Posted on 01/16/2005 1:54:25 PM PST by cpforlife.org
A person is Pro-Life only to the degree to which they are willing to actually “do something about it”. I’ve been Pro-Life my entire life but until 7 or so years ago I did not do a thing about it. I still am not doing everything possible that I can do, but I am trying and getting better with time.
President Bush, whom I spent much time, effort, and resources for on both his bids for the White House is Pro-Life with such exceptions and compromises as to make the claim an insult to the 6 million babies that have been dismembered since he took office. Yes I believe President Bush is personally against abortion, but the actions he has taken thus far have saved very few, if any lives.
The president can, under his Constitutional authority refuse to enforce an unconstitutional opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court and all inferior federal courts. [1] “Pro-Life” Bush on any given day over the last 4 years could have broken the tyrannical holocaust of the Roe v Wade OPINION, which would then let the States' decide, as was the situation prior to Roe. 30 states have laws on the books banning or restricting abortion, and President Bush could have signed a piece of paper allowing those laws to be enforced. Since his party is in control of both houses of Congress there is virtually no chance that he would have been impeached let alone removed for such a brave and just act as this. If Bush were a true committed Pro-Lifer he would have used this authority, which has been used at least 3 times in history on FAR LESS SERIOUS MATTERS AS 4,000 murders a day every day for 32 years.
Bush signed The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2004. I’m sure he knew that other than the tremendous educational and public awareness impact (which is very good) the law was meaningless because all the serial killer abortionist had to do to stay “within the law” was give a lethal injection to the child prior to partial delivery and sucking his brains out.
President Bush has also had the opportunity for no less than two years to champion legislation that would have ended the holocaust precipitated by Roe [2]. His silence on this life saving legislation is at the same deafening level as everyone else, as only 2 or 3 Congressmen joined to co sponsor the different legislation, so I’m not singling Dubya out.
The only way the holocaust will end is with real and courageous leadership from Capitol Hill and the White House, from Pro-Lifers who are willing to do real battle for the babies, and for the Constitution.
President Bush is a hero on the war on terror, and I believe still can be a FAR GREATER hero, if he would do all that he can do to stop the murderous terror of American waiting to be born.
FOOTNOTES:
[1]Executive dissent with unconstitutional majority opinion
The President takes an oath of office Article 6, Clause 3 "to support this Constitution" and not the penumbras emanating from deviant dicta and unconstitutional opinion. The President can present his case of dissent to the public in a public address, executive orders, through members of his cabinet and through members of his party. He can act on his opinion, by not enforcing Roe v Wade and progeny against the States. States could legislate as they did prior to the 1973 unconstitutional opinion.
The following quote from Andrew Jackson is a concise statement of Constitutional principal that has been ignored, or forgotten for many decades. The prevailing myth seems to be that the Constitution is what the federal judiciary says it is, regardless of the extent of deviation from text or intent, and that all others who are bound by an oath of Office in Article 6, Clause 3 are forbidden to act on their understanding of the text they are sworn to uphold.
Article 6, Clause 3 contains no Oath or Affirmation to support any federal judicial opinion. The plain text of the Constitution reveals separation of powers, checks & balances and coordinate functioning of three branches that are not coequal in power. Power of impeachment, funding, regulation of lower federal court jurisdiction and the U.S. Supreme appelate jurisdiction resides in Congress. The President has the power of enforcement and isn't Constitutionally, legally, or ethically required to blindly enforce blatantly unconstitutional opinions. The Supreme Court has only the power of opinion, which has become far more biased in its increasing disregard of plain text than the mainstream media has been in its disregard of plain fact.
The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
[2] We the People Act (HR 3893)- Prohibits the Supreme Court and each Federal court from adjudicating any claim or relying on judicial decisions involving: (1) State or local laws, regulations, or policies concerning the free exercise or establishment of religion; (2) the right of privacy, including issues of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or (3) the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation where based upon equal protection of the laws.
Pro-Life and Pro-Family groups and individuals must learn about this incredible piece of life saving legislation and call write fax e-mail their Representatives to demand that they co-sponsor and champion this legislation.
