(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
AMEN to that, joanie-f!!! That is just exactly the point. The "Voice of the People" has been utterly suppressed, for all intents and purposes, on life questions. Only "experts" are allowed to opine on such matters.
To illustrate, a few years ago I wrote to Senator Kerry to urge him to vote for legislation that would make partial birth abortion illegal. He wrote back with a four-page, densely spaced form letter that rattled off all the "expert opinion" that had convinced the Senator (a nominal Roman Catholic) to conclude that partial birth abortion was just another perfectly legitimate "medical procedure." He said on that basis he intended to vote against the bill, which he did.
Senator Kerry — and the Washington establishment in general — does not listen to the vox populi....
Thank you oh so much for your superb essay/post!
That is the crux of the issue. Great post from beginning to end. As usual you bring a superlative clarity to everything you address.
Either we trust that the system our Founders gave us is workable to the ends of justice and protection of our unalienable rights and dig in and use it or we ought to stop playing semantic games about Constitutionality and admit that we want to scrap it. I'm still on board with the former view.
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.
Why it is a noble and common sense approach is because it is the correct one.
There is no Constitutional definition of Life because the law has no business defining life at all. That is in fact, the problem.
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.
Again, I will reiterate that this is no balm:
As long as Life is in the hands of any man it remains subject to man's law, and thereby to man's definition. What man has the right to award, he has also the right to repeal. What man sees fit to grant, he can also find himself worthy to remove.
The solution remains the same. It is paramount to cause Congress to assert itself, that it would slap down this rebellious court (and indeed, ALL rebellious courts throughout the land), how ever that end is achieved. It is not enough that the court correct itself, as that leaves the precedent in place that it may overstep it's boundaries if it so chooses.
It is *not* proper for the court to legislate from the bench. It's role is to interpret existing law. That it does take it upon itself to legislate is an affront to our lawmakers, and ultimately to the Constitution itself. We must therefore strive to elect those who will strive to strike them down on that premise alone.