TCS Daily


Presidents and the Constitution

By Jerry Bowyer - January 20, 2009 12:00 AM

John McIntyre of RealClearPolitics and I were both on Larry Kudlow's radio program on Saturday afternoon. Larry asked us both the same question: "Is there anything that Obama could say on Tuesday that will make you feel good about where he is taking the country?"

I answered that it's not what he might say; it's about what he definitely will say. Obama will swear an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, so help me God." The question isn't whether he'll say it; the question is whether he'll mean it. You see, Barack Obama is, to my knowledge, the first American president to take this oath having in recent memory openly and publicly criticized the Constitution.

In 2001, he said the following on National Public Radio:

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth ... didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution ... that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties ... that says what the federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf. ... One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was ... a tendency to lose track of the ... activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

Obama sees the constitutional limits placed on the power of government set by the founders as creating a tragedy in which the civil rights movement was unable to move from negative liberties to positive entitlement--that is, redistribution of wealth from propertied classes to the dispossessed peoples. No one else who has ever taken the office has so openly stated his disagreement with the document whose protection is his chief responsibility.

I say no one has done it--openly. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it covertly. My friend Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine, found this remarkable statement from Roosevelt four years after he had taken the oath:

"When the chief justice read me the oath and came to the words 'support the Constitution of the United States,' I felt like saying: 'Yes, but it's the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy--not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.' "

So, FDR took the oath with his fingers crossed, and it didn't take long before it showed. In the Inauguration speech he gave, he promised that he would use all the powers given to him under the Constitution to end the depression, and he then went on to say explicitly that if those powers were not enough, he would take additional powers for himself. FDR indeed did give himself powers "flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy," so many, in fact, that the courts cast quite a few of them down. He responded by trying to intimidate the Supreme Court justices into compliance with a combination of harsh personal attacks and legislative attempts at court packing. FDR clearly went far beyond his constitutional responsibilities; 100,000 interned Japanese-Americans can't be wrong.

Regarding Inaugurations: The speech is not the main point; neither are the masses gathered in the District of Columbia (something the founders actually feared). The fireworks, the whistle-stops, the ostentatious humility of walking down Pennsylvania Avenue are not the point either. Contra Shakespeare, the play is not the thing. The oath is the thing. The oath is the only element of all of this that is actually prescribed by the Constitution. (Article two, section one, for those keeping score at home.) Originally, the oath was only regarding the execution of the duties of the presidency, but the notes of the proceedings reveal that James Madison, considered the father of the Constitution, moved that an oath to protect the Constitution be added. Good man. Madison saw the tendency of presidents to become kings and of kings to become tyrants. He wanted something with teeth in it: a solemn oath to someone bigger even than the tyrant.

George Washington added the "so help me God" part voluntarily, but it was no shock. It's implied in the word oath. Affirmations were also given as an alternative to oaths, but at the time, that was a concession to highly religious Quakers and other dissenters who thought that oaths were dishonoring to God.

The Wall Street Journal said this week that Washington took his oath on a Bible opened at random that fell upon an obscure passage in the minor prophets. I don't think so. First of all, Washington did nothing at random. Second of all, there's at least one account that says that he opened his Bible to Deuteronomy chapter 28, Moses' farewell address, which is composed of a long list of national blessings and curses which would fall alternatively on just and unjust nations. Than, he gave an inaugural address that said that private virtue was the foundation of public prosperity.

He kept his promise, and the U.S. prospered beyond all expectations.

FDR broke his promise, and the U.S. suffered beyond all expectations.

Will Obama keep his promise?

So help him, God.


Jerry Bowyer is chairman of Bowyer Media and a CNBC contributor.

This article first appeared on Forbes.com.
Categories:

112 Comments

Lincoln set a fine example
Where was the Constitutional authority to force states to remain in the union?

Had Lincoln let the CSA form, they would have remained primitive and backward. The USA would have then become a safe haven for escaped slaves from the CSA and all new states would be free states.

Obama Violates the Constitution
Since Obama is not eligible to be President because he is not a natural born citizen of the United States, his oath to "uphold the Constitution" is another bold lie.

