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.
I KNOW what Keyes believes, I have made these same arguments to his face, more than once.
I think he is a complete fool on this issue, as he prefers purity over performance, words over accomplishments, his own preferences over the actual protection of life.
Then they'll still have meetings in a phone booth, rather than a Ford Pinto.
Absolutely. Governor Palin's "pro-choice for states" position is identical to Ron Paul's, John McCain's and Gerald R. Ford's, and is 180 degrees out of phase with that of Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Republican pro-life platform that has been in place since 1984.
It is also the exact moral equivalent of the position of the Stephen A. Douglas Democrats in the 1850's.
YES, it was!
Would overturning Roe V. Wade outlaw abortion?
NO, it would not!
Why can't we do BOTH?
Overturn Roe, at the Federal level, by simple act of Congress, and get Congress and the States to restrict abortion through legislation, as much as politically possible?
Why must abortion be fought differently than every other political battle?
Alan Keyes is an egomaniac, full of himself, with no record of legislative or political achievement at all.
Alan Keyes would be in big trouble if abortion were actually outlawed.
Alan Keyes would then be much like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, without much of a cause to live off of, anymore!
This is not about personalities, parties, or personal emotions or pique. This is about the most fundamental underpinnings of our country and our liberty. A foundation that is very nearly gone.
Might want to do a little research:
Reagan’s Darkest Hour
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957829/posts
And how about my second question? since I did ask the first one and you did answer after all.
I will repeat the question one more time:
Secondly, to clear it up, you are saying that the abortion issue should be taken up on a federal level, similar to what happened back in 1973, only with a different result. Am I correct?
You conveniently left out the key word: POSTERITY, and its very clear and explicit meaning.
Abortion is not one of the Federal powers, and therefore it belongs to the States. You may not like that, but it is a fact.
Abortion is not a "power." It is the killing of an innocent person, contrary to the explicit prohibitions of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. And the clear prohibitions of ALL fifty states' constitutions as well; which variously use language to accomplish this that is identical or very similar to both the Declaration's language and that of the Constitution.
Ok, the right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the 2nd amendment.
Free speech is laid out in the 1st amendment.
Nowhere is abortion addressed which means it falls to the 9th amendment first, then the 10th amendment.
Later amendments ALWAYS supercede prior amendments so abortion MAY be covered by the 14th but I doubt it. Hence, it is a right reserved to the people (9th) unless the states supercede it (10th).
It should never have been a national decision. It should have been ruled as a right but the states can override. ALL rights are reserved meaning if the Constitution does not expressly forbid it, it is a right unless the States override.
BTW, the right to live is NOT in the Constitution and several mentions are made of that fact. For example, capital punishment is deemed as appropriate for multiple crimes.
The life, liberty, happiness issue is a DOI issue which is NOT law. The DOI was a protest statement (similar to an editorial).
Are children in the womb PERSONS?
See post 67. You already asked that, and I already answered it, directly.
I wonder though, are criminals PERSONS? Are adult murder victims PERSONS? Are school-age children who are murdered PERSONS? Personhood is not the issue. All of these people are persons, and yet their deaths are not ruled on federally. All murder is morally evil, and yet is still up to the State's to legislate, enforce and prosecute. That is the Constitutional position, and Alan Keyes is wrong if he says otherwise.
Wow! It's almost like I'm at the Lincoln/Douglas debates! You sure got me with that one! No wonder you're the head of such a large and growing political party, with a huge war-chest and thousands of elected officials all across the fruited plain.
Can you please point me to the wording in the Constitution that states this?
Every sworn officer, every chief executive, every legislator, every judge, needs to acknowledge and defend the right to life of all persons. At every level of government.
In other words, the correct opinion that should issue from the courts is the one which recognizes the personhood of the child, and their protection by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
But it isn’t just up to the courts. We have three co-equal branches which each have an equal duty to understand and enforce the protection of the unalienable rights of ALL.
EV, I agree with your position on abortion but it is a states' issue. Don't play with the Constitution like a piece of taffy.
The 5th is clearly for trials, "Trials and Punishment, Compensation for Takings", and the 14th, "Citizenship Rights", has nothing to do with abortion. Fight it out locally but don't extrapolate things to mean what they don't mean. that is what has gotten us into the mess we are in now. lack of adherence to what is clearly spelled out.
For the benefit of any possible readers, allow me to point out once again that even Blackmun admitted in the Roe decision that if the child in the womb is a person, they are clearly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
From Roe vs. Wade:
A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Please explain to me why I'm wrong to believe that those who admit the personhood of the child in the womb and yet deny their protection under our Constitution's clear provisions are worse than Blackmun?
Even Blackmun needed a fig leaf, but you folks are standing there logically buck naked.
Yes. The Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments are unequivocal about this.
Abortion is not a "power."
So, you are going to argue semantics? I think you know I am saying that abortion is not subject to federal power.
It is the killing of an innocent person...
Yes, and so is the murder of a young child abducted by a pederast. And so is the murder of a store clerk for money. And so is the murder of an elderly lady. Are any of these subject to Federal authority? No, they are the jurisdiction of the States. Are you saying that these innocent people are not PERSONS? Or are you saying that the States have no jurisdiction in them?
Actually, you're doing exactly what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The DOI was a protest statement (similar to an editorial).
The Declaration of Independence is the organic law of the United States. As such, it is placed at the beginning of the US Code by the Congress.
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.