Posted on 12/03/2003 3:53:44 PM PST by perfect stranger
The first killing of an abortion doctor by an anti-abortion activist happened in 1993. Since then, six more people have been killed in attacks on abortion clinics, which is fewer people who ended up dead by being in the vicinity of recently released Weatherman Kathy Boudin. Most of the abortionists were shot or, depending upon your point of view, had a procedure performed on them with a rifle. This brings the total to: seven abortion providers to 30 million fetuses dead, which is also a pretty good estimate of how the political battle is going.
The nation embarked on its abortion holocaust in 1973, when the Supreme Court astonished the nation by suddenly discovering that the Constitution mandated a right to abortion, despite there being nothing anyplace in the Constitution vaguely hinting at abortion.
Everyone knew the decision in Roe v. Wade was a joke. The decision hinged on the convenient notion of "privacy," which, oddly enough, still fails to protect my right to manufacture methamphetamine, saw off shotgun barrels or euthanize the elderly, privately or otherwise. Even Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz has said the decision was wrong.
During oral argument in Roe, the entire courtroom laughed when the lawyer arguing for abortion law ticked off a string of constitutional provisions allegedly violated by Texas' abortion law – the due process clause, the equal protection clause, the Ninth Amendment "and a variety of others." According to the "The Brethren: Inside the Supreme Court" by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, the law clerks felt as if they were witnessing "something embarrassing and dishonest" about the decision-making process in Roe, with the justices brokering trimesters and medical judgments like a group of legislators. Never has the phrase "judge, jury and executioner" been more apt than with regard to this landmark ruling.
The nation was so shocked and enraged by the ruling in Roe that ... state legislatures meekly rewrote their laws in accordance with the decision. The Supreme Court building wasn't burned down. No abortion doctors were killed for the next two decades. No state dared ignore the ruling in Roe. Even when dealing with lawless tyrants, conservatives have a fetish about following the law.
Instead, Americans who opposed abortion spent the next 20 years working within the system, electing two presidents, patiently waiting for Supreme Court justices to retire, fighting bruising nomination battles to get three Reagan nominees and two Bush nominees on the court. Then they passed an abortion law in Pennsylvania that was immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. At that point, Republican presidents had made 10 consecutive appointments to the Supreme Court. Surely, now, at long last, Americans would finally be allowed to have a say on the nation's abortion policy.
But the Supreme Court upheld the "constitutional right" to abortion announced in Roe. The decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was written by Reagan's biggest mistake, Sandra Day O'Connor, his third-choice candidate Anthony Kennedy, and "stealth nominee" David Hackett Souter. The court's opinion declared that it was calling "the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Eight months later, the first abortion doctor was killed.
Meanwhile, conservatives responded the way conservatives always do. They went back to the drawing board and came up with a plan. It was the same plan that hasn't worked for 30 years: Elect a Republican president, wait for openings on the court and keep your fingers crossed. It's been going swimmingly so far. We can't even get the stunningly brilliant Harvard law graduate and Honduran immigrant Miguel Estrada a spot on a court of appeals.
Having literally gotten away with murder for a quarter century, the court is getting wilder and wilder, deferring to "international law" and issuing nutty pronouncements more appropriate to a NAMBLA newsletter.
In the past few years, federal courts have proclaimed a right to sodomy (not in the Constitution), a right to partial-birth abortion (not in the Constitution), a right not to have a Democratic governor recalled (not in the Constitution), a right not to gaze upon the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse (not in the Constitution), a ban on the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (not in the Constitution), and a ban on voluntary student prayers at high-school football games (not in the Constitution).
These bizarre rulings illustrate the notion of the Constitution as a "living document," one which rejects timeless moral principles so as to better reflect the storylines in this week's episode of "Ally McBeal." You may like or dislike the end result of these rulings, but – as subtly alluded to above – none of these rulings come from anything written in the Constitution.
In response to the court's sodomy ruling last term, conservatives are talking about passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. It's really touching how conservatives keep trying to figure out what constitutional mechanisms are available to force the courts to acknowledge the existence of the Constitution. But what is the point of a constitutional amendment when judges won't read the Constitution we already have? What will the amendment say? "OK, no fooling around – we really mean it this time!"
While conservatives keep pretending we live in a democracy, liberals are operating on the rule of the jungle. The idea of the rule of law is that if your daughter is raped and murdered, you won't go out and kill the guy who did it. In return for your forbearance, you get to vote for the rulers who will see that justice is done. But liberals cheat. They won't let us vote on an increasingly large number of issues by defining the entire universe – abortion, gay marriage, high-school convocations – as a "constitutional" issue.
In what weird parallel universe would Americans vote for abortion on demand, affirmative action, forced busing, licensing of gun owners and a ban on the death penalty? Whatever dangers lurk in a self-governing democracy, the American people have never, ever passed a law that led to the murder of 30 million unborn children.
Judges are not our dictators. The only reason the nation defers to rulings of the Supreme Court is because of the very Constitution the justices choose to ignore. At what point has the court made itself so ridiculous that we ignore it? What if the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to cannibalism? How about fascism? Does the nation respond by passing a constitutional amendment clearly articulating that there is no right to cannibalism or fascism in the Constitution?
