Archive for the 'Court Cases' Category

Feb 25 2016

Newsletter – March 2016

gavel

 

 

Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

The funeral Mass for Justice Scalia held at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C. (largest Basilica in North America) was packed to overflowing on Saturday, February the 20th.  As with all great men, even their detractors come to pay their respects.

Without knowing he was doing so at the time, Justice Scalia left us with a parting critique on his Court and its threat to American democracy. He did so in the dissent he wrote in the Obergefell case (homosexual marriage case) on June 26, 2015. He began with these words.

“I join the Chief Justice’s opinion in full.  I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.”

He continues:

“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact — and the furthest extension one can even imagine — of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine… robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

He returns to his earlier point for emphasis:

”A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.”

In the next paragraph, he picks this theme up again.

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

He adds:

“But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch.”

Justice Scalia was one to choose his words carefully. He used the term “judicial putsch”.  Webster’s defines “putsch” as “a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government.”

Unless Justice Scalia’s words are heeded (and you will want to read through his entire dissent which is enclosed) the death knell for American democracy has been sounded by him and could just as well have been added to the funeral Mass.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer

P.S. Justice Scalia, of course, knew that he would not change his brethren on the Court by lecturing them.  He was issuing a clarion call to all of us in the nation to stand against this.

In this government of, by and for the people there is a way and perhaps the only way to bring about the change Justice Scalia has called for – a CONSTITUIONAL AMENDMENT.

Justice Scalia in truth has given us a modern day update on what were the prophetic words of Thomas Jefferson when he spoke out as President against John Marshall’s self-proclaimed power for the Supreme Court to “interpret” the Constitution (see back of the enclosed proposed constitutional amendment which could just as well be renamed the SCALIA AMENDMENT).

As President of the United States Thomas Jefferson stated in 1803:

“It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions.  It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Justice Scalia in his dissent echoes Jefferson’s use of the word oligarchy when he refers to an “unelected committee of nine”.

Abraham Lincoln echoed the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address:

“If the policy of the government upon vital questions is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the supreme court… the PEOPLE will have ceased to be their own rulers…”

Justice Scalia echoes both Jefferson and Lincoln in his dissent:

”This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine… robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”

The need for a constitutional amendment to be aptly termed the “Scalia Amendment” needs to be a part of the political debates this election year.

Comments Off on Newsletter – March 2016

Feb 25 2016

Supreme Court of the United States

gavel

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

_________________

Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571 and 14–574

_________________

JAMES OBERGEFELL, et al., PETITIONERS

14–556v.

RICHARD HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, et al.;

VALERIA TANCO, et al., PETITIONERS

14–562v.

BILL HASLAM, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al.;

APRIL DeBOER, et al., PETITIONERS

14–571v.

RICK SNYDER, GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, et al.; AND

GREGORY BOURKE, et al., PETITIONERS

14–574v.

STEVE BESHEAR, GOVERNOR OF KENTUCKY

on writs of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit

June 26, 2015

Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas joins, dissenting.

I join The Chief Justice’s opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.

The substance of today’s decree is not of immense personal importance to me. The law can recognize as marriage whatever sexual attachments and living arrangements it wishes, and can accord them favorable civil consequences, from tax treatment to rights of inheritance. Those civil consequences—and the public approval that conferring the name of marriage evidences—can perhaps have adverse social effects, but no more adverse than the effects of many other controversial laws. So it is not of special importance to me what the law says about marriage. It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact—and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. Individuals on both sides of the issue passionately, but respectfully, attempted to persuade their fellow citizens to accept their views. Americans considered the arguments and put the question to a vote. The electorates of 11 States, either directly or through their representatives, chose to expand the traditional definition of marriage. Many more decided not to.[1] Win or lose, advocates for both sides continued pressing their cases, secure in the knowledge that an electoral loss can be negated by a later electoral win. That is exactly how our system of government is supposed to work.[2]

The Constitution places some constraints on self-rule—constraints adopted by the People themselves when they ratified the Constitution and its Amendments. Forbidden are laws “impairing the Obligation of Contracts,”[3] denying “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public Acts” of other States,[4] prohibiting the free exercise of religion,[5] abridging the freedom of speech,[6] infringing the right to keep and bear arms,[7] authorizing unreasonable searches and seizures,[8] and so forth. Aside from these limitations, those powers “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”[9] can be exercised as the States or the People desire. These cases ask us to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment contains a limitation that requires the States to license and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. Does it remove that issue from the political process?

Of course not. It would be surprising to find a prescription regarding marriage in the Federal Constitution since, as the author of today’s opinion reminded us only two years ago (in an opinion joined by the same Justices who join him today):

“[R]egulation of domestic relations is an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”[10]

“[T]he Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state-law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations.”[11]

But we need not speculate. When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision—such as “due process of law” or “equal protection of the laws”—it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification.[12] We have no basis for striking down a practice that is not expressly prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment’s text, and that bears the endorsement of a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use dating back to the Amendment’s ratification. Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.

