Is Palin’s lead a pitfall for the pro-life cause? - ALAN KEYES

Loyal to Liberty ^ | November 27, 2009 | Alan Keyes

[EternalVigilance]

 
I was not at all surprised to hear that Rudy Giuliani has lately expressed views that welcome the rising prominence of Sarah Palin in the GOP. Giuliani is the archetype of the politicians who wear the Republican label but staunchly support the pro-abortion agenda. Of course, he imitates the pro-abortion Democrats by using the "pro-choice" label to dress his position in deceptively American garb. The use of that term is one of the most clever rhetorical ploys in the history of American politics. If the slaveholders had thought of it, people like me might still be doing stoop labor for no wages. After all, what could be more American than choice? Isn't that what freedom is all about?

Actually, no; not in the sense of the political liberty the American people have up to now enjoyed. Our liberty is based on the idea of unalienable rights articulated to justify our nation's assertion of independence from Great Britain. "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."

[sitetest]

Thanks.

[EternalVigilance]

I know that as long as Roe is called “the law of the land,” and has de facto effect as such

Courts don't make laws. And until the people demand that politicians quit lying and saying that they do, this free republic cannot and will not survive. We're a republic with three co-equal branches, not a judicial oligarchy.

That's the next major problem I have with Mrs. Palin. She too has bought into the fatal judicial supremacist fallacy. She proved it when she listened to those who said that whatever the court said was constitutional was constitutional and sided with them against the legislature in Alaska in giving "same sex" benefits to state employees.

Chief executives have an equal sworn duty to interpret and uphold the Constitution. And, since they are the only branch empowered by the people, through our constitutions and our laws, to EXECUTE the laws, they have a unique obligation.

[whatisthetruth]

There is no conservative that could run in MD and win a Senate seat, and probably this holds true for Illinois, I don’t know why Keyes doesn’t relocate and run in a conservative jurisdiction where he as a chance of winning.

[EternalVigilance]

partially correct

A cup of fine wine with only a spoonful of cyanide will still kill you.

Some things are not negotiable, and some seemingly "small" errors are fatal. Getting the things we're discussing wrong is fatal to American liberty and our form of republican self-government.

[EternalVigilance]

As well, having the most correct concept of constitutional theory isn't the only measure of fitness, at least not in my view.

I find that comment ironic, considering the fact that we're now in an environment in which the Constitution's provisions are being utterly ignored by almost our entire political class.

[EternalVigilance]

I also know that there is no one who could get elected who could run explicitly on the argument that the Constitution, AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, obligates each state to this, and failing that, obligates the federal government to require each state to do its duty.

Of course not, if you will not make that an imperative requirement for public office.

[EternalVigilance]

So, since it doesn't appear that I can help elect anyone who will get us to the end goal in one big step, I'll try to help folks who could get us to the interim step.

You're deluding yourself. The very politicians you're talking about have abandoned the ONLY moral, legal and political principle which argues against abortion. That's like expecting Bill Clinton to enforce chastity.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“Courts don't make laws.”

I couldn't agree with you more.

“And until the people demand that politicians quit lying and saying that they do,...”

I couldn't agree with you less. I don't think that the politicians are lying. I think that the constitutional error of judicial supremacy is like water to fish. They don't even realize that that's what they're swimming in.

“Chief executives have an equal sworn duty to interpret and uphold the Constitution.”

I agree. But the last president that I can think of who really and truly accepted this truth was Abraham Lincoln, who didn't accept Dred Scott as the final word on the status of slaves.

The problem is that I doubt that one person in a hundred even is aware of the existence of the doctrine of judicial supremacy, no less has a correct opinion on it.

But that's a separate, if related issue to moving toward the protection in law of unborn persons.

I think that if you or I were president at the time of Roe, we'd have done something other than acquiesce to this tyrannical ruling. But then again, the likelihood that you or I would ever be elected president approaches 0%. President Nixon was actually a pro-abort, so I guess he didn't have any problem with it, as was President Ford and the jackass Mr. Carter.

President Reagan could have chosen a more confrontational political path on the question, but for whatever reasons, chose not to.

Now, here we are 36, nearly 37 years later, and the accepted orthodoxy is that Roe is “the law of the land.” But your objection is precisely why I described Roe as having de facto effect, rather than being de jure.