Is there nothing five justices on the Supreme Court could proclaim that would finally lead a president to say: I refuse to pretend this is a legitimate ruling. Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.
It would be nice to return to our federalist system of government with three equal branches of government and 50 states, but one branch refuses to live within that system. How about taking our chances with a president and the Congress? Two branches are better than one.
There may be practical difficulties with the president and the states ignoring the court's abortion rulings – though there's nothing unlawful about following the Constitution and I for one would love to see it. But there is absolutely no excuse for the Massachusetts legislature jumping when Massachusetts Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Marshall says "jump."
Marshall, immigrant and wife of New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis, has recently proclaimed a right to gay marriage for all of Massachusetts. She has further demanded that the legislature rewrite the law in accordance with her wishes. One imagines Marshall leaping off the boat at Ellis Island and announcing: "I know just what this country needs! Anthony! Stop defending Pol Pot for five minutes and get me on a court!"
Granted, one can imagine how a woman married to the likes of Anthony Lewis might long for the sanctuary of a same-sex union. But that's no reason to foist it on Massachusetts.
Ms. Marshall has as much right to proclaim a right to gay marriage from the Massachusetts Supreme Court as I do to proclaim it from my column. The Massachusetts legislature ought to ignore the court's frivolous ruling – and cut the justices' salaries if they try it again.
tpaine: I'd gladly have you as my neighbor anytime. I imagine we'd spend more time fishing than debating.
But since you have gone to the trouble to resurrect the subject of my very real concern for the troops -- as manifest in sincere doubts about the wisdom of our "Do as we say, not as we do" current course -- perhaps the article below will be of help.
I am not the only expressing concern. In addition to Army brats like me whose respect and regard for our military is lifelong, career military, former POWs, politicians and diplomats -- most of whom fully support the War on Terror -- are expressing exactly the fears which you and others characterize as my "attack" on the troops.
To wit:
Military officers file brief against Bush's policy in GuantanamoBy Frank Davies
Knight Ridder NewspapersWASHINGTON - Navy Rear Admiral Don Guter felt the Pentagon shudder when an airliner hijacked by terrorists crashed into it on Sept. 11, 2001. He helped evacuate shaken personnel and later gave the eulogy for a colleague killed that day.
"I would have done anything that day, and I fully support the war on terrorism," said Guter, who served as judge advocate general, the Navy's chief legal officer, until he retired last year.
Nonetheless, he's joining his predecessor and a retired Marine general with expertise on prisoner issues to challenge the Bush administration's indefinite detention of suspected terrorists at the Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba. Guter, Rear Adm. John Hutson and Brig. Gen. David Brahms worry that lengthy incarcerations at Guantanamo without hearings will undermine the rule of law and endanger U.S. forces.
"For me it's a question of balance between security needs and due process, and I think we've lost our balance," Guter said.
The trio of retired officers recently filed a Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 16 detainees held for almost two years. The government contends that all are enemy combatants, most captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and have no legal rights, prisoner of war status or access to federal courts.
Early next year, the Supreme Court will hear the case in a potentially historic clash between presidential authority and judicial oversight.
"This may be one of those cases that comes along every 50 years - there's that much at stake," said Eugene Fidell, president of the nonpartisan National Institute of Military Justice.
Former federal judges, diplomats and even American POWs from World War II also have filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to reconsider lower court rulings on the detainees that favored the administration.
In early discussions, Guter favored holding prisoners at Guantanamo, but he thought their detention would be temporary.
"We would be safe, the detainees would be safe from reprisal," Guter said. "But many of us expected some sort of hearings by now for some of these people. The crux of this is, how long can we hold people without anything? It's now two years, and that's troubling."
Guter's group believes the administration and Pentagon missed a chance to provide quick hearings called for in international conventions on the treatment of prisoners to determine if the captives were probably enemy combatants.
"Somehow, in the fog of war, we skipped over that," Hutson said.
Instead, President Bush ordered the creation of military tribunals to try some captives. But those trials have been delayed by debate over rules and by complicated negotiations with Britain, Australia and other countries that have nationals held prisoner at Guantanamo.
For two years, the Bush administration has described the detainees as "the worst of the worst" and "killers." The three former officers are skeptical, noting that 88 have been released so far from the prison camp.
"We're trying to separate the goat-herders from the real terrorists, and that's not easy, but I'm not convinced they're all guilty," said Hutson, now the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H.
The trio also worries that the Guantanamo precedent will make it easier for other countries, groups and warlords to hold Americans, keep them isolated and ignore the Geneva Conventions.
"If we want the world to play by the rules, we have to be on the moral high ground," said Brahms, who spent 26 years in the Marines before opening a private law practice in Carlsbad, Calif.
He was the Marine Corps' principal legal adviser on POW issues when the Vietnam War was ending. Brahms recalled that U.S. forces tried to follow the Geneva rules on POWs, and that gave them some leverage with North Vietnam, which was holding U.S. prisoners.
"International pressure was important, and they (North Vietnam) played a little more by the rules toward the end," Brahms said.
