Posted on 03/17/2006 1:00:57 PM PST by Gelato
Alan Keyes on Jerry Johnson Live (KCBI)
Washington, D.C. ~~~ March 16, 2006
DR. JERRY JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF CRISWELL COLLEGE, HOST: Ambassador Alan Keyes was appointed by Ronald Reagan to serve as a U.N. ambassador, and Dr. Keyes has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served eleven years in the State Department. He served as Assistant Secretary of State. And he's a two-time presidential candidate and a former Senate candidate. Welcome to the program, Dr. Keyes.
ALAN KEYES: Glad to be with you. Thank you.
[...snip...]
JOHSON: I'm talking to Dr. Alan Keyes. He served as an ambassador to the United Nations under President Reagan.
Dr. Keyes, another flash-point issue. Is abortion really a constitutional right?
KEYES: I, frankly, don't see how it can be.
And I am very pleased--I know that there are some people who are nominally part of the pro-life movement who think that what happened in South Dakota is a bad thing, where the legislature has passed a law to protect unborn children from abortion, and has done so leaving only, I think, a possibility that if the actual physical life of the mother is threatened, then something can be done to save her life, with the view to saving her life, not with the view of taking the life of the child.
I think that if you look at the Constitution, Blackmun wrote Roe vs. Wade as if there was no guidance in the Constitution as to whether the child in the womb is a person or not. Right?
JOHNSON: Right.
KEYES: And if you look at the decision, he actually says that if that child in the womb is to be treated as a person, then any right to abort that child falls away; has no ground or basis. So he pretended he has to look at philosophers, and he had to look at this and that law and international practice--everything under the sun. He didn't bother to look at the Constitution itself, where, right in the preamble, what does it say? That the overall aim of the whole frame of government in America is "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Who are our posterity? Those who come after us who are not yet born. Yes?
JOHNSON: Uh-huh.
KEYES: Those who will come after us, including the generations yet unborn. That means that the Constitution puts the unborn on an equal plane with ourselves, and it was inexcusable that Blackmun pretended that there was no guide in the Constitution.
And the preamble, by the way, is used in precisely this way, in terms of deciding whether this or that interpretation of the Constitution should be the one that we follow. The one that is consistent with the goals laid out in the preamble is the one that is supposed to get preference.
So why didn't we even consider what the preamble had to say about the status of our posterity? It's an inexcusable, obvious kind of betrayal, really, of the document and of its clear, explicit wording--and he didn't even bother to look at it.
JOHNSON: Wow.
What do you predict on this partial-birth abortion ban, with the Supreme Court?
KEYES: I guess I'm not sure. I am not sure. The present make-up of the Court is such that we probably have a reliable four votes, right, to support the partial-birth abortion ban and even to overturn Roe, itself. But there is still the question of that critical fifth vote that is not yet there in a reliable way, and I'm not sure how that will turn out.
I think we have actually one more battle to fight before there is a reasonable hope that the court can be relied upon to respect the clear rights of our posterity.
JOHNSON: You're listening to Jerry Johnson Live. I'm talking to Dr. Alan Keyes, a former ambassador to the United Nations, appointed by President Reagan. He holds a Ph.D. degree from Harvard University.
... click for more ... the income tax, homosexual marriage
The segments on the income tax and marriage are also worth reading.
Sadly in many cases the baby does not have a chance. If the mother dies the baby more often then not will not make it.
Preambles are not enforceable.
what about in a case where both are fine but one has to die, does the mothers life trump the babies life?
Excellent question. One can point to situations in which a mother chose to sacrifice herself for her child--an unquestionably noble act. However, as a matter of law, the state cannot force the woman to die in that situation, and in banning abortion, there must be a provision allowing for the saving of her life.
I agree, just pointing out that the babies life is just as precious as the mothers life or the fathers life for that matter.
But do they not show the intent of the framers?
Good question? ANd one I am not prepared to answer, and pray I never have to.
That premise misses the point. The law would not specify which life would be taken. Given that two innocent lives are at risk, the law cannot favor one above another. It must therefore leave the question of who lives and dies answered.
Irrelevant--they are not enforceable, period. That's been held by the courts all the way back to Jolly Old England (and English common law is the basis for American law).
Exactly the reason for the exemption: because not even the law can answer that question for us.
The law must therefore leave the question open as to who is saved and who is killed when two innocent lives are at risk.
Obviously the preamble sheds light on what is constitutional and what is not.
It certainly has more constitutional weight than emanating penumbras.
Doesn't mean preambles are enforceable. Never have been. God help us if they ever do become enforceable.
It certainly has more constitutional weight than emanating penumbras.
They don't.
Bottom line: both penumbras and preambles are unenforceable. Keyes should stick to what he actually knows about.
But the "penumbras" and "emanations" Blackmun invented referenced are?
Why does the mothers life trump the child's life in a complicated pregnancy?
I'm with Ronald Reagan on this question. It's a matter of self-defense. I'm a man so this couldn't happen to me but putting myself in a mother's place, another person or persons is putting my life in danger. As a matter of Liberty, I have to right to defend myself from the person who is threatening my life, to the other's death if necessary.
No, they aren't, the present aberration notwithstanding.
The reason they're both unenforceable is because they're rather vague notions or clauses--far too vague to hang a Supreme Court decision on.
Care to elaborate?
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.