Stirring words, no doubt. I love Ronald Reagan. He was an inspiring and principled man. Nevertheless....not infallible.
Did he really understand the powers of his office, or did he really just not want to tackle this particular issue with a bigger concern breathing down his neck in Russia? Reagan was mindful of his legacy, just like any President. He was a product of his time, and affected by those who filled his circle of influence, as all men are. While he clearly understood how important the issue was to some, it is not clear that it weighed heavy on his heart.
I would like to see a President who has “evolved” (or devolved back to) a position of understanding the basic concepts expressed in the Declaration of Independence, specifically related to the issue of life.
And in this area in particular, I really do think the thinking must “evolve”, because, while our founding fathers were incredibly insightful, they were still tolerant of slavery. Again, men responding to their time and place in history.
We are at a new time and place, now, and with a treasure trove of history behind us! The issue needs to be considered with more expansion and circumspection. That has not happened to this point, and if we made a determined effort to do so, America, above all other nations, would be moving into a realm of civilization that would be more holistic than what we have known in present times.
The conversation needs to center around the idea of stewardship....stewardship of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....with the youth of our country, and the minority groups of our country fully participating in the dialog.
We see today, in BHO, the final conclusion of the Marxist ideal and where it will eventually lead a society. Barbarism is really all you can say about it. But he and his ilk cannot be faulted in one area...they refuse to yield one inch on their forward momentum! I think there is a lesson to be learned in that determination.
I do not know if EV is exactly right, because honestly (as I know you have already discerned), I really haven’t studied to the point of deconstruction. But I am glad that he and others are attempting to go beyond the traditional thinking, and considering that there may be options that have not been previously understood or explored.
And that is what I have been asking you to do, as well. Although I can see clearly it is not a step you are willing to take. So unfortunate, as a person so obviously studied would be a great contributor to a conversation about the expanded understanding of the powers of each branch of gov’t, when there is a predisposition to think past current tradition. NOTICE: I said expanded UNDERSTANDING not expanded POWERS.
I will concede—try not to dance a jig!—that it is not at all desirable to me for the Executive branch to abuse its powers and for the President to become a Priest King! Alternately, I am sure that I am not a fanatic for questioning the “way it has always been done”!
Our conversation has been of benefit to me, but I really see no point in continuing, if indeed you are unwilling to go beyond the current point you make. But, I do thank you for diligently remaining in the fray until we reached this point. It has been interesting.
About Reagan you asked “Did he really understand the power of his office”? Yes, yes he did.
In this case “traditional thinking” is the Constitutional limits of an office with defined and limited powers - and to “go beyond” it is to abandon the wisdom of our founding fathers.
The President is elected to (among other things) enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branch and as interpreted by the Judicial branch. That is, in this Republic, “the way it has always been done” - and inasmuch as we still follow our Constitution - it has worked out pretty well - MUCH BETTER than a system where one man is the final arbiter of what is or is not ‘God’s law’.
John Brown’s way is not the way of the Constitution.