Will this work? ;-)
Posted on 03/19/2010 12:25:37 PM PDT by presidio9
"Freedom" has long been a right-wing rallying cry for self-identified patriots ranging from John Birchers to tea party protesters to increasingly extreme members of the Republican establishment. They're particularly passionate about the freedom to own and openly carry guns and freedom from federal taxation (but not necessarily federal benefits). Otherwise, their most consistent attachments to freedom tend to be rhetorical, unless freedom means restricting reproductive choice, same-sex relationships, medical marijuana, or sexually explicit speech and permitting discrimination against people who do not acknowledge Jesus as their savior. For some prominent conservatives -- like John McCain, Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, and Dick Cheney -- freedom also entails the establishment of a national security state empowered to arrest and imprison summarily people suspected of terrorism and to spy on people suspected of nothing in particular, thanks to a ubiquitous but largely invisible surveillance system.
There are, of course, exceptions to this statism. The CATO Institute, generally associated with the right because of its commitment to free markets, is equally, if less notoriously, committed to civil liberty. CATO is unusual in its consistent libertarianism, which means, however, that (like Reason magazine), it is a creature of neither the right nor the left. A recent CATO report estimates that some 14 percent of Americans also qualify as libertarian, meaning that they're fiscally conservative and socially liberal (although it's unclear if fiscal conservatives who believe "the less government the better" are willing to surrender their own government benefits, from Pell grants to Medicare).
Libertarians are labile voters,
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
They believe in the right to life along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The small l libertarian position is generally to revoke Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states.
The conservative position is that the right to life is unalienable. This was unanimously agreed to in 1776.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states:
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.
Please notice the distinction between "All persons born" in the first sentence and any person (one would assume born or unborn, naturalized or not,as it is not distinguished as it is in the first) in the second sentence.
True; but that does not alter the fact that Murder Laws are constitutionally a function of State Law, rather than Federal Law. (They are).
That's not disputing the unalienable Right to Life; it's simply identifying which level of Government is constitutionally responsible for its enforcement. The Prophet Daniel was willing to be sentenced to death in the lion's den, rather than overthrow the "Constitution Law" of the Medes and Persians (which stated that once issued, a King's Law could not be revoked). So that's Biblical evidence that God considers adherence to Constitutional Law an important matter.
My point was that a proper reading of the 14th amendment would lead to the conclusion that it should not be permitted in any state. The last article of that amendment states:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
To the extent a state law does not run afoul of the 14th amendment then I agree they should have jurisdiction.
I believe that is the interpretation that the Court should adopt: that every State does have a Constitutional duty to prohibit abortion, albeit each doing so within the context of that particular State's Murder Laws.
That would be the ideal.
However, I think that before we can even get to that point, we're going to at least have to return to the pre-Roe ante -- and get the Court to recognize that each State is indeed permitted to prohibit abortion. State Legislatures cannot be held responsible to do, that which the SCOTUS does not even permit them to do.
I don’t think the “right” will have to find the libertarians. The Libertarians found us and are stuck like ticks.
parsy, who is looking for his “Tick B’Gone!” spray
Read them both. Prefer Orwell’s Politics and The English Language.
Thanks for alerting me to the Orwell opus. It seems to be available online, for free, in its entirety.
I do have a bone to pick with Kirk—far from being a “mechanical Jacobin,” the automobile has done more to bring about liberty than just about any other technological innovation.
A mistaken assumption on your part, brother or sister.
My forebears migrated here in the early 1900's from Oklahoma and my great-grandmother was full-bred Cherokee.
Wake up.
The very top three spots in that category being occupied by, IMHO: The Judeo-Christian Bible, the Printing Press, and the Man-Portable Firearm.
Will this work? ;-)
LOL! I need a real BIG can.
parsy, who says “Let us spray. . .”
Okay, pardner, then stop citing that as your claim to fame and legitimacy.
Both high profile libertarians and the libertarians I know seem to fall in one of two camps.
One camp is the Juedo-Christian libertarian. Upon entering the promised land and setting up a new government, Joshua said “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. But as for me and my house we will serve the Lord.”
But Judeo-Christian libertarianism goes back even farther to rejection of the question of the first genocidal murderer, Cain, who asked God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
The resounding libertarian response is “I am not my brother’s keeper!” For these libertarians, the preeminent accountability is to God and not to man.
Atheist/agnostic is the second type of libertarian. They see the collectivism of institutional religions that accept the false premise of Cain. They reject that false premise because it cannot withstand logical scrutiny. Pure logic becomes the basis of their libertarianism.
I suspect there are other libertarian variations. I’ve met libertarian pagans, Sikh and Bhuddists. But I didn’t really understand where they were coming from.
“The conservative position is that the right to life is unalienable. This was unanimously agreed to in 1776.”
While I would love to agree with you, under English common law in effect at the time (and adopted by the new USA), “life” did not begin until the child drew its first breath outside the womb.
Again, I don’t agree with the English position at the time, but that was the law in 1776.
“Then you had better stop paying your taxes and morally supporting this (some)drug war.”
I don’t voluntarily pay those taxes. I tend to do so to avoid prison.
I don’t support the drug war (because it is pointless), but it is my perogative to state that druggies are morons who waste their lives and poise a danger to others.
But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation.
One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it. All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that to-day, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression.
LOL, ain't it the truth.
I am voting for the first politician who sprays that “Tick’B’Gone” stuff on RuPaul and his legions.
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.