The U.S. Constitution requires

Equal Protection for Posterity

Child

Introduction toThe Resolution

Child

Read
&
Sign
The Resolution

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

A resolution affirming vital, existing, constitutional protections for the unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from the first moment of creation until natural death.

WHEREAS, The first stated principle of the United States, in its charter, the Declaration of Independence, is the assertion of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and that they are each endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, beginning with the right to life, and that the first purpose of all government is to defend that supreme right; and

WHEREAS, The first stated purposes of We the People of the United States in our Constitution are "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, imperatively requires that all persons within the jurisdictions of all the States be afforded the equal protection of the laws; and

WHEREAS, The United States Constitution, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, explicitly forbids the taking of the life of any innocent person; and

WHEREAS, The practices of abortion and euthanasia violate every clause of the stated purposes of the United States Constitution, and its explicit provisions; and

WHEREAS, Modern science has demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the individual human person's physical existence begins at the moment of biological inception or creation; and

WHEREAS, All executive, legislative, and judicial Officers in America, at every level and in every branch, have sworn before God to support the United States Constitution as required by Article VI of that document, and have therefore, because the Constitution explicitly requires it, sworn to protect the life of every innocent person;

THEREFORE, WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HEREBY RESOLVE that the God-given, unalienable right to life of every innocent person, from biological inception or creation to natural death, be protected everywhere within every state, territory and jurisdiction of the United States of America; that every officer of the judicial, legislative and executive departments, at every level and in every branch, is required to use all lawful means to protect every innocent life within their jurisdictions; and that we will henceforth deem failure to carry out this supreme sworn duty to be cause for removal from public office via impeachment or recall, or by statutory or electoral means, notwithstanding any law passed by any legislative body within the United States, or the decision of any court, or the decree of any executive officer, at any level of governance, to the contrary.

About the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution was authored in 2011 by Tom Hoefling, with the assistance of many good folks at America's Party.

The Resolution is an affirmation that the U.S. Constitution protects all innocent human life. The Resolution proposes that the decades-long abortion holocaust would end overnight in this country, if the American people would simply hold officers of government accountable to their constitutional oath. Signers of the Resolution pledge to withhold support from candidates whose agenda refuses to provide equal protection for all innocent persons — born or unborn.

United States Constitution

The authors of the Resolution assert that the only way to stop abortion — a vicious attack properly known as feticide, or, the deliberate murder of a human child in the womb — is to enforce the equal protection and due process guarantees of the United States Constitution, and to hold all officials accountable to their sworn obligations.

All officers of government, in every branch, and at all levels, are required by Article VI to swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution explicitly protects the inherent right to life of every innocent person in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. The application of these amendments is directed by the opening paragraph of the document.

In that opening paragraph, we read that our Constitution was ordained and established to "form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty" — not to ourselves alone, but to "ourselves and our posterity."

Abortion violates each and every one of those stated purposes. Indeed, we could argue that no other injustice could be more out of step with our Constitution than the government-sanctioned killing of posterity — America's helpless children.

What about Roe v. Wade?

In 1973, the Supreme Court issued an immoral, unconstitutional opinion that unjustly favored the medical and privacy interests of the mother above the supreme right of her unborn child. The Roe majority determined that the unborn child could be destroyed prior to "viability" — or, roughly the first three months of pregnancy.

Federal judges take two oaths of office. The first is an oath to "administer justice without respect to persons," and to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon [the office] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. [So help me God.]" The second oath is to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution, with no "mental reservation or purpose of evasion."

The seven Supreme Court Justices who joined the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade violated at least three pillars of their oaths:

  • First, they were unjustly partial toward the mother, and granted her an illegitimate power to destroy the life of her innocent unborn child, without due process of law. They also showed favoritism toward babies of later gestation, and thereby promoted an arbitrary bias against younger children in the womb. (We now see this same unjust, arbitrary bias extend to legislation that would regulate abortion by 20-week, "fetal pain" standards.)
  • Second, they assumed an unconstitutional lawmaking power — a power that the Constitution, in the very first words of Article I, Section I, reserves only to Congress — to supposedly require the other branches of government within the United States to secure an invented “right” of a mother to kill her own unborn child. In so doing, the justices lurched far outside the legitimate bounds of their office.
  • Third, they showed an allegiance to ideas contrary to the Constitution. Rather than apply constitutionally-mandated equal protection, the Court evaded this responsibility with "mental reservation." The Court gave greater weight to the supposed opinions of ancient philosophers and religious leaders than to the enlightened concepts of equality and justice that prevail under our Constitution.

The de-personification of the child in the womb by the Roe court was completely arbitrary and injudicial. Just as arbitrary and unrighteous was the de-personification of black slaves by the Dred Scott court, or the de-personificiation of the Jews by the Nazis.

