Posted on 09/11/2008 10:57:32 PM PDT by joanie-f
Most conservatives decry the ‘bread and circuses’ atmosphere of modern politics, principally because the consistent focus on meaningless pursuits takes the citizens’ focus away from the important issues … even crises … that must be considered, and faced, if we are to remain a free society.
Our Founders continually warned that liberty, and the republican form of government that is best suited to ensure it, can only be maintained through an informed citizenry.
Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, are necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties.
Many of us consider the ‘bread and circuses’ nature of modern American society to be most frequently exhibited in our adulation of the Hollywood crowd, professional sports figures, and reality programming, the accumulation of creature comforts, the me-oriented nature of the citizenry, the need to ‘be entertained’, etc. … with an incremental de-emphasis on genuine heroes, the importance of personal character and responsibility, and a sense of civic duty ... which includes being educated about our history, and concerned about our future as a free society.
I completely agree that all of the above trends have increased in intensity over the past fifty years, and that, if they continue to gain momentum, our very lives, liberties and sovereignty as a nation are in grave danger.
A sub-level of this toxic trend has become glaringly apparent over the past few weeks of the election campaign.
Our republic is facing potentially deadly crises the likes of which there is no historical precedent:
... and on and on, ad infinitum ...
One would think that, with one of the (if not the) most crucial presidential elections in the history of our republic approaching in fewer than eight weeks, the crises mentioned above would be foremost on the minds of every American who intends to step into the voting booth on November 4th. And, even more importantly, one would think that the American media (the self-appointed purveyors of information and education) would be hard at work seeking, and reporting, the candidates’ opinions on, and proposed solutions to, all of the above.
Yet what do we predominantly see and hear in all of our media outlets? What are we being subliminally told is of utmost importance in this crucial election?
Many of my conservative friends, all of whom are true patriots, have voiced the opinion over the past few days that they are glad Barack Obama and the left are ‘getting a taste of their own medicine’ via the production of the new RNC ad that plays off of Obama’s lipstick/pig gaffe, and they are pleased with all of the attention his gaffe, whether innocent or purposeful, is receiving.
I could not possibly disagree more vehemently.
By producing such an ad, and even debating Obama’s intent – indeed, by even giving credence to this story – conservatives are accomplishing three fatal outcomes:
(1) they are legitimizing the bread and circus atmosphere in this election process
(2) they are stealing a worthless page out of the left’s playbook
(3) they are spending major campaign funds on nonsense advertising that would be better spent educating the public about issues of critical importance to our republic
On my list of 'Things I Want the Voting Public to Know about Barack Obama That the Media Aren't Reporting', there are 8,563 items ahead of the fact that he may (or may not) have referred to his opponent as a pig.
I think the McCain campaign, and the RNC, should be telling us about those 8,563 things in their campaign ads, and leave the lipstick remark to those who believe it has some importance in the grand scheme of things. The fact that they have wasted the donations of loyal Republicans on such nonsense is infuriating to me.
The media, academia, and the political left profit from such abject stupidity. It allows them to fill the airwaves with such drivel, and to scrupulously avoid discussion of Barack Obama’s dark, longstanding connections to anti-American zealots and his agenda to impose his Marxist/black separatist ideology on a populace that has been programmed to be preoccupied with ‘looking the other way’.
Half of the American electorate is ready to put such a man in the White House. And I believe that ninety percent of that group possesses no real knowledge of his infamous background or his ultra-left-leaning agenda.
Why have so many of our countrymen fallen into such an ignorant stupor? Because, for fifty years, we have allowed the leftists in the media, our institutions of ‘higher education’, and Hollywood to incrementally turn our focus away from the enemy within ... and toward tattletale pranks and kindergarten pursuits.
I don't give a rat's patoot what derogatory label one candidate may affix to another. What I do care about is whether that candidate intends to dismantle the noble foundations upon which my country was built.
And the media be damned.
We're going to pay a terrible price for allowing ourselves to be so pliant in the hands of those who most certainly do not have our best interests at heart.