But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law. Buried beneath the mummeries and straining-to-be-memorable passages of the opinion is a candid and startling assertion: No matter what it was the People ratified, the Fourteenth Amendment protects those rights that the Judiciary, in its “reasoned judgment,” thinks the Fourteenth Amendment ought to protect.[13] That is so because “[t]he generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions . . . . ”[14] One would think that sentence would continue: “. . . and therefore they provided for a means by which the People could amend the Constitution,” or perhaps “. . . and therefore they left the creation of additional liberties, such as the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, to the People, through the never-ending process of legislation.” But no. What logically follows, in the majority’s judge-empowering estimation, is: “and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning.”[15] The “we,” needless to say, is the nine of us. “History and tradition guide and discipline [our] inquiry but do not set its outer boundaries.”[16] Thus, rather than focusing on the People’s understanding of “liberty”—at the time of ratification or even today—the majority focuses on four “principles and traditions” that, in the majority’s view, prohibit States from defining marriage as an institution consisting of one man and one woman.[17]

This is a naked judicial claim to legislative—indeed, super-legislative—power; a claim fundamentally at odds with our system of government. Except as limited by a constitutional prohibition agreed to by the People, the States are free to adopt whatever laws they like, even those that offend the esteemed Justices’ “reasoned judgment.” A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.

Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers [18] who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans[19]), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.

But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today’s judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and Massachusetts’ permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.[20] They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a “fundamental right” overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their “reasoned judgment.” These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago,[21] cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres to what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.

The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic. It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the Court to do so.[22] Of course the opinion’s showy profundities are often profoundly incoherent. “The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality.”[23] (Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say.) Rights, we are told, can “rise . . . from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that remains urgent in our own era.”[24] (Huh? How can a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives [whatever that means] define [whatever that means] an urgent liberty [never mind], give birth to a right?) And we are told that, “[i]n any particular case,” either the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause “may be thought to capture the essence of [a] right in a more accurate and comprehensive way,” than the other, “even as the two Clauses may converge in the identification and definition of the right.”[25] (What say? What possible “essence” does substantive due process “capture” in an “accurate and comprehensive way”? It stands for nothing whatever, except those freedoms and entitlements that this Court really likes. And the Equal Protection Clause, as employed today, identifies nothing except a difference in treatment that this Court really dislikes. Hardly a distillation of essence. If the opinion is correct that the two clauses “converge in the identification and definition of [a] right,” that is only because the majority’s likes and dislikes are predictably compatible.) I could go on. The world does not expect logic and precision in poetry or inspirational pop-philosophy; it demands them in the law. The stuff contained in today’s opinion has to diminish this Court’s reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis.

Hubris is sometimes defined as o’erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall. The Judiciary is the “least dangerous” of the federal branches because it has “neither Force nor Will, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm” and the States, “even for the efficacy of its judgments.”[26] With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them—with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence.

Notes

1  Brief for Respondents in No. 14–571, p. 14.

2  Accord, Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 15–17).

3  U. S. Const., Art. I, §10.

4  Art. IV, §1.

5  Amdt. 1.

6  Ibid.

7  Amdt. 2.

8  Amdt. 4.

9  Amdt. 10.

10  United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., at 16) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 17).

12  See Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2014) (slip op., at 7–8).

13  Ante, at 10.

14  Ante, at 11.

15  Ibid.

16  Ante, at 10–11.

17  Ante, at 12–18.

18  The predominant attitude of tall-building lawyers with respect to the questions presented in these cases is suggested by the fact that the American Bar Association deemed it in accord with the wishes of its members to file a brief in support of the petitioners. See Brief for American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae in Nos. 14–571 and 14–574, pp. 1–5.

19  See Pew Research Center, America’s Changing Religious Landscape 4 (May 12, 2015).

20  Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941 (2003).

21  Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (Alito, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7).

22  If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

23  Ante, at 13.

24  Ante, at 19.

25  Ibid.

26  The Federalist No. 78, pp. 522, 523 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).

Comments Off on Supreme Court of the United States

Dec 19 2015

Bulletin – December 2015

gavel

BULLETIN

 The decision forcing homosexual marriage on all 50 States (Obergefell v. Hodges) was decided by the narrow vote of 5 to 4. Four of the judges, including Chief Judge Roberts saw this as an abomination. Four other judges (the liberal arm of the court) said it was the best thing since sliced bread. Justice Kennedy, as you know, became the swing vote making the vote 5 to 4 in favor of homosexual marriage.

Now we learn that two of those judges (Ginsberg and Kagan) had been asked to perform, and had performed, homosexual marriages after homosexual marriage was legalized in Washington, D.C. These two judges refused to disqualify themselves (a judge is supposed to disqualify or recuse him or herself if they have a conflict of interest in a case.) Chief Judge Roberts was not exactly “Captains Courageous” in standing up to them and insisting that they disqualify themselves from participating in the Obergefell case.