Incrementalism

Ironically, in the course of the four decades since the Roe opinion, the biggest obstacle to ending abortion has been the piecemeal mindset of the so-called “pro-life movement,” and its strategy of incrementalism based in utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism does not seek the "liberty and justice for all" that Americans revere in their Pledge of Allegiance. Instead, utilitarianism seeks the "greatest good for the greatest number." The utilitarian intends to simply maximize the well-being of the most persons, rather than to strictly obey a universal moral command (such as, "thou shalt not kill"). Utilitarianism is the doctrine of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, who opposed our Declaration of Independence and its demand upon human government to respect the inherent rights of mankind.

Like the doctrine of utility, incrementalism satisfies itself with a "chipping away" at injustice and a "making of gains," to the neglect of a complete protection of rights. In our political system, incrementalism stems from the belief that the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority over the meaning of the Constitution, and that the Court therefore possesses the power to do such things as legalize abortion. All that is left for the rest of us to do, according to the incrementalists, is to confine our work to the allowances of the Supreme Court — as if the Constitution was designed to satisfy the Court's arbitrary will and pleasure.

Additionally, incrementalists often use an inflated view of judicial power as a means to promote the election of officials, or to serve a self-interest. How frequently do the American people hear of the need to elect this or that person, in order to select judges to "overturn" previous judicial usurpations, or to (some day) lead the charge in the improbable (and unnecessary) task of amending the Constitution. And so often do we see supposed incremental gains used as scorecard points, or as fundraising appeals for organizations.

Over the years, countless dollars have been raised and expended by Americans who sincerely wish to protect the unborn. But, sadly, most of the resources of time, money, and political activism have been completely squandered on the regulatory approach that ultimately does nothing to end abortion. In fact, this strategy has served only to embed governmental permission to kill babies into our state and federal statutes.

These regulations are destined to fail, because they do not challenge, but rather codify, the arbitrary and brutal pronouncements of Roe v. Wade and its companion judgments.

Unless aimed at full, equal protection, as required by the Constitution, statutes that are crafted to please the Supreme Court, and its posterity-extinguishing agenda, only serve to assure that feticide will continue in some form under governmental protection.

To defend unborn humanity, there is only one truly workable, American approach: to stand without compromise for the equal protection of all. The Constitution, the supreme law of our land, absolutely guarantees equal protection — by federal and state governments — no matter what a court says, or doesn't say.

Education

The drafters of the Resolution believe that, instead of being tossed at self-defeating causes, the time and resources available for pro-life action would be better expended on education. For example, the public is generally unaware of "judicial supremacy" — the false idea that laws can be made by judicial diktat. Americans need to understand, as was clear in the early days of the republic, that the Supreme Court was never intended to be the "supreme branch" of government — the final arbiter of constitutional questions — and that it has no legitimate power whatever to make abortion “legal” in the United States.

Thomas Jefferson warned two centuries ago that this misunderstanding of the judiciary would enable tyrannical abuse. The presumption that the judges are the "ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions," Jefferson said, "[is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

How do we overcome this dangerous doctrine? By informing the people. Education "is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power," Jefferson said. In the end, the only "safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society [is] the people themselves."

Now that Jefferson's prescient fears have become our modern reality, and the courts are presumed by so many to possess dictatorial and final control over all constitutional questions, in order to deliver ourselves and our children from such tyranny, we need only follow his advice to become informed.

The oath

Once "We the People" understand that Roe v. Wade is inherently devoid of legal primacy and force, the next step for informed citizens is to support only candidates for public office who fully understand these important matters.

Alexander Hamilton said in Federalist #78 that the judicial branch "must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments," since it has no enforcement powers of its own. Our problem has been that we often choose executives who are either unaware of their constitutional duties or unwilling to act according to their oaths to check and balance the out-of-control courts.

A simple regard for the oath of office will quickly end abortion in America. And that regard begins with us. The sacred obligations of the oath will become a priority to our executives, representatives, and judges, when the American public makes the demand.

We must be unrelenting in our duty to hold all officers of government, at every level, to the oath, and to elect only those leaders who exhibit the basic understanding and personal integrity to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The oath and its requirements are not optional. Time is running out for "We the People" to take the oath seriously and act appropriately.

Conclusion

The goal of the Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution is to focus the electorate on the fact that abortion is already illegal in the United States. We don't need more amendments or incremental regulations. We need a united effort that confines the judiciary within its lawful bounds, and supports only candidates who demonstrate allegiance to the first and most important obligations of the oath of office.

When it comes to the unborn child's right to life, and to equal protection of that supreme right, there are no gray areas. The child is either alive, or the child is dead. Either all are protected equally, or they are not.

America's Party

All Americans are invited to sign the Resolution. Anyone interested in joining America's Party, or becoming an endorsed candidate, is expected to support the Resolution, and join in the cause of ending abortion immediately.