~ joanie
Two questions, nmh: (1) How are you going to effect a reversal of Roe v. Wade at the state level without going to the states?
If SCOTUS reverses, the abortion issue goes to the sovereign states, each of which is constitutionally competent to address such matters in ways consistent with the beliefs and values of the people who live in their communities. SCOTUS is constitutionally incompetent to directly declare state law, in this sense: If a state passes a law that someone runs afoul of, and the defendent is convicted by a jury of his peers, but believes his constitutional rights have been violated, he can sue in federal court, and maybe wind his way up through the appeals process to the Supreme Court. Only then can SCOTUS weigh in on the constitutionality of the state law the defendent has been convicted of violating. The Supremes are not the court of original jurisdiction when it comes to state law. And don't forget the several states have their own constitutions. Mine was written by John Adams.
(2) How does the sacrosanct life of a baby trump the "core ideology" of the Constitution, which is the baby's own best security that its God-given life and liberty will not be violated by government action? You want to "save babies" by killing their major legal protection? This seems to be a false, or at least faulty dichotomy....
When it comes to life issues, we are living in a slough of near total barbarism these days. Passing laws won't help this, for you can't legislate morality —especially in a time when there is no public agreement on what morality is, or even whether there is such a thing. Our challenge is somehow to extricate ourselves from this morass, to stand up on God's firm ground, in His Light and, by His help, to reestablish, to renew the commitment of the Framers of the federal Constitution to the moral values and ideals implicit in the very design of the Constitution they built, for the purpose of establishing a "new order for the ages," a novus ordo seclorum dedicated to the full promulgation of human life and liberty by constraining the power and authority of civil government.
Time to roll up our sleeves. The work will be difficult and results will not come overnight. It took a long time for the American people to fall into the disordered, amoral slough that America has fallen into (thanks to the tireless efforts of radical "progressives" over the past century, and more specifically to the degraded state of public education); it'll take a while to extricate the culture from it — God willing.
Thank you so much for writing, nmh!
Two questions, nmh:
(1) How are you going to effect a reversal of Roe v. Wade at the state level without going to the states?
That is why I want it settled at the U.S.S.C.. I do not want it at the state level. I want the Supreme Court to ban it as it was banned prior to Roe/Wade. I want to bypass the states.
(2) How does the sacrosanct life of a baby trump the “core ideology” of the Constitution, which is the baby’s own best security that its God-given life and liberty will not be violated by government action? You want to “save babies” by killing their major legal protection? This seems to be a false, or at least faulty dichotomy....
If you read the Constiituion you will understand the in no way shape or form is abortion one of our founding principles. SAHME on YOU!
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…
—The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Consider the above words, and this is what we learn:
The right to life is a “self-evident truth;” it is not based on the speculations and shifting opinions of men.
The right to life is “unalienable” and an essential part of us. It exists independently from what others want. It is not a grant from government. It exists, whether there is a government or not. And it certainly can’t be ruled out of existence by unelected judges.
The government derives its “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” namely us. The Founding Fathers believed in “the capability of a people to govern themselves,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.
The reason for government is “to secure these Rights.” So the Constitution is, to use the words of the political scientist Paul Rahe, the “instrument for the im-plementation” of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, judges are not free to ignore the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence.
Instead of being guided by the Declaration of Independence, the pro-abortion majorities in the Supreme Court’s abortion cases since 1973 have blocked out the bright light of the Declaration and groped around in the resulting “penumbra” and made up a new “right” to suit their purpose. To grasp how far down we have come from the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, try fitting this new “right” of a mother to kill her unborn child to the concepts of a “self-evident truth” or an “unalienable right.”
YOU are using a PRO ABORTION ARGUMENT to make your point. Are you really sure YOU are against abortion? It doesn’t appear so ... .
A look at the major abortion cases provides a litany of the Court majority’s contempt for the Declaration of Independence.
YOU share this “contempt” and want to appear smug at the same time.
Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton (1973) The child in the womb is not “created equal,” but receives effective legal rights only after birth. There is no “unalienable right to life;” nor is that right a “self-evident truth.” Instead, we have the feelings of the mother. As the pro-abortion columnist Ellen Goodman put it: “We call [the unborn child] a baby when it’s wanted and a fetus when it isn’t.” Indeed, in the world of Roe and Doe, a pregnant woman can change her mind tomorrow about having the baby and schedule an abortion. In that world there is no place for the right to life as an unchanging and inherent attribute of a human being.
Doe goes even further than Roe: An elastic “health” exception provides the cover for any abortion. And the abortionist, once considered a most disreputable individual, has now, in the words of Justice Harry Blackmun, “the room he needs to make his best medical judgment.” The self-evident truth about abortionists is, of course, that in their “best medical judgment” there is no unalienable right to life.
Do the Roe and Doe decisions represent “just Power” based on “the Consent of the Governed”? No. Dissenting Justice Byron R. White denounces them as “an exercise in raw judicial power.” Do the decisions respect the constitutional framework of federalism and the separation of powers? No. “The people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled” with regard to abortion (Justice White). Is there a right to abortion in the Constitution, the “instrument for the im-plementation” of the Declaration of Independence? No. “The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers” (Justice White).
In Roe and Doe, the Court dealt us two devastating blows: one to the individual human being—there is no unalienable right to life—and one to the whole republic—an oligarchy, the Court’s unelected majority, now makes the law of the land.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) With neither the ability nor the willingness for resolving the legal and constitutional crises of its own making, the pro-abortion Court majority demands that we accept its miscarriage of justice; because for the Court to overrule “Roe’s central holding” would “seriously weaken the Court’s capacity to exercise the judicial power” and do “damage to the Court’s legitimacy,” even “if error was made.” What we have here is a stubborn judicial oligarchy, willfully oblivious to its constitutional duty and filled with contempt for “the Consent of the Governed.”
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) The extreme nature of the Court’s abortion rulings is now clear for all to see: With the excuse of “health” reasons, the abortionist may deliver a child—except for the baby’s head—force a cannula into the base of the skull, and suck his brains out. Rather than securing the “unalienable right to Life and the Pursuit of Happiness,” the Court is now shielding the butchers profiting in the bloody traffic of “choice.” The Constitution, the “instrument for the implementation” of the Declaration of Independence, is now revoltingly perverted into a tool for its denial.
Thomas Jefferson worried about men making the Constitution into “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” We have arrived at that point.
Pat yourself on the back - you support the abortionists!
Thank you so much for writing, nmh!
You’re welcome.
You might want to reconsider your position on abortion. You clearly make the argument for ABORTION to remain legal for and reason at any time.
I disagree with this. I want abortion in the U.S. to become ILLEGAL and BANNED as it once was.
But abortion was not banned in all states before Roe v Wade.
It should be a state’s rights issue.
I agree with your ideal—that it should be illegal. I simply disagree with your method.
“But abortion was not banned in all states before Roe v Wade.”
It was but we have let the Constitution become an “evolving” or “living and breathing document”. The honest truth is the Constitution is fairly WORTHLESS. We need to get back to it.
“It should be a state’s rights issue.”
NO. It was a given under the Consitution that abortion should be and was ILLEGAL. The states were once in line with the Consitution. Over th years the COnstitution has been eroded and your “method” is allowing more of that and more confusion. It’s not about a “method”. It is about the reading and proper interpretation of the Constitution.
“I agree with your ideal—that it should be illegal. I simply disagree with your method.”
Again it’s not about a “method”. It is about a right regardless of what state it is that a person has this:
... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ...
If you read the Constiituion you will understand the in no way shape or form is abortion one of our founding principles. SAHME on YOU! It is not a “state” right to murder the unborn. It never was a “right” till the Constituion was perverted for policitical reasons.
AGAIN, read it:
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…
—The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Consider the above words, and this is what we learn:
The right to life is a “self-evident truth;” it is not based on the speculations and shifting opinions of men.