Which brings us to a golden opportunity: if your state did not have homosexual marriage on it’s books prior to this abominable decision of the court on June 26, 2015, all your governor needs to do is use the principle of interposition (by which he interposes his authority between the citizens of his state and the federal government in order to protect the health, safety, and morality of his citizens. This is a legitimate principle of constitutional law. All he needs to do is by executive order say that two judges who voted for homosexual marriage (“same-sex” marriage) had themselves performed homosexual marriages. It was all over the Sunday Washington Post Magazine insert a year or so ago that Justice Ginsberg had performed the homosexual marriage of the director of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts to his male homosexual partner. No one could believe it. What was a Supreme Court justice (judges do have authority to marry people) doing giving in to such a request — to walk over to the Kennedy Center and perform a homosexual marriage in a candlelight ceremony that was invitation only? Our tax dollars at work! And, she feels that she would be fit to decide a question of whether not homosexual marriage should be legal when she has just finished performing one. Justice Kagan also performed a homosexual marriage. Unbelievable! Well, that’s two down, and if you subtract 2 from the vote of 5 in favor, you have only 3 left standing. That makes the vote on homosexual marriage 4 to 3 against with CHIEF JUDGE ROBERTS and the conservative block of the courts saying that it is wrong, that no place was it contemplated or is it to be found in the Constitution, and therefore it is not to be made legal. This goes back to being a state-by-state decision.

You say to yourself that your governor will never do that because he’ll be afraid that he will be maligned in the press and that the homosexual rights organizations will sue him. Stop and think about it! This is a very interesting situation. Those organizations that would think about suing him are going to have to realize that the case is eventually going to be appealed and wind up back before the U.S. Supreme Court. Now stop and think — how are those two judges, who refused to disqualify themselves the first time around, going to not disqualify themselves this time around because the question before the court will be whether or not they should have disqualified themselves in the first place?

TAKE IT AND GO WITH IT! Send it to your governor pointing out the principle of interposition, State’s rights, the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, etc. This is an ideal time to put it into practice. Tell your governor, if the lawyers on his or her staff advise against it, to fire them and get some other lawyers (and perhaps check to see who they are planning on marrying.)

 

Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Bulletin – December 2015

Nov 16 2015

Newsletter – November 2015

 

gavel

 

Dear Family and Friends of the Preborn Child,

We need to pray for our current President.  He appears to be entirely disrespecting our nation’s Constitution. Why?  He seems to do so because he thinks only he is right.  When the Constitution is in the way, it must bend to his will. Executive orders have become the ‘order’ of the day.  Why? Having risen to power in this nation, he now seeks world acclaim (and future power). Why?  He lays future stepping stones for himself on the world stage at the expense of his own nation and our allies (Israel to name one).  Why?

Human personality is, in truth, a ‘riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma’.  As a mere layman in these matters, I’m not qualified to furnish a definitive answer to the question “Why?”.  In the spring of 2010, however, I had occasion to be present at an evening meeting of preeminent physicians of the Washington metropolitan area.  I filed suit in March of that same year on behalf of these same physicians to challenge the Healthcare bill working it’s way through the Congress.  We challenged it as a violation of the ‘ORIGINATION CLAUSE’, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, because it was ‘originating’ in the Senate instead of the House of Representatives where all bills that would result in a “tax” must originate.  I had been asked to brief the doctors on the status of their case.

The exceptionally brilliant physician, Edmund Pellegrino, entered late and announced to his fellow physicians in the room “I have finally diagnosed Obama. He’s a NARCISSIST.”   A ripple of nervous laughter went through the room (as though they were trying to decide if he was serious or saying it in jest) Dr. Pellegrino instantly raised his hand and stopped the laughter.  He said, “No, I’m serious.”  That’s all he said. That’s all he needed to say.  His fellow physicians knew and understood the diagnosis all too well.  They did not question him for a second.  They knew who was speaking. They respected his diagnosis no different than if he’d entered the room and said he had diagnosed someone with adenocarcinoma of the lung. Every physician present would have known what that was and what it meant for the patient.  Of course, a diagnosis of adenocarcinoma is made with medical tests and x-rays and you have to be seeing the patient one on one to be able to take the x-ray and draw the blood, and send it off and get the lab reports back.  Perhaps because I was present (a non-doctor and not privy to the work of doctors and information they may share among themselves confidentially) no further discussion took place at that time.  We returned to the report that I was to give as a lawyer.

The doctors were understanding that the healthcare bill, as proposed in the Senate, was not about health and not about care but about CONTROL.  This is the succinct way they expressed it to me. Many would agree that they were right, for the healthcare bill has since come to be named after it’s chief protagonist.  Dr. Pellegrino was later to write me a letter commending me for my work on behalf of his friends and fellow physicians.