Given my druthers, I would not have Roe vacated by getting one more anti-Roe justice on the Court. I'd prefer that the president propose, and the Congress pass legislation taking appellate jurisdiction away from the federal courts, except to require them to overturn any decisions of state courts that disagree with federal legislation on the question, and mandate that each state deal with the question in light of the guarantee to equal protection and due process in the 5th and 14th amendments.

This would have the salutary effect of overturning Roe while at the same time reminding folks that judicial supremacy is a constitutional error.

But I don't think I'll get my druthers anytime soon. I'm not really sure that there are 218 folks in the House and 51 in the Senate who ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT, no less who would agree with the legislation.

So, I'd settle, in the interim, on a fifth anti-Roe justice.

And it's quite possible that President Palin could deliver on that.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear whatisthetruth,

“There is no conservative that could run in MD and win a Senate seat,...”

Oh, I don't know. Maryland is a liberal state, but it is more Democrat than liberal. We have in the legislature a fairly substantial number of “pro-life Democrats.” We also have a fairly substantial number of “I'm personally opposed, but...” pro-aborts, especially among Catholics in the state.

But there are deep currents of conservativism in the state.

That's why someone like Mr. Ehrlich was able to get elected (who regrettably moved to the left once he was in office, but who also wound up not winning re-election as he moved to the left).

That's why Michael Steele won 44% of the vote in the race for the US Senate in a year that was overwhelmingly Democrat.

I think it'd be tough for a conservative Republican to be elected, but less so for a conservative Democrat, if one could get through the primary.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

President Nixon was actually a pro-abort, so I guess he didn't have any problem with it, as was President Ford and the jackass Mr. Carter.

Palin's position is identical to Ford's. Do some homework.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“A cup of fine wine with only a spoonful of cyanide will still kill you.”

That certainly will provide for the light switch effect, won't it? No cyanide, light stays on, a very modest amount of cyanide, all the lights go out. Quickly.

But it seems to me that our history suggests that the adulterating agent is more like arsenic. A little arsenic in the wine won't kill ya’. At least not at first.

“Some things are not negotiable, and some seemingly ‘small’ errors are fatal. Getting the things we're discussing wrong is fatal to American liberty and our form of republican self-government.”

Perhaps in the long term, but it's pretty apparent not in the short term. Like the arsenic, it'll make the republic sick over time, and could prove eventually fatal, but the difficulty is that the patient gets sick slowly, over a long period of time, and thus, may not tie it directly back to the arsenic-laced wine.

sitetest

[EternalVigilance]

Cyanide or arsenic, fast or slow, you’re still dead.

[whatisthetruth]

If Roe were ever to be overturned by the Supreme Court, would it automatically go to the States or would the Court just rule that there is no Constitutional Right to have an abortion?

And what exactly is Keyes' position on what needs to happen to make things right?

[EternalVigilance]

"In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend."

--Alexander Hamilton

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“I find that comment ironic, considering the fact that we're now in an environment in which the Constitution's provisions are being utterly ignored by almost our entire political class.”

I think that maybe that ship sailed a while ago.

Frankly, once the Republicans stopped fighting in earnest the changes wrought upon our society by the New Deal, I think we slipped the moorings of the actual Constitution.

The trouble is, to one degree or other, all politicians adopt positions that will get them elected, regardless of what we think the Constitution says or doesn't say. If they don't, then they don't get elected, and almost by definition, they're not successful politicians.

So, we citizens can choose one of two roles. We can choose an absolutely uncompromising platform of absolute constitutional probity. And win no elections, and not directly make anything actually any better than it is now. Or we can ally with the folks likeliest to pull us back a little toward where we need to go. And achieve some good.

I don't condemn either position, by the way. Although I've defended the idea of support for Sarah Palin, I haven't condemned the principled refusal to do so.

I think that both sorts of folks are necessary. I think we need the folks at the so-called “fringe” to pull the rest of the folks sufficiently in the right direction to effect positive change. But we need most of the folks in the group that's willing to do that evil deed - compromise - because that's the only way to peaceably get any of the principled stuff into practical politics. I really do believe that politics is usually the art of the possible.

