Posted on 07/12/2009 9:15:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
In light of the comments and responses to my WND piece on Sarah Palin's resignation, I think some further observations and reflections are in order.
First it's important to remind everyone that I have never accepted the notion that Palin somehow represents adherence to the moral principles of republican, constitutional government. In a WND article right after McCain selected her as his running mate (Gov. Sarah Palin: Unequally yoked), I gave the reasons why. Later, when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, I wrote another article (Sarah Palin: Already compromised?) in which I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician…Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle…." I went on to point out that "making a pro-life icon of someone who takes this falsified "states' rights" position and who, at the same time, relegates her pro-life views to the status of "personal opinion", places the pro-life movement firmly on the path of self-destruction." I cautioned that "If the issue of respect for innocent human life is simply a matter of "personal opinion," what justifies government interference (at any level) in the personal decision of the woman carrying the child, or the parents who provided the genetic material from which its life derives?...Where no overriding public interest can be ascertained, the state cannot impose its moral opinions upon individuals without infringing the freedom of conscientious decision essential for the free exercise of religion (which is also counted among our unalienable rights.)"
In these past writings, as in the latest one, I have tried to reason clearly and carefully about the issues of public principle and policy raised by Sarah Palin's words and actions. Unfortunately, both Palin's fans and the leftist media hacks who act as her detractors have focused on her personal life. The fans want people to accept her loving commitment to her Down syndrome child as conclusive evidence that she is a pro-life champion. Her detractors snipe about her temperament, or make reprehensible so-called jokes about her family members, trying with ridicule and character assassination to manipulate public opinion against her. Meanwhile, her fans respond as if these rabid attacks conclusively prove that she is the conservative champion of principled morality they so desperately want her to be.
Unfortunately, as I argued in the articles cited above, ugly media attacks don't' alter the facts that show, logically and conclusively, that she is not such a champion.
Now I find readers like David, who left a comment on this site, declaring his view that my latest piece "is what I would expect from the mudslinging left." This reaction exposes the insidious nature of this whole contrived situation. Once we accept "personal" matters (of action or opinion) as the basis for our support or rejection of political leaders, anyone who opposes them can be accused of mudslinging and slander, even when their opposition is based on careful reasoning about public policy and constitutional principle.
Like so much else going on in our public discussion these days, this makes fear rather than truth the standard of our public discourse. In my case it would be fear of being unfairly attacked as an un-Christian replicant of the left-wing character assassins. This reminds me of what liberal blacks have tried for years to do on account of my rejection of their leftist cant on welfare issues. In both cases my response must be the same, precisely because of Christ's example. I will try to follow what careful and conscientious reasoning from right principle leads me to believe is true. I will leave in God's hands the integrity of my identity. In the end, he knows the right name for me and will recognize me for what I am.
I could of course simply say nothing as others promote Palin as a representative of the constituency of moral principle. Unfortunately, when she proves inadequate to the task, human vanity will lead many to doubt the viability of the moral cause, rather than their own lack of discernment about the flaws in her public policy stances on the key moral issues. Such doubters will sow confusion and demoralization in the ranks of moral conservatives. This may in fact be the result intended by some of those who helped promote Palin to national prominence, though they tacitly despise the moral constituency she is supposed to represent. By speaking out, will people like me help to mitigate this bad result? Will our warnings prevent well intentioned people from relying too much upon a false hope? If so, it's worth the risk of being unpopular with Palin fans who insist that reasonable criticism of her public policy views and actions is no different than the partisan media's malevolent personal attacks.
Since when did the duty to defend unalienable rights become oppressive?
Seems to me you’re forgetting who is really being oppressed here.
The states are not being oppressed. They are having no right or power that they legitimately possess stripped from them whatsoever.
This is the heart and soul of America:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
So you want the federal government writing all criminal laws.
You are a statist just like the Justices who wrote Roe. Defining what is and what is not murder is NOT an enumerated power and therefor not within the power of the federal government.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.""No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law..."
"No State shall...deprive any person of life...without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Again, conflating powers and rights. Sad. This is one of the most damaging fallacies wreaking havoc in our country today.
The ‘spirit’ of the DOI? Give it a break!
Spirit of a (non-legal) document has NOTHING!!!!!! to do with law.
No wonder Keyes lost if this is how he argues.
It's you who is agreeing with them, not me. Like Blackmun, you don't believe that the child in the womb is protected by the Constitution of the United States.
No wonder you take the position you do. Like most of today's legal elite class, you've squeezed all the meaning out of the Constitution and our laws. It's now all about the whims of men, not about the rule of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That’s what Keyes and his henchman, EV, is looking for.
Explain to me how posts like that differ in spirit from the manner in which the Left has treated Governor Palin.
You’re a statist. You want the federal government writing laws the Founding Fathers left to the States to write. You just don’t want o take the time or effort to ammend the Constitution to give the federal government those new powers.
The country is in the situation it is in because of people who think like you. They may disagree with you on this point, but on the bigger issue of following the Constitution as written you and the statists on the left are in lock step.
Let’s see, the spirit from the Left against Palin is one of anti-Christian, anti-mother, anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-independence.
My post, and the spirit in which it comes from, is not anti-Christian, anti-mother, anti-woman, anti-child, and anti-independence. It is, however, anti-Totalitarian, and an exposition of the America’s Independent Party for what it is: A fascist party which intends to rule by fiat instead of by law.
I’ll gladly stay as a true independent, one with no party label, and adherent only to God’s word.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Neither one has anything to do with abortion. you know this and it is clearly stated. The Constitution becomes a play thing for an anti-abortion agenda. Good to know what a POS the Keyes campaign is and why I can't support him or his followers.
They play the game like the Dims and just try and twist the facts into what they want to believe, not what is reality. A lot of issues I would understand but something as dear to conservatives as the Constitution, please.
I’m not agreeing with them. They gave the federal government powers the Constitution reserves to the States. That’s the same thing you want to do.
You are in lock step with Blackmun on this issue.
The protection of innocent human life is the purpose of the law, and of all government, so your post makes no sense.
No. They ruled that the child is not a person, and therefore not protected by the Constitution. I posted the text from the Roe decision already on this thread. I can’t help it if you refuse to read it with understanding.
Actually, it is not.
The purpose of law is to glorify God. If you were a believer, you’d actually know that.
Both Amendments consist of lists, so ellipses are perfectly sound.
You’re still ignoring what both Amendments clearly say, no matter how much of the non-applicable text you post to obscure that.
Wow. Now you’re claiming that I’m not a believer, because I advocate for the fundamental principles of our republic. Very strange.
How does it glorify God to say that states can sanction the killing of babies if they want to?
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.