Exactly. Roe v. Wade can be overturned. There is increasing sentiment against mandated abortion. The 2002 and 2004 elections were very encouraging for pro-lifers.
But nothing will be done anytime soon UNLESS Bush appoints some good judges. If he succeeds in doing that, we could see the end of Roe v. Wade in fairly short order.
That won't end the fight. But it would be a huge step back from the Culture of Death.
CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS FOR LIFE at:
http://www.CpForLife.org’
NATIONAL AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL at:
http://www.CpForLife.org/Memorial
Knights For Life at
http://www.KnightsForLife.org
Thanks,
Kevin
It may be that president Bush could do more, however I wouldn't go as far as this article. If he had done what the article suggests, he would have been excoriated and there would have been impeachment hearings.
Agreed.
I'd be happy to take you off the list but you're not on it.
Miguel Estrada worked for Clinton in the Solicitor General's office and used the RICO law against a Catholic Pro-life man who ran a pro-life agency.
Actions speak louder that words, and so far, the president's actions in the 3rd Circuit in NJ is abysmal where he appointed 6 pro abortion judges, 1 of whom a democrat to the federal bench. I just hope and pray he does not do the same with SCOTUS appointments.
Good riddance. I am SICK AND TIRED of having people like you be the representative sample of the average Washingtonian. For twenty years I have this pro-abort crap shoveled down my throat by the Seattle Times, the broadcast media, loud and outspoken left-wing kooks, and I AM SICK OF IT! HOW MANY BABIES DO YOU HAVE TO KILL BEFORE YOUR BLOODLUST IS SATISFIED?
How can someone glibly say "I believe a woman should have a right to choose", when that "choice" involves the taking of a life - a life she CHOSE (with the exception of 3% of rape-incest cases) to conceive implicitly. How can a person view another person as "property" to be sustained or destroyed according to convenience?
My proposed answer: Ignorance. Willing ignorance.
In 1989, a poster adorned several downtown Seattle bus stops. It was a picture of an unborn baby innocently captioned, "Enjoy Life!" The City Council ordered it taken down. Why is this?
Whoa! You guys are both my FRiends. Wherefore this acrimony, RW?
My point was that everyone can do more and I'm not going to hold myself up as some shining example. It wasn't/isn't about me and I regret adding that line, because it does not help.
The point is that as the capacity a person has to make a difference increases, the more they must be held accountable. The President is the one and only person, who can on his authority stay Roe v Wade. I'm not suggesting it would be easy. There would be hell to pay.
Bush is lauded as some great Pro-Life champion and I hope he can earn that accolade, but he will have to make real and substaitial sacrifices. If he does he would be one of the greatest Presidents in history.
A President who bucks the Supreme Court is asking for impeachment, and will likely get it.
As Bush says, it will take a change of hearts and minds. Having a president impeached over a pro-life issue would set us back years.
The pro-life side has the numbers it needs in the Senate to confirm good people to the federal judiciary. It's now a matter of A) filibusters (minority rule) and B) whether majority leadership has the MOXY to do what is well within its juridical bounds: make confirmations a simple majority, in line with the Constitutional "advise and consent" principle.
Sir, people like you are never satisfied.
There is only so much one president can do. We have a ban on partial birth abortions, which is more than Reagan did.
Sorry. He WOULD be impeached and convicted, and the GOP would lead the way.
You are living in a fantasy land, my man. There is no stomach in either party for putting the country through a constitutional crisis, and the country would vote to keep the GOP out of power for a generation.
Maybe it's time for a deeper strategy discussion. Bush is right about changing hearts and minds. That can come about with simple education. How many persons' consciences would not be smitten to the core on seeing the photograph of an aborted fetus? My idea, for what it's worth, is to place such photographs as those used by CBR in conspicuous places the most visciously pro-abortion strongholds: Downtown Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, etc. Don't let people go on in blissful ignorance whilst dwelling amidst an ongoing holocaust. It's free speech - and no one has to look.
Sure, some will get mad. Sure, people will protest children shouldn't be exposed, to which I reply, neither should children be subjected to the act depicted. The defense to the "this is offensive" complaint, is "that's the point; slaughter is offensive. What are you going to do to stop it?"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.