It would be amazing if that is the only lie in that particular oath. Many of his fascist programs violate the Constitution.

Dividing the nation
The election of Lincoln precipitated a division of the nation and the Civil war from which we have never fully recovered. Obama is deliberately following in the footsteps of Lincoln whom he venerates.

Lincoln hammered the penultimate nail in the Constitution's coffin
and despised the Declaration of Independence. Since Lincoln we have been ruled by secret executive orders and signing statements. We don't know what the law of the land is and there is no way to find out.

He killed more Americans than Hitler and Tojo.

What is the Constitution of the United States of America?
Is the Constitution of the United States of America a written contract between the people and the Federal Government or is it "a living breathing document" that can be modified by the Supreme Court's decisions?

If Article V doesn't prescribe the only means of changing the Constitution, then Constitution isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

If you take an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then it is the Constitution you vow to defend, not unconstitutional modifications.

Since Obama was a law professor...
Since Obama was a professor of law, and his expertise is constitutional law, I suspect that he knows the extent of presidential powers much better than most commentators.

I suggest that we watch him and support him in his quest to correct the path America has been put on these last several years. We are all in trouble and Barack Obama gives some glimmer of hope.

Support policies that follow the Constitution.
If he is an expert on the Constitution, then he should know what is legal.

"In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice."

"This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html


United we stand
"The election of Lincoln precipitated a division of the nation and the Civil war from which we have never fully recovered."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Lincoln inherited a divided nation... and that he reunited it?

It was a tougher job for Lincoln. The nation had grown ever more divisive over five administrations. But we're still in bad shape today. And I hope you heard Barack's address today. He called repeatedly for unity and for us to go forward, rather than dwelling on old acrimonies.

I hope you heard that message.

The world according to Bob
I assume this is you:

"The fascist media from NYC continue to recite their nonsense about Hussein Obama "uniting" the nation, but Obama seems to be working hard to drive the dividing stake deeper into the heartland of America.

"Where he could have worked to restore families and gender peace, our new Indonesian citizen President took the occasion of his inauguration speech to bash his own father and by extension all fathers. Obama bashed his father for "leaving" while he was young, and he ignored his shameful mother's whoring and miscegenation as a 60s liberal trollop who didn't bother to form a marriage or even check out his family before opening her legs and making a baby. Just blame fathers and continue to divide the nation."

You also seem to have some very pronounced views on women:

"Comments must be germane to the topic. If you wish to comment, make sure your comment is about the topic, and preferably adds information or reflective views about the topic. Bob is not the topic of this blog and comments about Bob are off topic. Men bashing is not allowed. Comments which include ad-hominem insults or criticism of either Bob or one of the other comment authors will be deleted summarily. In addition, comments which are primarily quotations of scripture are off topic and will be deleted. Bob's rules do not apply to Bob.

"To the feminazi who read Bob's truth, I'm glad you are pissed off. I expect that you donâ??t have the mental capacity to offer any comment other than the usual feminazi attack on the person. Too bad, toots. I get a laugh from your hisssy fit, and then it gets deleted."

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/

Do offer us more from the world of Bob.

Compromise: How the nation was divided.
Connecticut Compromise:
* The upper house (Senate) would have equal representation and be elected by the lower house

* The lower house (House of Representatives) would be subject to proportional representation

* The 2871:Three-Fifths Compromise]: For purposes of determining the number of representatives in the House, every five slaves would be counted as three. (This did not confer the vote on slaves; it was simply a formula for determining representation in the House of Representatives.) Final wording in the Constitution referred to “all other persons” and the words slave and slavery do not appear; this same population computation would also be used for determining taxation.

* All proposed legislation having to do with raising money would originate in the House of Representatives.
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h371.html

Missouri Compromise:

"In an effort to preserve the balance of power in Congress between slave and free states, the Missouri Compromise was passed in 1820 admitting Missouri as a slave state and Maine as a free state. Furthermore, with the exception of Missouri, this law prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory north of the 36° 30´ latitude line. In 1854, the Missouri Compromise was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Three years later the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision, which ruled that Congress did not have the authority to prohibit slavery in the territories."

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html

And the liberals want us to 'compromise' our principles again?

