“I had long remarked that the only way to bring a Conservative and a Radical together was to attack the power of the central government . . . . When, therefore, people assert that nothing is safe from revolutionaries, I tell them they are wrong, and that centralization is one of those things . . . . The enemies of government love it, and those who govern cherish it.”
Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections (1893)
The mind-control machine is spreading despondency and alarm at the prospect that Roe v. Wade will be “overturned” when the Supreme Court returns abortion legislation to the states. One fretting gargoyle in a televised coven suggested that there is a sinister resemblance between this judicial overturning and the howling mob of murderous sans culotte that attempted to overturn the last election.
What the fretting gargoyle of the mind-control machine would have us forget is that Roe v. Wade overturned political and moral principles that had stood for centuries, and that had been in those centuries universally regarded as superior to the ancient pro-choice principles that these new principals had long ago overturned.
As the great jurist Pufendorf explained in 1672, it was archaic and barbaric to suppose that parental rights include the right to destroy their children.
“It is plain then, that the power of the father doth by no means reach to so extravagant a degree, as that he may destroy the child whilst in the mother’s belly, unless the mother must otherwise perish, or after the birth expose or make away with it . . . . For although it be very true, that the infant hath his rise and original form from the very substance of the parents, yet he is immediately placed by nature in a condition of equality with them; at least so far as to be capable of receiving hurt and injury.”
In 1973 the juridical principal described by Pufendorf was itself overturned and replaced by one in which the power of the mother was extended to the (extravagant) degree that she could hire help to destroy the child in her belly, and the rights of the child were retracted so that it was denied equality with its parents until it had exited that belly, with or without the assistance of hired help.
Since the system described by Pufendorf could be overturned by the Supreme Court, we must suppose that the Supreme Court may overturn the system described as Roe v. Wade.
Overturning is what the Supreme Court does.
* * * * *
I do not believe that the hapless palookas who wandered through the Capitol on January 6th had any clear idea of what they were doing. Some were no doubt acting on the foolish notion that their antics might somehow prevent the consummation of the 2020 presidential election, but their “storming” of the Capital was only the last, lamest, and most luckless of the antics employed in that putrid political pandemonium.
Whenever a political party loses an election, it immediately sets to work “overturning” that election by weakening the elected officials with fabricated scandals, opposing the elected officials with partisan obstructionism, possibly removing the elected officials from office with sham trials run by trousered apes and clowns, and finally preparing to overturn the election of the elected officials in the next election.
One cannot condemn the hapless palooka of January 6th for trying to overturn the 2020 election, only for failing in their attempt to overturn it. If they had succeeded, other people would now be described as as hapless palookas, other people would now be sitting in jail, other gargoyles would now be fretting on television, and other mystagogues would now be turning up the volume on the mind-control machine.
) Samuel, Freiherr von Pufendorf, Of the Law of Nature and Nations, trans, Basil Kennett (London: J & J Knapton, 1728), p. 603.