When Ronald Reagan was called home, I had occasion to reflect upon my service as his constitutional legal counsel. Reagan, a man of authenticity, often would say that the Constitution's three most important words were, "We the people."

This phrase captures several vital aspects of our government: We are created equal under God -- no one has an entitlement to govern. And ultimate questions of policy -- how we are to live together -- are to be decided in conversation with each other in legislative assembly.

Some matters will be self-evident. Jefferson included in this category the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Catholics, the moral reality of life's origin in the divine directs us to affirm life at every stage. So too, the Catholic tradition helps us see the line between liberty and license, crossed not only when we physically harm others but also when we degrade the human personality.

Not surprisingly, then, "we the people" in legislative chamber chose to ban partial-birth abortion and limit the commercial, Internet distribution of pornography.

Unfortunately, recent judicial rulings have forgotten Reagan's three most important words. Judges have substituted their judgment for that of the people's representatives. In the partial-birth case, a federal trial judge in San Francisco enjoined the enforcement of the ban. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court now has blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act.

Besides running against common sense, these cases have disturbing aspects. First, in both, the laws before the judges were repeat efforts of legislative bodies. Second, the judges gave virtually no deference to legislative fact-finding and policy.

Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a Nebraska limitation on partial-birth abortion. Too broad, said the justices, and maybe the law needs a health exception. Congress listened carefully and drafted a new federal ban, signed by President Bush, which plainly described and banned only the singularly gruesome partial-birth procedure, and with ample medical evidence established that the procedure is never necessary to preserve a mother's life or health.

The judge's response: "Congress' legal conclusions ... is (sic) not entitled to deference by this court."

Congress got the same judicial back of the hand when, having had an earlier effort to legislate against Internet porn declared unconstitutional as a violation of free speech, it followed the court's instructions on fixing the law. The earlier law, said the justices, covered too much, so Congress narrowed the scope of the new law just to those who knowingly use commercial Web sites to spread pornography to minors and who fail to put this material behind age verification screens. Scarcely different from keeping obscene and near obscene magazines behind the counter at the pharmacy. And Congress narrowly defined material harmful to minors, such that anything that remotely could be said to have literary, artistic, political or scientific value would be unaffected.

Not good enough, said the justices. Better for parents to purchase software that filters out unwanted material.

"We the people" asked for help protecting our children. And filters don't cut it. Filters don't always work; they impose a cost 100 times greater than adult verification; there are more computers in the world than the one in your family room; and, from the standpoint of free speech, filters often stop too much.

No matter, said the court. If parents used filters the law would be unnecessary and "adults without children may gain access to [pornography] without having to identify themselves or provide their credit-card information."

What happened to the inalienable right to life and the compelling interest to protect minors from harmful material? Both, it seems, were jettisoned by an unfortunate judicial disregard for three important words.

Douglas W. Kmiec wrote this guest column for Catholic News Service.