Not wanting to show my ignorance at the meeting that night as to what the word ‘narcissist’ meant, I came home and started where I always start, with my children’s Worldbook Encyclopedia.  Under the word ‘narcissist’, I found that the word itself came from greek mythology.  The entry in the Worldbook Encyclopedia reads as follows:

Narcissus, (Nahr SIS uhs), in greek mythology, was a handsome youth who was courted by many lovers for his beauty.  He, however, haughtily rejected all of them, including the nymph Echo.  As punishment for his cruelty, the gods condemned Narcissus to contemplate his beauty reflected in a pond on Mount Helicon in Greece.  Day after day, he lay beside the pond gazing lovingly at his reflection until he wasted away and died.  When searchers looked for him, they found only a flower now called the “Narcissus”.  Echo also wasted away from her love for Narcissus finally becoming nothing more than a voice in the woods.  The best-known version of the Narcissus story appears in the Metamorphoses, a collection of tales by the Roman poet Ovid.” (Worldbook Encyclopedia 2000)

Having educated myself somewhat, I telephoned the following evening, and spoke with a physician in the group who was a dear friend and asked that he share his wisdom with me on the medical term ‘narcissist’.  I asked him concerning Dr. Pellegrino’s diagnosis of the current president as a narcissist (a conclusion he came to only after carefully and patiently observing from a distance over a two year period the personality traits, words and actions of Obama) – I asked this wise physician what world leaders come to mind for him that would have been a narcissist.  He thought for a couple seconds and replied with only two words “Well, Hitler”.

There is no reason to doubt the diagnosis of this preeminent physician.  He is more qualified than any other, really, to make the diagnosis in the nation and was hesitant to do so for 2 years.  He had to be sure he was right before he announced it.  He needed certitude before he shared it with his fellow physicians because he knew what the diagnosis would mean.  It’s treatable, if at all, only with the cooperation of the patient.  But the very nature of the disease, (and it seems it should be called rightfully a disease, because look where it led the German Nation), forestalls the one who suffers from it from even admitting he needs help to begin with; let alone seeking that help.  Will he love this nation enough to seek it?  The nature of the malady causes him to love himself more than his nation.  The nation must bow to his will.  The nation must be subservient to his wishes, will and desire.  He doesn’t listen. He doesn’t learn. He always blames others.  In his mind, he is never wrong.  He and he alone knows what’s best for the Nation.  Yes, we have known others in history that fit this description, including the abominable one the doctor whose advice I sought mentioned to me.  History does not necessarily repeat itself, but it rhymes.

The malady feeds on power which is it’s aphrodisiac and like the drug addict, it must have more and more of the drug to achieve the same high.  In politics, the individual climbs the ladder of political power, reaching for a pinnacle that is never attained.

We remember Obama was elected to a state legislature as a relative unknown; followed by being elected to the U.S. Senate as a relative unknown; and we remember when he announced that he was running for president some of the newscasters apologized that they did not even know how to pronounce his name – he was a newcomer!  This is very curious!  He sought the offices boldly and with certitude, speaking with authority in an almost mesmeric way, because he truly believes, as did Narcissus, that he is the be all and end all.  This is a very dangerous combination on the world stage.  We need to stop criticizing.  We need to respect the high office of the President. We need to pray for the man who currently occupies that office.  We need to pray for our nation and it’s superintending influence on world affairs.

Let’s turn our attention, just for a moment, to the man who made the diagnosis, Edmund D. Pellegrino, MD, MACP.  When I first met him in 2010, he was 90 years of age, but he bounded in to that meeting that night as though he could outrun anyone on the tennis court.  Indeed, his mind was as sharp as that of a 29 year old.  I remember being surprised as I watched him get into the back seat of a Cadillac to catch a ride with other physicians as he left the meeting.  He simply crawled across the back seat to get on the far side to make it easier for a younger doctor to come in after him and sit on the side near the other window. Unbelievable!  He not only was gifted by his Creator with a wonderful constitution, but with an absolutely brilliant intellect that was respected worldwide.  President Bush prevailed upon him to chair the Nation Bioethics Advisory Commission because he knew the respect his name would carry with the scientific community.

Dr. Pellegrino passed from our midst on June 19, 2013, and like a giant sequoia tree that’s been felled in the forest, left a gap that may never be filled, just as there has not been to date another Albert Einstein, there may not for years to come, if at all, be another Edmund Pellegrino. A very humble man, when I met him that night, really.  As I peruse his curriculum vitae, I realize that merely being in his presence was a great honor.

At page 7 of the enclosed curriculum vitae (biography) of Dr. Pellegrino, we find listed honorary degrees from Yale and fifty other colleges.  He received the Achievement in Life Award from Encyclopedia Brittanica in 1979; a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Catholic Health Association in 2004; the Lifetime Achievement Award, American Society for Bioethics and Humanities in November 1998; the Laetare Medal from University of Notre Dame in May of 1998; the Patrick Healy Award for Lifetime Achievement and service to Georgetown University, May 2nd, 1998.

the Abraham Flexner Award for Distinguished Service to Medical Education, Association of American Medical Colleges, November 1, 1997; the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, 1994 Editorial Board Award for Excellence, May 1995; the Society for Health and Human Values Award, 1994.  The Christian Medical Society Award in 1993; Distinction in Bioethics Award, International Bioethics Institute, 1993; Benjamin Rush Award for Citizenship and Community Service, American Medical Association, 1992; Special Dedication Issue: The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 1990;(Good heavens, was this an entire medical publication devoted just to him on the cover and throughout it’s contents?) Special Dedication Issue: The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy, Volume 6,Spring 1990; Presidential Medal Georgetown University, 1990; Honorary Fellow, American College of Legal Medicine, 1988; Mercy Hospital Foundation Medal of Excellence, April 28, 1988; Edmund D. Pellegrino Professorship of Medicine, Endowed Chair, State University of New York, Stoney Brook, New York, 1986; Calvary Medal, 1986; Samuel Cardinal Stritch Award, 1986; Aquinas Medal, University of Dallas, 1986; Certificate of Meritorious Service, Medical Society of D.C., 1980.