That's just my view of things - no grand theoretical constructs to undergird, just how it seems to go, from my perspective.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“Of course not, if you will not make that an imperative requirement for public office.”

Actually, it would have been just as accurate if you'd have said, “Of course not, even if you will make that an imperative requirement for public office.”

Ironically, at this time, if I were to personally adopt such a stance, I would only make it one vote more likely that the Barack Obamas of the world would continue to be elected (although, living in Maryland, my votes usually range from entirely unproductive to completely futile).

We didn't get to where we are overnight, and we won't get back to where we should have been overnight, either.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“I find that comment ironic, considering the fact that we're now in an environment in which the Constitution's provisions are being utterly ignored by almost our entire political class.”

I think that maybe that ship sailed a while ago.

Frankly, once the Republicans stopped fighting in earnest the changes wrought upon our society by the New Deal, I think we slipped the moorings of the actual Constitution.

The trouble is, to one degree or other, all politicians adopt positions that will get them elected, regardless of what we think the Constitution says or doesn't say. If they don't, then they don't get elected, and almost by definition, they're not successful politicians.

So, we citizens can choose one of two roles. We can choose an absolutely uncompromising platform of absolute constitutional probity. And win no elections, and not directly make anything actually any better than it is now. Or we can ally with the folks likeliest to pull us back a little toward where we need to go. And achieve some good.

I don't condemn either position, by the way. Although I've defended the idea of support for Sarah Palin, I haven't condemned the principled refusal to do so.

I think that both sorts of folks are necessary. I think we need the folks at the so-called “fringe” to pull the rest of the folks sufficiently in the right direction to effect positive change. Otherwise, we just elect folks with Rs slapped to their backs but who are perfectly willing to vote for Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, etc., as long as they can make conservative noises and keep getting re-elected. But we need most of the folks in the group that's willing to do that evil deed - compromise - because that's the only way to peaceably get any of the principled stuff into practical politics. I really do believe that politics is usually the art of the possible.

That's just my view of things - no grand theoretical constructs to undergird, just how it seems to go, from my perspective.

sitetest

[Ohioan]

If Roe were ever to be overturned by the Supreme Court, would it automatically go to the States or would the Court just rule that there is no Constitutional Right to have an abortion?

If Roe were to be overturned, it would certainly not be coupled with an attempt to legislate new criminal laws. What Roe did was over turn State laws against Abortion. It was an attack on States Rights--particularly the long understood right of each State to exercise what are known as the "Police Powers," local control over issues of health, safety and morals. The Republicans we should guard against are those who have fudeged this fundament of American Federalism.

Keys, here, has gone over to the Republican Left, on this one point. It is too bad. He also said some off the mark things when he ran against Obama--moving from Maryland to do so. I am sorry about what has happened to him. I actually supported him in the 2000 Republican Primary in Ohio, for President. In my opinion, he has compromised himself terribly since 2004.

[EternalVigilance]

Folks need to quit thinking that this is "either/or."

All officials, in all branches, at every level, have a sworn duty to protect innocent human life. Right now. The Constitution states as its own ultimate purpose: "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."

This is not just up to the judicial branch.

Although, the Court asserting what they should have asserted in the first place, that the child in the womb is a person, would have the desired effect of making it clear that killing innocents, anywhere on American territory, is unlawful.

Blackmun, from Roe vs. Wade:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, OF COURSE, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [Fourteenth] Amendment. (emphasis mine)

Not likely at the moment, though, since not a single sitting "justice," three picked by Democrats and six picked by Republicans, appears to be a personhood pro-lifer and therefore willing to assert the personhood of the child and their obvious protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.

And so, the only peaceful remedy available to those who can actually read, and understand the simple scientific fact that children are human persons from their creation, is to restrict our political support exclusively to personhood pro-life candidates for public office.

[sitetest]

Dear EternalVigilance,

“You're deluding yourself.”

Maybe. Wouldn't be the first time. But consider for a moment that it may not be me that's a little delusional. ;-)

“The very politicians you're talking about have abandoned the ONLY moral, legal and political principle which argues against abortion.”

I think that goes a little far. Again with the light switches.

I think that one can arrive at the position that abortion should be outlawed from several directions, not merely the one that we've discussed herein.

sitetest