Those with BDS....
I will support BHO with the same vigor you supported President Bush in 2001.

Unless, BHO decides to honor his oath of office.

I disagree
So you know more about the constitution than an expert who has taught constitutional law for 12 years?

I say, give it a rest. Give the guy a chance. He's a lot smarter than most; definitely smarter than those who comment on his statements.

Presidents and the Constitution
If Oboma would like MORE than what is currently in the constitution, by what logical rule can you conclude that he won't uphold the current constitution? Does it currently say that any additions or revisions are out of bounds? I don't think so. There have been many revisions and changes to the constitution in the past. The whole basis of this article shows no logical argument at all.

If taxes are legal then re-distribution of wealth is already occurring. If someone can't afford health care, do the hospitals just let the person die? What happens when a lowly rat is trapped in a corner and there is no way out? The rat jumps at your throat. Give it a way out and it will just run away with no harm done. Do the citizens of the USA want to lie awake every night with a gun under their pillow so they can clutch an extra $20 in their fist?

In general people should work for what they get but strict idealism doesn't work in the real world, either too far to the right or too far to the left.

I expect more from an author for this publication.

Unity or Conformity.
And I hope you heard Barack's address today. He called repeatedly for unity and for us to go forward, rather than dwelling on old acrimonies.

I hope you heard that message.


I had better things to do (work). In any case-I expect to be as attentive to his calls as you guys were to Mr. Bush. Unity to the left is shut up and do it our way. No thanks.

Perfessors of the Law
Since Obama was a professor of law, and his expertise is constitutional law, I suspect that he knows the extent of presidential powers much better than most commentators.

Should the law be an instrument of a select few in a medieval trade guild? That is nonsense. There's an old expression, lawyers are born, not made. Law School wasn't a requirement to practice until the 20th century.

Obama was a professor in his 30's with only a degree, a few years of law practice and his role as a 'community organizer'. Hardly what you might expect-a wisened old sage, whose youthful follies were honed away by years of litigation and perhaps a distinguished career as a jurist.

Personally we are "not all in trouble", yet. If we are its because of people like you. I see nothing but Wilsonian dreamery on the international front and 'bread and circuses' on the domestic side. Get off your duff, do something with your life, and stop being an emotionally underdeveloped moron waiting for a politician to give you a 'glimmer of hope'.

CS Lewis was right. When people stop believing in something, they don't believe in nothing-they believe in ANYTHING.

Smarts
Arguably the most intelligent President we ever had was the 39th, a Naval Academy graduate with an engineering degree. Got news for you. First engineering-especially nuclear engineering on submarines is about the best way to weed out lesser intellects. Thats why there's so many more lawyers than engineers.

Of course, the man I speak of is none other than James Earl Carter, who was an unmitigated disaster, despite a decent miliary career and gubernatorial experience.


Good Grief
If someone can't afford health care, do the hospitals just let the person die?

No. They don't. Everybody gets care.

If Oboma would like MORE than what is currently in the constitution, by what logical rule can you conclude that he won't uphold the current constitution?

Becauses, person who can't spell hero's name, the constitution is a LIMITING document. It LIMITS what government can do, so exceeding it wouldn't be "constitution plus", it would be noncompliance.

You should expect more-from YOURSELF.

It is any easy read. Maybe you should give it a try.
I'll give BHO as much a chance as you gave President Bush in 2001.

Read it.
The Constitution limits the power of the federal government.

If you read it you will find the amendment process and those powers not defined by the Constitution for the federal government are reserved for the people in the states.

Community organizer
So far, that is BHOs message, organize the community. Sign up on a web site for volunteer projects.

constitution
I don't think the new messiah Obama will even bother to cross his fingers behind his back at all. We know that politicians are shameless and will try to do whatever they think they can get away with. If his role-models are Lincon and FDR, who also violated the constitution, why would he feel stymied?
Who was it again who said: "the constitution was broken before the ink was dry"?
BTW, I might actually be Joe the Plumber, or a resurrected Princess Di. So when people write back on my comment trying to claim that politicians are indeed shamelss, please restrict your comment to mine because it's irrelevant whether I'm really a man or a woman.

