This is the law The Supreme Court based its Roe v. Wade decision on poor scholarship. Urge the courts, legislators and congressmen to review A Treatise on Human Life. Urge them to restore the veracity of the Common Law, Constitutional government and the protection of human life.	Section III (Longer Sample) An Analysis Of Roe v. Wade General There were many defects in the crafting of the majority decision of the U. S. Supreme Court (hereinafter, The Court) in the Roe v. Wade case. By dissecting their reasoning and scholarship, those various flaws can be advantageously brought to light. One of the most glaring defects in The Court’s review and evaluation of the law of abortion was its omission of reference to the earliest common laws established in the 7th and 8th Centuries by Archbishops Theodore and Ecgbert, the early Catholic Church councils, and Anglo-Saxon kings. The precedents established at that time are indispensable, essential, and perpetually binding, so it is obligatory to include them in determining the scope and control of the common law regarding abortion. It was a culpable obligation on the part of the court to include those precedents in its decision-making process. Its failure to do so was a fatal error on its part, erasing any validity for the conclusions it arrived at. This defect on the part of the court is of vital importance because any interpretations of later laws cited by such authors as Bracton, Fleta, Hawkins, Coke, or Blackstone must be interpreted so as to be in harmony with those earlier common law precedents!!!! Two articles by Means relied on so heavily by The Court in arriving at its decision, as well as the position adopted by The Court, itself, treated the common law on abortion as having its beginning in the 13th and 14th centuries. This deceptive maneuver deserves a scathing condemnation. This tack on the part of The Court was used to provide a façade for evading the fountainhead establishing the common law governing abortion, which was “set in stone” during the earliest days of the founding of the realm of England, beginning with the Anglo-Saxon society and continuing uninterruptedly for centuries before the dawn of the 13th and 14th centuries. This failure of The Court to properly credit the time for establishment of the common law, and to abide by its precedents governing abortion, is inexcusable inasmuch as Blackstone, whom it cited and was well aware of, had explicitly pointed out all the pertinent history pertaining to the origin and development of the common law and all of which it was comprised. Because Means was so successful in providing misleading information — and which was given great weight by The Court in crafting its decision — it will be instructive to preliminarily analyze how that author arrived at his conclusions and the errors contained in them. After completing the analysis of the two Means’ articles, an analysis of the reasoning used by The Court in formulating its erroneous decision will be undertaken. The two Means articles will be discussed separately and identified as “The Means 1968 Article” and “The Means 1971 Article,” respectively. Preliminarily, let it be said that both articles are replete with gross errors. The Means 1968 Article In the 1968 article by Means, the following observations may be made: 1. The title of his article is, The Law of New York Concerning Abortion and the Status of the Foetus, 1664-1968: A Case of Cessation of Constitutionality. Comment: Throughout his article he treats the common law as having its beginning in the medieval ages, specifically, 1664 (See, e.g., pp. 500-501). The 1664 date in his title apparently refers to a time when letters patent appointing the Royal Governors for New York were granted by England making them the surrogates of the Bishop of London. The author states (p. 412): As we shall see, the fathers of the English common law fixed it at the moment of 'quickening,' a phenomenon which occurs at different times in different women... There were no “fathers of the English common law” inasmuch as the common laws grew out of customs and usages, dating back many centuries before the concept of quickening was introduced..... Order the Treatise today to read the rest of Section III Sample Section I Sample Section II

	Copyright: Harold  D. Kletschka PO Box 600160 ~ St. Paul, MN ~ 55106 Email webmaster Order toll Free at 1 866.954.9777