Posted on 03/13/2009 1:32:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Once again we are supposed to believe that Michael Steele had a slip of the tongue. This time in an Interview with Gentleman's Quarterly magazine which included the following exchange:
"The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion," he said. "My mother chose life. So I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other."Interviewer Lisa DePaulo asked: "Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?"
Steele replied: "Yeah. I mean, again, I think that's an individual choice."
DePaulo: "You do?"
Steele: "Yeah. Absolutely."
DePaulo: "Are you saying you don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade?"
Steele: "I think Roe v. Wade — as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter."
DePaulo: "Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?"
Steele: "The states should make that choice. That's what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide."
Twice before on this site (look under the topic GOP failure) I have discussed Steele's departure from the pro-life stance. Yet in a way not clearly in evidence before, this interview reveals the insidious character of the argument Steele represents. According to this argument, individual choices are not subject to interference by the Federal government. Rather you state the case for one side or the other, and let the individual decide. The problem is, of course, that matters of justice, of right and wrong, always involve individual choices. The choice to rob, lie, cheat and murder are all individual choices. The choice to rape, kidnap and enslave another is an individual choice. The choice to serve or not to serve someone in a restaurant, on account of their race, is an individual choice. Obviously the real issue is not whether individuals are free to choose between right and wrong. That's been clear since Eve made her fateful decision to eat the forbidden fruit. The issue is when and whether they have the right to choose as they do.
American liberty is founded on the premise that we are all created equal and endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. This premise is not a statement about human aspirations. It's a statement about right and wrong. An unalienable right can be transgressed by individuals and governments, but the premise of liberty forbids the assertion that those who transgress they have the right to do so. Right is not on the side of government when it commits or tolerates murder, theft and terror against the innocent. Individuals and laws that do so are inherently unjust, and powers used in this way are not lawful powers.
Steele consistently maintains that issues, like abortion, that involve respect for unalienable rights, are properly decided at the state rather than the Federal level. But the premise of liberty makes no such distinction. Respect for unalienable rights is required of human governments at any and all levels, because the just powers of all such governments are derived from the people's exercise of those rights. As the Federal government only has the powers delegated to it by the states, so the state governments only have the powers delegated to them by the people. But the "unalienable" aspect of each person's rights means that such rights cannot be given away, not under any circumstances. What the people cannot rightly give, the states cannot rightly claim.
But the premise of liberty includes the notion that "to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Though government cannot claim the power to transgress against unalienable rights, the foundational purpose of government entails the obligation to preserve and respect them. No government powers are just except those derived from the only source consistent with this obligation, which is the consent of the people. Clearly however, the idea of consent based on respect for unalienable rights does not mean that the people have the right to do whatever they please, since they cannot rightly do anything that alienates (contradicts or surrenders) their unalienable rights. In this sense, government of by and for the people, is limited government: not only limited by the terms of its constitution, but by the purpose and terms of its institution or establishment. Liberty therefore is not identical with a simply unlimited freedom to choose. Individuals are free to choose actions that violate unalienable right, but they cannot claim the right to do so.
When, in their individual or collective capacity, people choose to violate unalienable rights they transgress liberty. Since liberty is its essential characteristic, this transgression effectively abandons the republican form of government. When an individual commits this transgression, it is a criminal act. When a government commits this transgression, it is an unlawful government. Under our constitution the supervision of this transgression when committed by individuals, has been left to the states. But if and when a state or states neglect this supervision, the U.S. Constitution (Article IV, section 4) explicitly requires that the government of the United States guarantee a republican form of government in each of the states. Like the guarantor of a loan, it must intervene to make good any deficiency in the states' respect for its requirements. Michael Steele's assertion that the states have the exclusive right to decide the issue of abortion is therefore incorrect. They should have the opportunity to decide it (which is one of the reasons the Roe v. Wade decision was prudentially wrong) but if they decide, by action or neglect, in favor of committing or allowing the violation of unalienable right, the Federal government has the Constitutional obligation to intervene. On abortion it may be sensible, after so many years of misplaced respect for the unlawful Roe v. Wade decision, to make this obligation clear to all the states by Federal legislation in some form. This could help to avoid miscalculations that might disrupt our civil peace. For this reason I think that such legislation, including a Constitutional amendment may be prudent. However, our reasoning here makes clear that it is not legally or Constitutionally necessary.
Finally, I think it's time we all stopped pretending that Steele's persistent advocacy of the "pro-choice" position is an accident, or a slip of the tongue. I believe these episodes are purposeful. His actions are meant to assert the fallacy that it is pro-life to be pro-choice. But this means accepting the position that at some level the choice to murder an innocent human being is consistent with respect for the unalienable right to life. Except we embrace the noxious position that right and wrong choices are equally just, this is not and can never be a pro-life view. Except we abandon the whole idea of unalienable right, this is not and can never be a view consistent with American liberty.
