its unconstitutional place in history. There are only two possibilities.
First, if the Dems could muster enough votes in both houses of Congress, with approval of the president they could pack the High Court with enough justices of their own philosophy to overrule Dobbs in a case yet to be filed. If l could have just one amendment to the Constitution, it would be to set the number of Justices on the High Court in the Constitution. That would prohibit manipulation by a simple act of Congress anytime the losing faction wanted to do some packing. The Dems are not going to succeed in packing this Court.
But, if we ever do start a court-packing war, then someday the number of justices will get into the hundreds or more every time the wind blows a different direction. Ludicrous.
Second, and the one most often discussed, the Dems could pass a law in Congress that both establishes a right to an abortion and establishes the rules for implementation. I realize there are theories that may provide constitutional support for doing so. Specifically, the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause and the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. I also realize that Justice Kavanaugh left room for that potential in a concurring opinion.
But, given the strong wording of the Dobbs Court that there was no support in the Constitution for the right to an abortion, I conclude that an attempt to "fix" the Democrats' perceived demise of Roe by means of a congressional act would eventually meet with the same fate of unconstitutionality.
I contend that Congress does not have the power to implement a national ban on abortion nor does it have the power to permit abortion on demand or anything in between. If l am correct and you vote for a president based upon their abortion posture, you are wasting your vote. Neither the president nor Congress can alter the law for the nation.
Abortion is not on the national ballot. It may well be on the ballot in your state election, but making abortion an issue in any national election is nothing but a hoax. It means that if the Democrats are successful with their fear-mongering, this nation is about to vote for a president based upon an issue that does not exist on the national level.
That is why I say ignorance is on the ballot this November.
HEAD-SCRATCHER #2: "Head-scratcher" doesn't do this one justice. Let's say I turn out to be wrong. Let's say that Congress does have the power to establish a right to abortion along with rules of implementation. Democrats, be careful what you ask for...you just might get it.
For any bill to survive the House, the Senate and presidential approval on this topic, it would require a great deal of compromise. If accomplished and constitutional, such a national law is likely going to preempt all state law on the subject. What are you going to say to the citizens in a blue state (where they currently have abortion on demand for the full term of the child thanks to Dobbs), and who believe in democratic rule, when you succeed in passing a national law with a post-15 week ban?
You bet, making abortion an issue for this election is nothing but a hoax. Don't fall for it.
The truth is that President Biden and the Democrat leadership represent the greatest threat to this democracy and the American way of life - far greater than threats from China, Iran, North Korea and Russia combined because they threaten with outright lies from within. We can survive bombs. We cannot survive the unwitting acceptance of deceit from within.
Having said the foregoing, we are never going to return this nation to some form of sanity unless and until we turn back to God. I know that regardless of appearances, He is in control. I trust in Hirn. I pray for our leaders and, yes, I pray for Democrats whom I believe have misled our populace for far too long. The two pillars of the Dems strategy are upside down and backwards. Do not be fooled.
Tad Armstrong is an Edwardsville, Illinois, lawyer, founder of ELL Constitution Clubs (www.ellconstitutionclubs.com) and author of "lt's OK to Say 'God"' and "One."