The right to life is “unalienable” and an essential part of us. It exists independently from what others want. It is not a grant from government. It exists, whether there is a government or not. And it certainly can’t be ruled out of existence by unelected judges.
The government derives its “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” namely us. The Founding Fathers believed in “the capability of a people to govern themselves,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.
The reason for government is “to secure these Rights.” So the Constitution is, to use the words of the political scientist Paul Rahe, the “instrument for the im-plementation” of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, judges are not free to ignore the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence.
Instead of being guided by the Declaration of Independence, the pro-abortion majorities in the Supreme Court’s abortion cases since 1973 have blocked out the bright light of the Declaration and groped around in the resulting “penumbra” and made up a new “right” to suit their purpose. To grasp how far down we have come from the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, try fitting this new “right” of a mother to kill her unborn child to the concepts of a “self-evident truth” or an “unalienable right.”
We definitely DISAGREE.
I don’t need a “method”.
This right is written in the Constitution.
Your "hope" is in John McCain. Good luck with that.
[roamer_1] I do not agree with you. Giving the power of Life to the states is every bit as unconstitutional as RvW is, and is a terrific foot in the door for euthanasia, and ever other sort of bastardization of that sort, which the court will then nationalize, and then here we go again.One cannot ignore the plain words of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which specifically take Life beyond the reach of ALL branches of government, and lay it only in the hands of the Creator. Until that (Conservative) ideal is fully recognized and protected, there will be no end to the perversions that will occur, with 50 different states to use as legal testbeds.
Hello betty boop! Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.
Sorry to disagree, but I think Cicero is right that the first thing we need to do is reverse Roe v. Wade and return the life issue back to the states, where the Constitution originally vested it. I gave some reasons for my view earlier, at Post 187.
Yes, and I read your thoughts there with great interest, though I disagree with your conclusion. I also profoundly disagree with the notion that one cannot legislate morality, as all law is, by it's nature, a measure to govern lawlessness. It is merely a matter of whose morality one is going to legislate. But that is probably a sidebar for another day...
The Declaration of Independence makes it crystal clear that every human being has an unalienable right to life because life is the direct endowment of the Creator. From this “self-evident” truth follows another: In order for government to be legitimate under our Constitution, it must honor and defend life.
That is precisely so, and sums up my argument perfectly. Without the defense of the God given rights, for which our government was established (and for which our founders called upon God as a witness to their intentions), and especially for those which are specifically enumerated (Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness), our government is in default of it's own charter, and has no legitimate reason for existence. It is made null, and is removed from it's authority and justice.
And that’s what makes Roe v. Wade unconstitutional: It does neither.
That is true. But in only reversing RvW, simply reverting to what was before, the court maintains its farcical tyranny. ANY reading which does not put Life beyond the reach of all government, state and federal, not to mention world bodies, is unconstitutional and subverts the very reason for the existence and founding of our government in the first place.
It is not within the federal government's power to grant power over life to itself, or to the states. Any judge worthy of the name, wise and true to his calling, would have no other verdict. Life is decided in the most Holy of Courts, and no other should presume, without due process.
The DoI’s declaration of the dignity and sanctity of human life is indispensable to a proper reading of the Constitution. The Constitution itself is silent on life issues; it makes no grant of power regarding life issues to the federal government. For the Founders understood that the proper authority regarding such matters is the sovereign states, for at least two reasons.
In specifically joining itself to all documents having come before it, the Constitution's silence relies upon the precedence of the Declaration of Independence- It's silence is required in order for it to make the words within the DoI inalterable- The DoI precedes and supersedes the Constitution. It is what is meant to be immutable.
But what greater power could there be to vest in government than the power over life and death? The Framers would have had a collective stroke at the mere suggestion of such a monstrous idea.
This is where you misunderstand me. The power over life is *not* vested in the federal government. The protection of inalienable rights is vested therein. That is the first and primary job of the federal government- To protect the rights which are God given, and thereby, endowed in all mankind, before the fact of any form of governance. The federal government has no right or authority over these unalienable rights, but is charged with their protection. Therefore, having no right over them, they cannot delegate that right to the states, severally or otherwise, nor can they delegate the protection, or interpretation thereof to the states, as that protection is endowed to every American equally under the Constitution.