And that’s but a partial recitation of the list found on the back of the enclosed CV. Click here to view Dr. Pelligrino’s entire CV.  This man built a reputation not by making snap judgments.  When he pronounced the judgment of a diagnosis and raised his hand to say he was serious a hushed silence of respect came over the entire room.  I am simply reporting what I saw and heard. You be the judge.

Around our thanksgiving tables this year, as we give thanks for family and for this great nation, the light on the hill for the world to see these many years, let us pray that that light will not go out and let us pray for this current president and let us pray that there will be a peaceful transition to the next president (a narcissist cannot allow that someone could take his place or that someone would know better than he).

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

Martin Palmer

 

P.S. Perusing his CV, you will see that he was Phi Beta Kappa in college and his years of medicine and positions held are a who’s who of U.S. medicine and the world.  He had been elected to Who’s who in America, World Who’s Who in Science, Who’s Who in the East, Who’s Who in Healthcare, Who’s Who in Germany.

In his medical career, my eyes pick up Yale (my grandfather was a graduate of it’s law school) where Ed Pellegrino was president and chairman of the Board of Directors Yale New Haven Medical Center, Professor of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine in Connecticut, member of the joint faculty of the Institution of Social and Policy Studies. We also notice that he was president, of the Catholic University of America, Washington, D.C., Professor of Philosophy and Biology, Catholic University, Professor of Clinical Medicine and Community Medicine, Georgetown University School of Medicine – Good Heavens!  I get hoarse reading this into dictation and I’ll stop here before my secretary’s printer runs out of ink.  There is no more to be said about the bon-a-fides of this man to have made the diagnosis. Let’s be sure and include our president in prayer around our thanksgiving table.  A diagnosis like this can be a matchhead on an unsettled world stage that is flowing with gasoline.

Remember, it is not the writer that is making the diagnosis.  The writer is simply sharing the diagnosis of this great man and preeminent physician, Dr. Edmund Pellegrino.  He was not known to use hyperbole or make snap judgments.  Indeed, following Obama’s election in November of 2008, it was nearly two years before he was willing to go public and then only with his most trusted fellow physicians with his definitive diagnosis.  In addition to Yale, he held honorary degrees from no less than 51 colleges and universities, all of which honored him by extending the lauds of an honorary degree to this ‘Hippocrates’ of modern medicine.  You have Dr. Pellegrino’s diagnosis of Barak Hussain Obama; a narcissist.  You have Dr. Pellegrino’s curriculum vitae in hand.  Take it to your thanksgiving gatherings and open the dessert course to discussion around that family table.

My wife, an RN, (a former head nurse, Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland) is concerned about me sharing this diagnosis that was made by Dr. Pellegrino.  She says she’s not comfortable with it.  I point out that it is not me that is making the diagnosis, but this national and world renowned authority.  She agrees.  She seems to be worried that if I send it around they may, as she puts it “come after you”. My address is at the top of this letter.  There is plenty of parking at the side of this building. (I am reminded of my dear friend Daniella Brabner-Smith, a German war bride to Professor John Wesley Brabner-Smith who founded the International School of Law in Washington, D.C.  Daniella’s uncle was hung by Hitler with piano wire for crossing Hitler’s path. The response of a narcissist.)

Truth must be made known and it’s the truth that will set us free.  The nation needs to be set free from the grip of this diagnosis of Dr. Pellegrino.  You notice I say diagnosis.  It’s the problems that beset man, not the man himself that has this nation increasingly in the fix it’s in.  An eagle scout can become a danger to others if he drives drunk.  A priest or a cardinal himself can become a lethal weapon behind the wheel of 2000 lbs. of moving steel if he’s intoxicated.  It’s not the man that’s the danger to his fellow man, it’s the substance he has ingested into his body that has caused him to be intoxicated.  A narcissist cannot help himself.  He cannot help but ingest larger and larger doses of the aphrodisiac of power.  It’s the intoxicating substance that makes the man’s actions dangerous to the 300 million people that he’s behind the driver’s wheel for.  We are in the backseat and we are feeling helpless as backseat drivers.  In his valise on the front seat, he has tapes of past speeches to give to the Queen of England and other political leaders.  The rearview mirror is turned down so he can see himself; not even watching the danger that may be approaching from behind (ISIS).  When he sees a barricade ahead on the road with big letters “STOP” (U.S. Constitution), he crashes through it.  He’s on his cell phone to his lawyers talking and texting while driving, checking out his plan to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to remain and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation.  He feels he and he alone is right and has no respect for the law, the Constitution or the nation’s courts.  He’s upset because his program is yet to begin (delayed nearly a year after Texas and 25 other states won an injunction that was upheld by a federal appeals court on Monday, November 9th).  He demands it be taken directly to the Supreme Court.  He has judges (unelected political appointees) that are doing his bidding.  Those of us in the backseat of this ever speeding car need some help.  We need a larger voice.

