Posted on 03/13/2009 1:32:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Once again we are supposed to believe that Michael Steele had a slip of the tongue. This time in an Interview with Gentleman's Quarterly magazine which included the following exchange:
"The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion," he said. "My mother chose life. So I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."Interviewer Lisa DePaulo asked: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"
Steele replied: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
DePaulo: "You do?"
Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."
DePaulo: "Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
Steele: "I think Roe v. Wade — as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter."
DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"
Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."
Twice before on this site (look under the topic GOP failure) I have discussed Steele's departure from the pro-life stance. Yet in a way not clearly in evidence before, this interview reveals the insidious character of the argument Steele represents. According to this argument, individual choices are not subject to interference by the Federal government. Rather you state the case for one side or the other, and let the individual decide. The problem is, of course, that matters of justice, of right and wrong, always involve individual choices. The choice to rob, lie, cheat and murder are all individual choices. The choice to rape, kidnap and enslave another is an individual choice. The choice to serve or not to serve someone in a restaurant, on account of their race, is an individual choice. Obviously the real issue is not whether individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. That's been clear since Eve made her fateful decision to eat the forbidden fruit. The issue is when and whether they have the right to choose as they do.
American liberty is founded on the premise that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. This premise is not a statement about human aspirations. It's a statement about right and wrong. An unalienable right can be transgressed by individuals and governments, but the premise of liberty forbids the assertion that those who transgress they have the right to do so. Right is not on the side of government when it commits or tolerates murder, theft and terror against the innocent. Individuals and laws that do so are inherently unjust, and powers used in this way are not lawful powers.
Steele consistently maintains that issues, like abortion, that involve respect for unalienable rights, are properly decided at the state rather than the Federal level. But the premise of liberty makes no such distinction. Respect for unalienable rights is required of human governments at any and all levels, because the just powers of all such governments are derived from the people's exercise of those rights. As the Federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the states, so the state governments only have the powers delegated to them by the people. But the "unalienable" aspect of each person's rights means that such rights cannot be given away, not under any circumstances. What the people cannot rightly give, the states cannot rightly claim.
But the premise of liberty includes the notion that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Though government cannot claim the power to transgress against unalienable rights, the foundational purpose of government entails the obligation to preserve and respect them. No government powers are just except those derived from the only source consistent with this obligation, which is the consent of the people. Clearly however, the idea of consent based on respect for unalienable rights does not mean that the people have the right to do whatever they please, since they cannot rightly do anything that alienates (contradicts or surrenders) their unalienable rights. In this sense, government of by and for the people, is limited government: not only limited by the terms of its constitution, but by the purpose and terms of its institution or establishment. Liberty therefore is not identical with a simply unlimited freedom to choose. Individuals are free to choose actions that violate unalienable right, but they cannot claim the right to do so.
When, in their individual or collective capacity, people choose to violate unalienable rights they transgress liberty. Since liberty is its essential characteristic, this transgression effectively abandons the republican form of government. When an individual commits this transgression, it is a criminal act. When a government commits this transgression, it is an unlawful government. Under our constitution the supervision of this transgression when committed by individuals, has been left to the states. But if and when a state or states neglect this supervision, the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, section 4) explicitly requires that the government of the United States guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. Like the guarantor of a loan, it must intervene to make good any deficiency in the states' respect for its requirements. Michael Steele's assertion that the states have the exclusive right to decide the issue of abortion is therefore incorrect. They should have the opportunity to decide it (which is one of the reasons the Roe v. Wade decision was prudentially wrong) but if they decide, by action or neglect, in favor of committing or allowing the violation of unalienable right, the Federal government has the Constitutional obligation to intervene. On abortion it may be sensible, after so many years of misplaced respect for the unlawful Roe v. Wade decision, to make this obligation clear to all the states by Federal legislation in some form. This could help to avoid miscalculations that might disrupt our civil peace. For this reason I think that such legislation, including a Constitutional amendment may be prudent. However, our reasoning here makes clear that it is not legally or Constitutionally necessary.
Finally, I think it's time we all stopped pretending that Steele's persistent advocacy of the "pro-choice" position is an accident, or a slip of the tongue. I believe these episodes are purposeful. His actions are meant to assert the fallacy that it is pro-life to be pro-choice. But this means accepting the position that at some level the choice to murder an innocent human being is consistent with respect for the unalienable right to life. Except we embrace the noxious position that right and wrong choices are equally just, this is not and can never be a pro-life view. Except we abandon the whole idea of unalienable right, this is not and can never be a view consistent with American liberty.