Your arguments to the contrary, while well meant, still do not resolve that most basic and fundamentally American proposition. It is *not* within their power to mess with life at all without due process of law. That means that they must have cause to remove the right to Life. That means there must be a criminal act before any governmental body may take the life of a man. This is one of the roots of our freedom.
So giving it “back to them” is simply a restoration of the status quo ante. It would not be an unconstitutional act; it would be a restoration of the original Constitution. (I confess I’m of the “constitutional originalist view” of the Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia school.)
It is close to an originalist view, Federalism is great, where it belongs, but the unalienable rights are meant to be beyond the reach of *all* government, and the protection thereof must lie in the federal government for them to be maintained equally among all Americans. I think there is a great case to be made by the states against the federal government for *not* upholding these fundamental rights, and for allowing these things to fall into the bailiwick of the law at all.
What really troubled me about your statement is that it seems to imply that you simply don’t trust the people with life issues. Do you really think it better to trust the federal government, with its disgraceful, abominable record on this matter?
No, I disagree with the premise in the first place (as outlined above). I also disagree with the use of any one of fifty courts, the law of reciprocity between the states, and the idea of equality under the law, being used to allow such abominations to gain ground in our society. That is what allowed legality of abortion in the first place, and it's subsequent ability to challenge the laws federally at all.
Thank you for your polite discussion. I look forward to your reply.
-Bruce
I disagree. Laws describing penalties for preforming abortions are certainly Constitutional. Laws legalizing abortions are *not*, as they fall afoul of the very premise for which our government was established.
Likewise, states may write laws describing capital punishment for crimes- These are Constitutional, and are the state's by right, providing there is due process. A state cannot give itself the power to kill it's citizens without cause- That is prevented by the Constitution. It is the same thing.
Life is one of the enumerated unalienable rights which stand above the power of all governments. Our government was formed to protect those rights above all other things. You are correct that the government can take life under specific conditions, and ONLY under specific conditions.
That is the point. There is no right given to any level of government which does not specifically require due process of law (with the exception of war). As an American, your government is prevented from killing you without due process. Equally importantly, no person may take your life without just cause. That boils down to your unalienable right to exist, which no one has the right to preempt (without due process / just cause) except for your Creator.
Since abortion could not possibly fit those conditions under a fair reading of the Constitution this paranoia about states being able to legalize abortion without redress or remedy is just the handwringing of sheep and would-be statists.
I resent that misrepresentation. I am not a statist. I am a federalist. I am not advocating a slew of federal laws, nor am I advocating federal enforcement squads. Murder penalties are dealt with severally at the state level, as are most crimes, as would criminal prosecution of abortion.
What I insist upon, and as you, yourself, said, is a "proper reading of the Constitution", but in the light of the Declaration of Independence, and within the scope of the greater Judeo-Christian ethic, as it was meant to be, and as it was established.
What I propose does not take the prosecution away from the states, but only defines the parameters federally, as is proper. Namely, It would be illegal everywhere in these United States to perform abortions on the grounds that it is above the powers of the state, and above the powers of the federal government, to allow the purposeful taking of human life *at all* without due process or just cause.
What is so very important in this issue is this: If government is given power over these unalienable rights, that means that government will invariably decide it has the power to determine who to delegate those right to, and who to take them from. That is what governments do. As long as God is the Arbiter of unalienable rights, it is beyond the scope of government to do anything but protect those rights, and leaves government without the power to exercise power over them.
That is the very basis and root of our freedom FRiend. I give nothing to the federal government, or the state. I take it away from them all, and put it in the Hands of God, where it rightfully belongs, as the wisdom of our fathers so perfectly handed it down to us.
WRONG.. God gives UNalienable rights.. Government can ONLY alienate those rights.. Which is difference between the unique (in history) American Republic(because of state rights).. Democracy is about alienating rights always in every case universally completely.. NO democracy ever invented has any rights at all. Canada, Europe, Latin American or any democracy has zero rights.. They have privileges..