There may be an inclination in the military to go along with indefinite detentions, Guter said, but it's misplaced.
"We took an oath to defend the Constitution," he said, "not the president or secretary of defense."
No. And certainly, the obsession on this issue lies almost entirely on the side of those who believe our Republic will fall if we do not immediately embrace butt-pumping as a major factor underlying Truth, Justice and the American Way. The reasoning (seen many times) goes like this: If a state can say that same-sex intercourse is wrong (or that same-sex marriage is not valid) then we live in a tyranny run by sex police. If not, then we live in freedom, with no sex police.
I love how anti-liberty types jump to conclusions about libertarians, and pretend they've said things they never have. Amusingly delusional.
Well then, say something: If anti-sodomy and other such laws violate the sanctitiy of the home that the Founders placed in the Bill of Rights, why didn't they do away with such laws?
The interpretation of the law included in this post would have been loopy in WWII, much less in 21st century asymetric warfare. Plus, they're basically saying, "Let's treat a bunch of people who did not follow Geneva (i.e., uniforms and other ways to separate themselves from noncombatants, refraining from mounting attacks on noncombatants, etc.) as if they're honorable soldiers from a force that follows Geneva." Sure, and let's treat child molesters like foster parents while we're at it.
And the idea that some batch of evil scumbag enemies will say, "Well, we were going to follow all the rules, but then we heard about Gitmo" is pure, unaldulterated goofiness. We followed the Convention in WWII, the Japanese led off with The Bataan Death March and kept going downhill from there. Same thing in Korea, though the enemy atrocities weren't quite as bad. Do you think Ho Chi Minh said, "Hey, I'm not sure the Americans are following the Geneva Convention perfectly, so I'll torture their aviators half to death"? "One of our Cong guys didn't get access to the federal courts, so I want you to stick an icepick in Jim Stockdale's ear"?
1. The officers griping about Gitmo(whose view you apparently share, since you bolded it and turned it red) claim that those who capture U.S. troops will treat them based on our treatment of prisoners.
2. My point was that the assertion is wrong, since our enemies have committed many atrocities against our troops even when we scrupulously followed the Geneva Convention. My evidence was Japanese, North Korean/Chines and Vietnamese atrocities against our men which had nothing whatsoever to do with how well we were following the Convention.
3. You responded as if my point were "Our enemies didn't follow the Convention, so we don't have to."
4. "Enemies' violations of the convention does not depend on our level of adherence to it, but depend on their level of evil" does not equal "They don't do it, so why should we?"
But wait, it gets better:
Is this part of the rationale, then, for targeting civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden? If I'm not mistaken, the purposeful targeting of civilians removes all Geneva protections as handily as the failure of third-worlders to wear proper uniforms.
So, you bring up attacks on civilian targets to explain why people from an alliance that delivered 1 kiloton of combat power into Manhattan on a Tuesday morning should be granted full Geneva Convention rights?!? Last time I checked, stockbrokers, waiters and EMTs weren't combatants.
So yes, our behavior should be determined by objective truths, which is why I'm not buying any whining about Gitmo. Not only are we not violating the Geneva Convention or our Constitution, but it should be noted that neither of those documents was meant to hinder the defense of the nation in any way, much less be a suicide pact.
The officers griping about Gitmo(whose view you apparently share, since you bolded it and turned it red) claim that those who capture U.S. troops will treat them based on our treatment of prisoners.
That's not what they claim at all. They, of all people, know better.
They're just saying that we have no standard to which we hold our enemy unless we hold that standard ourselves.
No. And certainly, the obsession on this issue lies almost entirely on the side of those who believe our Republic will fall if we do not immediately embrace butt-pumping as a major factor underlying Truth, Justice and the American Way.
You say 'no', then show your obsession with "butt pumping" in the next line. Weird.
I love how anti-liberty types jump to conclusions about libertarians, and pretend they've said things they never have. Amusingly delusional.
Well then, say something: If anti-sodomy and other such laws violate the sanctitiy of the home that the Founders placed in the Bill of Rights, why didn't they do away with such laws?
Many state laws violate our BOR's. They are not done away with until changed by 'we the people', or until successfully challenged in the courts. - IE, -- CA's gun prohibition was unsuccessfully challenged last week. The USSC refused to "do away" with it. Does this refusal justify it, in your view?
Oh, so if I mention homosexual activity i'm obsessed with it? Perhaps you should take a remedial reading course, or at least drop the screen name that refers to a learned and literate man. Why don't you try answering my real point, which was that the Freepers who are really obsessed with sodomy are the ones who believe any opposition to such behavior is tantamount to Iranian-style theocracy?
Many state laws violate our BOR's. They are not done away with until changed by 'we the people', or until successfully challenged in the courts. - IE, -- CA's gun prohibition was unsuccessfully challenged last week. The USSC refused to "do away" with it. Does this refusal justify it, in your view?
Hmmm...allow me to recommend that remedial reading course again, since you ignored my question completely. If you answer my question, I'll answer yours. My question was, "If anti-sodomy and other such laws violate the sanctitiy of the home that the Founders placed in the Bill of Rights, why didn't they [The Founders] do away with such laws?"
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.