I think that Steele and the people he represents have gotten away with this disingenuous effort to warp, distract and mislead the pro-life movement for long enough. This issue is vital to the survival of America's free institutions. People of conscience deserve a frank and purposeful debate about it, not a sly attempt at argument by inadvertence. To that end I challenge Michael Steele to face me in such a debate, in a venue open to scrutiny by the general public. Though the courage to debate is not the test of truth, it may be a test of true conviction. I claim to be pro-life because I have stood that test, against Barack Obama, Alan Dershowitz and others. Why should pro-life people accept Steele's protestations of pro-life conviction if he refuses to do so?
For more current writing from Alan Keyes, please visit www.LoyaltoLiberty.com!
So, you think "original intent" was to allow the slaughter of 50 million innocents. Uhuh.
Doesn’t matter if you kill, or abet killing, in the name of “privacy” or “states’ rights,” it’s still the killing of innocent human beings. It makes no difference why you do it to those whose lives and humanity is being stripped away. They’re just as dead either way.
And our Constitution, our free republic, and liberty, are dead too.
The destruction of state laws protecting the unborn by your hero Blackmun did that.
Now it's time for you to hide your eyes again:
“The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”
—William Rehnquist, Roe v. Wade: Dissent
Are babies PERSONS, Mojave?
A yes or no answer will suffice.
The mass killing of the unborn has been done in the name of the 14th Amendment.
That’s not the Fourteenth Amendments fault. As you’ve proven in spades, if people want to ignore the clear meanings of words there isn’t much you can do about that.
Apparently not.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2206091/posts?page=96#96
Right. The reason is the Constitution haters that want to twist the 14th Amendment to unduly expand federal powers. Your side.
“The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.” —William Rehnquist, Roe v. Wade: Dissent
Well, that makes you worse than Blackmun. He at least tried to maintain the illusion that he cared about the Constitution's clear provisions which protect innocent persons.
He said, "They're not persons, so you can kill them."
You say, "They are persons, but you can kill them anyway. States are not bound to protect unalienable rights."
I say they're persons, created in the image of the One Who created them. That means that their right to live is unalienable. With the founders, I understand that natural rights, of which the right to life is foremost, preceded the existence of this country or our Constitution, and that all American republican governments, at every level, were devised and empowered by the consent of the governed to protect and secure those rights.
Just exactly which part of “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” do you fail to comprehend?
The ironies of this thread abound far more than the casual reader may know. And so, I’m going to state a few personal facts.
A) After twenty years as a committed Republican, extremely active in my party at the local, the state and the national levels, I left that party last year in complete disgust at its utter corruption and failure to adhere to the principles I care deeply about.
B) Also last year, I founded America’s Independent Party, which is completely committed to the principles I care deeply about.
C) While the pathetic Chairman of the RNC and his minions defend Gerald R. Ford’s and John McCain’s fake destructive “states’ rights trump the right to life” position, we continue to defend the Reagan Republican pro-life position, the stated position of THEIR platform, which recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and their resultant protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.
And the final irony?
D) While they do NOTHING to even help their OWN conservative pro-life candidates, we continue to do so at some personal sacrifice.
Abortion is murder. It is not a choice. Steele is a far left liberal and this interview is just an illustration of what many of us already suspected.
However, abortion laws need to be administered and prosecuted at the state level. The founders understood that our Constitution was made for a moral people. America is allegedly a nation with a Christian majority yet abortion, divorce and sodomy are epidemic. Unless there is a widespread repentance and re-awakening of Christians abortion will never be made illegal at the local, state or federal level. The federal government does not have the authority to enforce murder laws within the several states of the union, and I do not want them to assume that authority. There is a great risk that they would use that authority for other purposes. Humanists trust in the goodness of man. I do not.
ALL RIGHT! Allan Keyes will HUMILIATE Michael Steele!
Fake quote. Leftist love to lie.
You say, "They are persons, but you can kill them anyway. States are not bound to protect unalienable rights."
Fake quote. Leftist love to lie.
Really bad case of projection.
This is not an either/or question. It is “all of the above.”
All officers of the United States, at every level, swear to defend and uphold the Constitution, a document that states as its crowning purpose the securing of the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
The organic law of the United States, in all its parts, recognizes and protects innocent human life. The constitutions of all fifty states do the same.
Oaths before Almighty God are not a light thing.
And those oaths were sworn before the people as well. It’s time that the people demand that those oaths be kept.
If we won’t make and enforce that imperative demand, this country, and the liberty of its people, cannot be saved. This is an inevitability. If the foundations are destroyed, the house cannot possibly stand.
You have a twisted view of words. I begin to suspect you went to law school.
It’s the substance of your argument, such as it is. You can cry about it, but you can’t change the reality of it.
Which should include defending it against those who misrepresent it and deliberately alter its meaning.
"The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."
—William Rehnquist, Roe v. Wade: Dissent
Backwards. Your lies are the foundation of your argument.
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.