There is a large difference between rights and priviledges.. Canada and Europe have zero rights especially UNalienable rights.. Central governments with democratic clients are democracys.. A republic with State governments and a subserviant client as a federal government is what America is supposed to be.. With the States being the Boss and the central government being the servant is the tenor of the American Constitution.. Thats is WHY? the American Constitution has nowhere in it the words democracy or democratic... By design.. Democracy is now and always has been MOB Rule by mobsters and is a political social disease.. with socialism as a symptom.. always in every iteration.. Democracy is an obscene word.. and democratic rule is a myth.. Democracys are always ruled by an elite.. and are not democratic at all.. None of them..
The American Constitution was designed to LIMIT federal government not enhance it.. The people that are TRICKED into thinking democracy is a good thing are brain damaged and misinformed.. called democrats.. And those against democracy and for this unique Republic are called Republicans..
; )
The term "conservatives" is a term invented by "progressives" to highlight the difference between the Marxists and those that are against "PROGRESS"..
And so-called "conservatives" bought it.. allowing the Marxists to define them.. What is needed is not conservative change in America but RAdical change back to republicanism..
While I agree in spirit, what is called a Republican today has *nothing* to do with rebublicanism, or at least in the classic sense of the word, any more than a Libertarian has much to do with libertarianism in the classic sense.
What is called a Conservative, or more specifically, a Reagan Conservative, certainly does, with the added sense of Christian ethic and patriotism which is lost in the more mechanical definition one might find in a liberally laundered historical account or encyclopedia.
(1) We are having a debate over whether government has any authority over our inalienable rights [‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’, or, better defined, ‘life, liberty and property’]. And yet we are ignoring the gargantuan fact that, in order to make an end run around that very consideration, the left chooses to define ‘life’ by its own convoluted terms.
Those conscienceless barbarians who support partial birth abortion define ‘life’ as beginning once a child’s head exits the birth canal, whether that child is fully mature or not.
Barack Obama, by virtue of his repudiation of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, apparently defines life even more subjectively – as having no ‘beginning’, as a result of the whim of the mother and/or her abortionist.
So debating whether government, at either the federal or state level, has the authority to determine ‘life’ and death issues is pretty much a moot point, since, like the Constitution itself, the definition of ‘life’ appears to be an evolving concept.
(2) As betty has so ably pointed out, the Constitution does not address the issue of authority over life. And, if some (not all) of you are going to point to the DoI as the source for your contention that the federal government, rather than the states, has the power to dictate abortion policy, then let’s look at another part of the DoI, other than its reference to ‘... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’:
The DoI also states:
… that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.
Jefferson weighed his words carefully in writing this paragraph, in order to not speak of the states as a monolithic entity. Each state was, and was intended to continue to be, independent not only of Britain, but of the other states as well. The Articles of Confederation reiterated that ‘each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence.’
Once the Constitution came along, some of the powers designated to the states by the DoI were removed because they became enumerated as federal powers. But the Tenth Amendment took great pains to make it clear that the states were to cede only those powers to the federal government that were enumerated within the Constitution.
Nowhere is ‘authority over life’ one of those enumerated powers. And yet, sad to say, two hundred plus years later, ‘authority over life’ has become a major bone of contention without which there is no answer to the abortion crisis.
To those who are claiming that neither the federal government nor the state governments have the power to decide ‘life’ issues, I ask, ‘Then what do you suggest? That there be no government/judicial criteria in this regard?’ I suggest that that is akin to saying, ‘Government is corrupt, so I prefer anarchy.’
As for the simple ‘desirability’ of the abortion issue being decided on the state versus the federal level, I come down fervently on betty’s side.
The further one moves away from local government, the greater the corrupting power of special interests, and, coincidentally, the easier the suppression of the voice of the people (perhaps the most potent underlying consideration in the Tenth Amendment).