Truth has a certain patent clarity about it once you get it around.  I’m not into computers, but if any of you have a young person at your Thanksgiving table with the ability to scan Dr. Pellegrino’s CV and his concluding diagnosis about our current president (you are welcome to scan as well this letter – or at least that portion of it that reports Dr. Pellegrino’s announcement to his fellow physicians that he finally diagnosed Obama).

We must pray for this president.  We must pray that he will stop driving drunk with power.  The reins of power that he took up in the oval office are a sacred trust laid down by such men as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and all the great presidents of the past.  We remember Ronald Reagan who was reported by one of his aides to have declined to take his jacket off in the Oval Office after they all came back in to the Oval Office on a hot, sweltering summer day from a ceremony in the Rose Garden.  The aide recalled that his own shirt was sticking to him from perspiration and he took one look at Ronald Reagan and he said “Mr. President, if you take your jacket off, you would be more comfortable.”  He said he’ll never forget the response of Ronald Reagan who said, “I could never take my jacket off in this office.”

What was one of the first pictures we saw circulated widely on the internet after the current president took office?  Sitting with his feet propped up on the desk in the Oval Office, jacket off, collar open.  Can somebody find that picture that went viral on the internet and send me a copy?  I’d like to examine it more closely.  Did he have a mirror in his hand, or was there a mirror on the wall across from his desk that he could keep looking into.  Where is Ronald Reagan when we need him?  We have a lot of politicians anymore (Good Heavens! They line up to get paid.)  We have no statesmen!  Try that statement around your Thanksgiving table.

 

Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Newsletter – November 2015

Jun 23 2015

Bulletin – June 2015 – New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

gavel

BULLETIN

New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

June 23, 2015

The current United States Supreme Court session ends June 29th. Before that date they will be handing down their “opinion” regarding the right of the States to defend traditional marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Our Supreme Court continues to “legislate” for the people – something they have no business doing. All power to legislate is vested in the people through their elected representatives in the Congress (Article 1, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution).

The Supreme Court continues to legislate as they wish to legislate (just as they did in Roe v. Wade) by leveraging this ill-gotten power that the court and the court alone claims it should have of “interpreting” the Constitution. Such power to interpret is nowhere found in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson predicted that if the Supreme Court were permitted to continue down this ill-gotten road, it would place us under the despotism of an OLIGARCHY! Jefferson’s words were prophetic.

In this government that Lincoln called the government of, by and for the people it’s time for the people to take back this ill-gotten power that the U.S. Supreme Court is using to lead the people around like a bull with a ring in its nose.

Kindly click here to find a revised copy of the Thomas Jefferson Amendment we posted in the past.  It occurred to us that it’s not enough to divest the Court of the power to “interpret” the Constitution. It’s important at the same time to transfer this power to the branch of government that should have it – the Congress. This proposed amendment does that in short, succinct language by saying that all power to “interpret” the Constitution will be reposed in the people through their elected representatives. This automatically would divest and divorce the Court from its ill-gotten power that they claim they should have of “interpreting” the Constitution.

Many of these earth shaking opinions are handed down by a bare majority vote of the nine.  If you have a decision that is decided by a 4 to 5 vote, one judge becomes the swing vote.  Look at the opportunity for abuse if someone out there is able to put pressure on that one judge.

Recently the news carried that the Chinese hacked into our government computers and stole the personal information on 4 million federal employees.  The news further carried that this could be used to blackmail federal employees in sensitive positions.  Presumptively, there are no skeletons in the closet of any of our Supreme Court Judges, at least we hope not.  This is all the more reason why any interpretation of the Constitution should be vested wholly and solely in the elected representatives of the people.  You might be able to blackmail one judge, but you can’t blackmail the entire Congress.

If we can get the need for such a constitutional amendment into the upcoming presidential debates, we will be accomplishing a wonderful thing, not only for preborn children, but for our living grandchildren and their children to be.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer
Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Bulletin – June 2015 – New and Revised Thomas Jefferson Amendment

Jun 05 2015

Newsletter – June 2015

 gavel

 

Dear Friends and Family of the Preborn Child,

New generations of young people are ever maturing and coming on to the stage of life before our eyes. Among them are the leaders of tomorrow. The young are increasingly pro-life. As they seek to advocate for the ‘good cause of children yet to be,’ they will be confronted with the same questions and arguments that we have been confronted with through the years.

One of these questions has been answered, definitively and for all time, 26 years ago by the world’s leading geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune, of Paris, France, in his eloquent testimony in the Tennessee frozen human embryo case. Based upon his testimony, Judge W. Dale Young ruled, for the first time in judicial history and for all time, that 7 frozen human embryos were “children in vitro.” The truth of our being never changes. People (even Supreme Court Judges) may deny the truth, but the truth never changes.

