So, as far as I'm concerned, a pox on both their houses. I'm voting for the Constitution Party wherever I have the chance. I'm tired of being played for a fool and I'm tired of being party to the murder of innocent children because I supported a party that will do nothing to protect them.
"...I don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to move the courts in that direction, but there is a lot faster way of doing that. And that is to restrict or limit the jurisdiction of the abortion issue from the federal courts. And I have a piece of legislation that would do that where if a Roe v. Wade incident came up again like it did in Texas a long time ago, it could not be heard by the federal courts and the state law then would stand.
That law restricting this jurisdiction can be done by a majority vote in the House and the Senate and the President’s signature. I have worked on that, especially when we had the majority as Republicans – but I couldn’t get people too interested in it. I think we could do it quicker.
It isn’t the perfect solution. The argument I hear against it is “oh, all you’re doing is legalizing abortion in the states.” But if you don’t do something like that, you allow the federal government to stand and legalize it for every single state. I see it as an answer and that doesn’t restrain anybody from trying to amend the Constitution, or waiting to change the Supreme Court. But I think many, many abortions would be prevented, just think if we had passed that back in 1975. You know some states may still have abortions, but there would be a lot of states would not have it. We would have to work within our states, and that, of course, is the way the Constitution is written, and that is the reason I pushed it in that direction."
Life Site News
Posts
Doesn't the individual right to life transcend both State and Federal jurisdiction, and that, being at the service of the common defense, the Federal AND State jurisdictions must defend the unborn?
ReplyDeleteIt's inherent in the way that the Constitution was originally written that NO govt - State or Federal - has the authority to take away the individual right to life, including born and unborn, because this right originates from God (as the Declaration of Independence states).
Legitimatizing under a SCOTUS 1973 decision the medical availability and the legality of abortion would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers of our Republic. What am I missing here?
BTW, the ONLY reason I would vote for a less bad Republican is to prevent a worse Democrat from getting into office. I don't ever foresee the Constitution Party becoming a national force, BUT I pray nightly that I am wrong. May God help my unbelief!
PS, I agree with your note at my blogsite on the Mount Vernon Statement - it's a good first step, but I don't see Republicans abandoning RINO-ism. They are simply LESS liberal than the Democrats. Furthermore, you're correct about our Founding Fathers: they were classically liberal, i.e., they believed that individual freedom and individual responsibility go hand in hand. Their philosophy is completely dissimilar to what is called liberalism today (and it's really license, NOT liberty).
SCOTUS just used the exact same logic to justify abortion that it used to keep slavery legal- Africans didn't and fetuses don't possess personhood. I would say that the abortion ruling would make the founders spin in their graves but then many agreed that slavery was a moral undertaking, destroying the right to liberty guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. This is the problem when one lets the judgement of man stand in the place of the judgement of God. Both decisions were driven by the desire for personal gain and not the search for truth.
ReplyDeleteYou're right about liberalism today. The Progressives stole the word liberal and then bastardized it.
I doubt that the Constitution Party will ever become a national force, either. But then the same thing was said about the Republicans before the election of Lincoln.