Posted on 01/12/2009 7:54:37 PM PST by Keli Kilohana
To the Editor:
Soon, Barack Hussein Obama, the first black American President, will be inaugurated as the President of the USA. This will be done as he takes the oath of office on the day after Martin Luther King Day by placing his hand on the Bible used at Abraham Lincoln's inauguration! The only thing that could make this historic event more momentous would be for Mr. Obama to issue an Emancipation Proclamation for the Unborn.
The unborn are the last minority group of people in America who are treated as subhuman chattel to be murdered in evil ways that perhaps exceed the horrors of a lynching. The unborn have no rights! At least pre-Civil War slaves were considered 3/5 human and had some rights. (Evidently, a woman's so-called right to privacy guarantees that an unborn baby is not alive, not human and cannot feel pain.)
Mr. President, let our babies go! Stop the holocaust called abortion rights. Remember that there was a day when the law of the land recognized the right of some to own slaves. In the name of God, equality and life, please emancipate the unborn. Please do it on January 23rd, the 35th Anniversary of the American Holocaust called abortion rights. Do it in memory of the 50 million aborted babies!
Pastor Terry Hagedorn
Calvary Baptist Church
Reedsville, WV 26547
304-864-3870
http://mountainmanna.com
"Pointing Mountaineers to Mount Calvary"
The next time we’re fighting a civil war against rebels using the unborn as a major element of the war effort, an Emancipation Proclamation for them would be entirely appropriate.
In the meantime, the President (thankfully) has no constitutional authority to decide what our laws will be.
Wonder if he would also never personally hang a black man from a tree, but would defend a man's right to do with his property as he sees fit?
No, LIFE is not Obama's mission....
Sounds like you are of the opinion that the death of the unborn is OK? Pleases correct me if I’m wrong.
Nope. I’m aggressively pro-life.
I’m merely pointing out that the President has no constitutional right to issue such a Proclamation, just as Lincoln has no such right other than as a war measure.
This president, for that matter, is a whole lot more likely to issue a Proclamation requiring all states to fully fund all abortions, including the partial-birth variety, at taxpayer expense.
Thank you for your quick response … now you original post makes sense.
Actually, the President has always (I mean, since Roe v. Wade) had the authority to declare that, in the judgment of the Executive Branch, any state that legalizes abortion is violating the 14th Amendment by depriving some persons of “equal protection of the laws.” Any President from Nixon forward has had the right and duty to send troops into the states to shut down abortion clinics.
Alternatively, every President since Nixon SHOULD have threatened every state that legalized abortion with expulsion from the Union.
But that would have been so EXTREME. It’s only 50 million babies we’re talking about. Let’s wait until this problem becomes serious.
Your position IS extreme. It gives the president, in his sole judgment, the right and duty to override both the Supreme Court and Congress as to what is constitutional.
Any President who tried this would promptly have had such an operation defunded by Congress, followed in due order by his impeachment and removal from office. As well it should. The President is not a dictator.
Alternatively, every President since Nixon SHOULD have threatened every state that legalized abortion with expulsion from the Union.
Which article of the Constitution gives the President any such power?
Up to Roe, abortion regulation had always been a state matter, with the feds not involved. IMO, and I suspect that of most around here, that is where it belongs. Any federal government that can enforce uniform anti-abortion laws in a country so divided on the issue is one that is much too powerful.
But Roe presumed to tell the states they cannot legislate against abortion, on the grounds that the fetus is not a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment.
The President has as much right to assert the personhood of the fetus as the Court has to deny it.
Same with Congress.
And however Congress might react is a separate issue from whether the President would have been acting rightly.
“the fetus is not a person within the meaning of the 14th amendment”.
I have this argument with liberals all the time. It is simple. Check the DNA of the unborn child. Is it human? Yes. Is it the same as the mother? No. Is it the same as the father? No. Then it is a person, isn’t it? No need to discuss religion or privacy rights or whatever. It is simple science..... This tends to give most liberals pause...
That’s the thing. We right-thinking people realize that every living human body IS a person. It’s liberals who drag out and exploit distorted notions about “ensoulment” and “personhood” (i.e., something called “personhood” that is somehow distinct from BEING a living human body).
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.