Dr. Lejeune’s eloquent testimony in that case can be read and downloaded at our website (naapc.org – click on the icon “Symphony of the Preborn Child”). Many college graduates, themselves 26 years of age, may not be aware of who Dr. Lejeune was and what his testimony in that case was about that caused Judge Young to reach the decision he did.

History doesn’t always repeat itself, but it rhymes. A wonderful helpmate to us here at the office, Karen Betts, has been following the case of movie star Sofia Vergara and her ex-fiancé, Nick Loeb, who are presently involved in a court case over which of the two should be entitled to 2 human embryos conceived in vitro while they were still engaged. She has met someone else and doesn’t want the embryos. He understands that they are ‘lives in being’ and wants to see them brought to term and live birth.

This is reminding us of the Tennessee frozen human embryo case, the trial of which took place in August 1989, which made the front page of the papers then, including USA Today. You, of course, recall that case. A young couple, Mary and Junior Davis of Maryville, Tennessee, were getting divorced. All issues had been decided in the divorce except what was to become of 7 frozen human embryos conceived during the marriage. Mary was an attractive young woman who was a model for the boat show in Knoxville, Tennessee. Junior Davis, her husband, was a handsome young man. Initially, they had conceived together 9 frozen human embryos. Mary implanted the first 2 and they failed to take. Before she could return to implant 2 more, he completely surprised her by filing for divorce. He asked for, and received, a temporary injunction preventing her from implanting anymore of their frozen human embryos. He said he did not want to be made to be a father against his will. Mary said, “He already is a father.” He said, “Nonsense, they are only ‘potential life’.” She responded, “They are lives with potential!” So the debate was joined and there was needed an expert witness.

The world’s leading geneticist, Dr. Jerome Lejeune of Paris, France, flew in to testify in what he later called the “Judgment of Maryville.” He had received, from the hand of President Kennedy, our nation’s highest award in genetics for isolating the X-21 chromosome responsible for Downs Syndrome. Dr. Lejeune was to the world of genetics as Einstein was to the world of physics.

Dr. Lejeune’s flight landed at Dulles International Airport in Washington where I met his plane and continued with him on a local United Airlines flight to Knoxville, Tennessee. Seated on the plane, he asked me, “What is it that the Judge must decide?” I responded that, essentially, he had to decide whether these 7 human embryos were person or property, since if they were property, the Judge would divide them as he would the silverware or the furniture in a divorce. If persons, he would enter up a custody award as he would with any other children. I shall never forget Dr. Lejeune’s response. He thought for a moment, turned to me and said, “I would say the human embryo is a being, and being human, it is a human being. It is person and not property, because it is the only property which has the property of building itself!” In those few words he brilliantly summed up all that is to be said.

Junior Davis had told his wife, Mary, privately that if he got his hands on those embryos, he would destroy them. She told him publically by announcing to the Judge, that if she could not be allowed personally to implant them, she would like them to be donated anonymously to any couple who could not have children, so that their children might live. When I told Dr. Lejeune this, over transatlantic telephone, he said that this was incredible; that it was the judgment of Solomon. He told Judge Young at the conclusion of his testimony that this was the judgment of Solomon. It was a 3,000 years old judgment. He did not think it could reoccur in human history, but it was reoccurring, and if it reoccurred in your lifetime it was worth the trip. He added from the witness stand that he hoped the Judge would be on the side of Solomon. About a month later, Judge Young announced his decision. Based upon Dr. Lejeune’s testimony, for the first time in legal history, he held that Mary’s 7 frozen human embryos were “children in vitro” and he awarded custody to Mary for implantation.

This current case between Nick Loeb and his former fiancée, Sophia Vergara, is receiving wide publicity because of her movie star status. This time, the one recognizing the humanity of their “children in vitro” is the man, whereas in the Tennessee case, it was the woman. This time, the one who would just as soon see them destroyed or die a natural death in the deep freeze, is the woman. The one who wants to give life is the true parent. Courts are in a position of “parens patrie,” which in the law refers to the sovereign power of guardianship over persons under disability possessed by the court. As such, the court must side with the lives in being, shelter them, protect them, by giving custody to the one who wants to give life (the father), presumptively, by the use of a surrogate mother. Yes, the movie star may not want to see them born now that she’s dating another man not their father, but these are her children also.  Someday she may want to know them and have a relationship with them, children are love and she would be the first to thank not only the Judge, but the child’s father – that he saw to their birth.

For those of you who may not have followed this case of Sophia Vergara and her former fiancé and the dispute between them over their 2 frozen human embryos (I must confess I have not followed it myself until now), I’ve asked Karen Betts to do a memo giving us a thumbnail sketch of what the case is about which is enclosed. Let us pray that the court will grasp the issues and do true justice.

Yours very sincerely and respectfully,

R. Martin Palmer

Note: The world press was there to interview Dr. Lejeune on the courthouse lawn following his testimony in the Tennessee frozen human embryo case. In his comments to the press, he spoke of this new technology that allowed human embryos to be compacted in a small canister by the hundreds in a state of cryropreservation. He referred to it as a “concentration can.”