I think that Steele and the people he represents have gotten away with this disingenuous effort to warp, distract and mislead the pro-life movement for long enough. This issue is vital to the survival of America's free institutions. People of conscience deserve a frank and purposeful debate about it, not a sly attempt at argument by inadvertence. To that end I challenge Michael Steele to face me in such a debate, in a venue open to scrutiny by the general public. Though the courage to debate is not the test of truth, it may be a test of true conviction. I claim to be pro-life because I have stood that test, against Barack Obama, Alan Dershowitz and others. Why should pro-life people accept Steele's protestations of pro-life conviction if he refuses to do so?
For more current writing from Alan Keyes, please visit www.LoyaltoLiberty.com!
That is not the point. The federal government would assume no such authority, nor would enforcement pass to any federal entity.
It is not an enforcement of murder, or criminal law, which remains with the states, as it always has.
The protection of Life is a Constitutional matter because the very purpose of the Constitution is to protect our rights. Those rights, considered inalienable, are not granted by men, nor by the Constitution itself, but are given by God, as our very foundational document, the Declaration of Independence so eloquently states. And just so we are clear, the very first right ever enumerated, as being inalienable, was in fact the right to Life!
This inherent protection of life found in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution, which lay out the purpose of our government, is further buoyed by the limits placed upon the government, both the federal and the states, within the 5th and 14th amendments, which specifically prevent either level of government from taking life without due process. Since the power flows from the states, this also prevents any level under them from taking life without due process.
In other words, the Constitution prevents ANY level of government from sanctioning the taking of life without due process- Life is held sacrosanct, and above the courts of men, except in criminal law, and even then, only with good reason, and due process of law.
The Constitution proclaims the protection of Life, and every level of our government must comply with that.
This does not give power to the federal government, nor does it take any power away from the states. It was never either of theirs to begin with. The power to kill without cause has NEVER been given to any level of our government, or to our citizens.
A proper overturning of Roe v. Wade would *not* return the question of Life to the states. Justices intent upon the letter of the law, and preservation of the Constitution, which they have sworn to uphold, would return the question to the proper Court- The Royal Court of Jehovah, God Almighty, where it rightfully belongs, according to the Declaration of Independence, which takes precedence over every document in these United States.
The Constitution plainly states that the question of Life is above the Supreme Court's pay grade, and therefore, above the level of any law in the land, except in criminal cases, and then with due process.
Until this very basic premise is understood and accepted, there will be no justice in our land, and without justice, there will be no peace. ANY right, placed in the hands of men, is removed from it's rightful place, and puts all of our rights in dire jeopardy, don't you see?
They do not belong to the feds. They do not belong to the states. They don't even belong to "We the People", as even we cannot take them away... Our rights are God-given and it is only in recognizing that fact that we will remain forever free. The moment we assign those rights to anyone else's care, they will be stolen from us, of that you can be sure.
I went to the Texas Republican State Convention as a delegate for him way back when. As I went to get a soda and go to the bathroom, I overheard several people make statements about him like, "If I wanted a sermon I would go to church." Others would be something about "He needs to "move on" about the abortion thing, and talk about lowering taxes." I hung on his every utterance.
The thing about it was I agreed with everything he said at the time. Abortion and sodomy were just the tip of the iceberg. I agreed with his tough foreign policy, his domestic agenda, and pretty mush everything else he said. He is just passionate about saving babies from the suction jars and that seems to make people nervous. Us type "A" personalities get excited when talking about murdering children, taking our Second Amendment rights away, and cowing down to foreign dictators. I really could accept a rise in taxes and some borrowed money if I could get the babies to stop dying and guarantee my guns will be left alone. I'm 57 and am tired of worrying about every election being the one that dissolves the Constitution and brings us to civil war. I would love to just argue over how much money gets stolen from me every year. Whether I pay 20% or 50% is something we can work out next election, but when they come to take may guns, we have to work that one out in the front yard. I don't know how many people realize just how close America is to a total break down. It's hard to sleep at night knowing the US is banking on a few "Blue Dog" Dems to keep us from going to the dark side. I wonder sometimes if the give them a bridge to nowhere if they would change their gun vote. They obviously have no principles if they are still a Democrat.
I just meant that he needed to be more of a politician. In other words, tailor the message for each group he spoke to. If he wanted to win the election, then he needed to get serious about it. I know he’s a purist, but we now have Barack Obama to deal with, thanks to the rather poor campaign Keyes ran in Illinois. Of course, he came into it very late in the day, so it’s surprising that he did as well as he did.
AMEN, Dr Keyes!!
May God's Light and Truth expose the blatant evil for the eyes of all to see. May God have mercy on the United States and hear the prayers of His children who are crying out for mercy, on their knees daily, for the country we live in. Spare our children and grandchildren, Lord.
I agree with everything that you say. Both the RNC and the media did everything they could to ignore and undermine Keyes. It was almost criminal. No, I take that back. It was criminal. The RNC refused to help him because of his conservatism, and the media ignored him because of his race. They knew that he posed a serious threat to black support for all Democrat candidates. Through it all, Keyes soldiered on. That he hasn’t become embittered and disillusioned by the treatment he has received is a tribute to his strength and the power of his convictions.
I didn’t say he outfinanced Obama or out-machined him. I was only referring to his main attribute.
Michael Steele is not up to the challenge of stopping Obama, only Keyes can stop him. ROFLMAO!
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.