Simply from a practical (for lack of a better word) viewpoint, we have an exponentially greater opportunity to uphold the sanctity of life if we make our voices heard on the state level. There’s just too much entrenched hedonistic, self-absorbed, special interest cacophony going on in DC (in both the legislative and judicial branches) for the voice of the people to be heard.
So when we combine the unfortunate practical considerations, with the (significantly more relevant) Constitutional ones, I see no avenue to approach this crisis other than allowing the states to make the decisions that the Constitution implicitly describes as being under their authority.
Roamer_1 wrote:
The federal government has no right or authority over these unalienable rights, but is charged with their protection. Therefore, having no right over them, they cannot delegate that right to the states, severally or otherwise, nor can they delegate the protection, or interpretation thereof to the states, as that protection is endowed to every American equally under the Constitution … Life is decided in the most Holy of Courts, and no other should presume, without due process.
That would be a noble, common sense approach were it not for the fact, as mentioned above, that the left has made an art form out of messing with semantics, to their benefit. Unless you can come up with a Constitutional definition of ‘life’ (good luck!), your noble argument is all but toothless.
So we’re back at the drawing board. Since the definition of ‘life’, God’s most generous gift to man, has now been desecrated to the degree that we must debate it -- just as we debate the definition of ‘marriage’ and the meaning of ‘is’ -- then we must seek out the most effective, Constitutional way in which to defend it. In America 2008 (sadly, a far cry from America 1787), that way is to overturn Roe V. Wade, and get the power to define out of the hands of Washington, and back into the hands of the states (the people), where it belongs.
~ joanie
Thank you.
I actually see 3 or 4 small good things but until Sarah, I would not even consider voting for him because 3 or 4 little things don’t cut it with me.
There is still only a very small chance that I’d consider him but I do believe that he will be the next president because more Americans will have figured out Obama and will not vote for him.
That still doesn’t mean that McCain is good enough to earn my vote. I still believe that he wants amnesty and no one who promotes amnesty can be that concerned about national security or fiscal responsibility.
“As always, life is the best litmus test of all. If a politician gets that one wrong, you can be sure they don’t have the moral courage, brainpower or understanding to figure out the rest of it and consistently fight for what’s right.”
That has been my test for years. If they are wrong on life and/or wrong on the right to defend life (2nd Amendment) then they are not likely to be right enough on anything else to be entrusted with power.
“Those are the questions that the RNC and DNC doesn’t want discussed anywhere, especially not on an open forum.”
And that is precisely why I like to ask them. If it gets even a few people to think about it, I’ve accomplished something.
I, occassionally am rude enough to do the same thing. It generally occurs after reading a gathering of “We can do no wrong!” posts.
>It took a long time for the American people to fall into the disordered, amoral slough that America has fallen into (thanks to the tireless efforts of radical “progressives” over the past century, and more specifically to the degraded state of public education); it’ll take a while to extricate the culture from it — God willing.<
Radical “progressives”, more accurately known as communists certainly have worked very hard to bring forth the steaming piles of refuse known as federal agencies. Their task has been greatly simplified due to the lack of resistance they encountered. I have watched American conservatives swing to the Left during my lifetime. Sickened that we would ever consider supporting a socialist for President I don’t see any relief on the horizen. Four years from now I wouldn’t bet that the Republicans won’t have swung further to the Left.
“McCain wouldn’t have picked Palin if he didn’t...finally...listen to conservatives.
Something happened...”
I think that ‘what happened’ was that everyone knew that he would lose if he didn’t not pick a conservative. I think that the Palin pick was about winning, not a change of heart on any issue important to us. Palin completely changes that dynamic.
That said, Palin is the better part of the ticket. It would be nice if she had real authority and influence in policy matters, but those are the constitutional limits with which we must live. The best the she really offers us conservatives right now if hope for the future — not that there is anything wrong with that.
And of course, I very strongly agree. The question of abortion was never federal to begin with. Indeed, it was legislated from the bench over the "right" to privacy like birth control as if terminating a human life were a private matter.
At bottom, any authority not specifically granted to the federal government belongs to the state.
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.