The French press mistakenly printed it as “concentration camp.” Dr. Lejeune was later to observe in the book he wrote about the case (The Concentration Can – Ignatius Press) that this was a curious mistake because a “concentration can” was something that had been invented to terribly slow down life, whereas, a “concentration camp” was something that had been invented to terribly speed up death. He added that in either case, the wall imprisons innocents.

Dr. Lejeune’s book, “The Concentration Can” by Ignatius Press, tells the whole story. The book itself is over 200 pages long. Should you wish to read the part where he speaks of the French press confusing “concentration can” with “concentration camp,” I’ve enclosed a copy of pages 7-10 for your perusal.  CLICK HERE to read pages 7-10 of Dr. Lejeune’s book “The Concentration Can” in PDF format

CLICK HERE to stay up-to-date on news and announcements from NAAPC.

 _______________________________________________________________

DATE: June 1, 2015

TO: Martin Palmer, Esq.

FROM: Karen Betts

RE: Dispute over Frozen Embryos

There is an ongoing debate in this country with regard to whether embryos (children in vitro) are property or persons. This is to be an important point in the Sofia Vergara vs. Nick Loeb case.

Nick Loeb, a business man, was the fiancé of actress Sofia Vergara for over three years. During that time, Ms. Vergara and Mr. Loeb conceived by IVF, two female in vitro children together. Their plan was to have a surrogate give birth to their children.

Ms. Vergara has broken her engagement to Mr. Loeb and is presently engaged to someone else. Mr. Loeb wants to be a father to their children. This is the road that he has chosen and he wants to continue on this same path. Ms. Vergara states she has worked very hard for the last 20 years to reach her fame and she would like to bask in the light of her achievement. This is the road she chose and wishes to follow. Meanwhile, their children in vitro are in a frozen state waiting for their intended birth.

So, what about the “children in the freezer?” Mr. Loeb is requesting the courts allow him custody of these children in vitro so that he might raise them independently since Ms. Vergara has no interest. Mr. Loeb’s concern is that they will be destroyed or left to perish in their frozen state. Mr. Loeb reports he should have a moral and legal right to raise his children, and further, that single fathers are as capable as single mothers to raise their offspring.

As for Ms. Vergara, she has very little to share on the subject. Her opinion is that Mr. Loeb is trying to catch a ride on her rising star, using her hard work to freely gain a bit of fame for himself. She wants to enjoy her successes and her wedding plans with her new fiancé.

Click here to see interviews with both Ms. Vergara and Mr. Loeb on this subject.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “…is to the world of genetics as Einstein was to the world of physics.” He has stated that a new life begins at conception. In his testimony in the Davis case (Blount County, Tennessee, August 10, 1989) [Prologue, by Martin Palmer, Esq. A Symphony of the Preborn Child] Dr. LeJeune explains:

“Each human has a unique beginning which occurs at the moment of conception. Embryo: ‘…that youngest form of a being…;’ Pre-embryo: there is no such word. There is no need for a subclass of the embryo to be called a pre-embryo, because there is nothing before the embryo—before an embryo there is only a sperm and an egg; and when the egg is fertilized by the sperm the entity becomes a zygote—and when the zygote divides it is an embryo. When the first cell exists, all the ‘tricks of the trade’ to build itself into an individual already exists. Shortly after fertilization at the three-cell stage, a ‘…tiny human being…’ exists. When the ovum is fertilized by the sperm, the result is ‘…the most specialized cell under the sun…,’ specialized from the point of view that no other cell will ever have the same instructions in the life of the individual being created. No scientist has ever offered the opinion that an embryo is property. As soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man. Findings…definitely prove differentiation and that from the beginning there exists an embryo.”

Dr. LeJeune has answered two very important questions for humanity in his statement: 1. Yes, human life begins at the moment of conception. 2. This human being, therefore, must be considered a person and not property.

Is Ms. Vergara an accurate example of a nation that places little or no value on human life as a miracle, but as a convenient item we can store on the freezer shelf in case we have a future need? Apparently, Mr. Loeb and Ms. Vergara see things very differently.

We would like to offer you the opportunity to read the Davis case, very similar the to Vergara vs. Loeb case, in the book entitled A Symphony of the Preborn Child, which contains the eloquent testimony of Dr. Jerome Lejeune. This book is an informative, poignant and a well-documented account of a divorced husband and wife who had divided beliefs in what should happen to their conceived children in vitro. The reality and twists in this case will afford you much to think about, and perhaps even give you a change of heart.  Click here to download this in PDF format free of charge.

 Click here to read more on Vergara vs. Loeb.

 Click here to share your comments, questions and concerns.

Comments Off on Newsletter – June 2015

May 17 2010

The Mary Scott Doe Lawsuit

The Mary Scott Doe Lawsuit is an action by the National Association for the Advancement of Preborn Children to prevent federal funding for human embryo experimentation by the National Institutes of Health together with the current Administration. Click on the links below to view the lawsuit in depth.

Continue Reading »

No responses yet


  • Suggested Videos

    Professor LeJeune speaks at the Institute for Marriage and the Family in Washington, DC.