Unity
The only unity Obama wants, is for everyone to line up behind him and accept his agenda.

Many law professors believe things that don't exist
The only problem with the last administration was that Bush wasn't willing to fight with congress in order to control spending.

If taxes are constitutional, then so is everything???
Just because taxes are legal, doesn't mean congress can spend those taxes on anything you want.

As to someone having to keep a gun under their pillow to protect their property, you can thank liberal judges and liberal law makers who fail to punish those who break the laws.

BTW 2nd Amendment gurantees right to have a gun under your pillow
If the unconstitutional welfare and dependency policies, which are designed to buy votes for socialist candidates, were eliminated, more people would be gainfully employed and less likely to steal.
In addition, if a burglar thought he might get shot by breaking in to a house because the owner had a gun under his pillow, he many try other less dangerous crimes like politics.

The number of death you qoute is true.
True, there was more US solders killed in the "Civil" war, but (Damn those liberals and their but(t)s, we did fight both sides.

The Confederacy killed at least close to half of those casualties. I don't think it is fair to Blame Lincoln for all of the deaths.

Why not?
It takes two to fight.

Lincoln could have let the states secede.

Anyone see Clarence Thomas at the coronation?
The only way blacks can be judged on the content of their character is when they stop towing the liberal line?

End of an error
You say you will support BHO with the same vigor as Bush received in 2001, but your comments do not reflect it. Obmama's record as President began 2 days ago, yet your comments say nothing of what has transpired lately in the context of his actions or words as Commander in Chief. You, and others of a similar mind as you, continue to quote his comments from 8 years ago and otherwise just whine about your fears.

Bush came into office with high approval ratings. He EARNED the ire of the majority of Americans with his policies and actions, it wasn't automatic. While I didn't vote for him, I also had no idea he would turn out as bad as he did. He had a decent record as Governor, I voted for Nader because Bush didn't scare me enough, and Gore was a joke as VP, let alone potentially the Prez.

Conversely, your rejection of BHO does seem pretty automatic based on your comments. Thats your choice, its nothing I wouldn't expect from unthinking individuals. So be it, but I'll still make attempts to help you see reality, as fruitless as it is and has been.


But what a wonderful day, huh! Bush is gone! That fact alone is so awesome. Theres a black man, in the white house... he's got the keys to the front door... Good stuff. Hope is anew. The dark clouds have broken.

The south could have NOT seceded.
They could have use LEGAL means to fight. Instead they used ILLEGAL methods. The south is responsible for their casualties. I am being nice by admitting Lincoln is responsible for his side.

I think one could make a good point that when you are defending your self, the attacker is responsible for both sides.

You have a very short memory.
8 years ago BDS was raging as the loony left whined about a stolen election.

Based upon BHO's record to date, he is a socialist and I oppose socialism.

Who says?

About the Three-Fifths Compromise
It is amazing how that is always brought up outside of the proper constitutional context.

Do you know who pushed that compromise and why? Everyone thinks it was the South so they could get more representation.

No. It was the North because the South did not want slaves counted AT ALL. Why? Because until the 16th Amendment was passed direct taxation was tied proportionally to population exactly as it was to representation in the House and Electoral College. In other words, if Georgia had 5% of the total Union population, then Uncle Sam could only enact direct taxation (like the income tax) on Georgia for a total of 5% of the total revenues from that tax. Anything above that would have to be remitted back to the good folks of Georgia.

Of course, back then w/o computers and communications like we have today, it would have been practically impossible to do so. That is the reason why the 16th amendment was passed -- to allow Congress to levy an income tax (and other direct taxes) without apportionment or basing it on census results.

It also made it impossible to soak the 'rich' states. Think of how wealthy on a per capita basis Connecticut is today. Yet, their income taxes shelled out to Obama under a pre-16th Amendment Constitution would have been a lot less today.

So, the South was more than happy to have less representation in exchange for less tax liability, so to speak. And, the South could still effectively kill in the Senate anything it didn't like.

The North balked and insisted that the slaves be counted. The result was the 3/5 rule.

But given the crappy standards for what passes as education today, very few people know the truth about all this. They only 'know' the Politically Correct version instead.

The Obama has less of an excuse to violate the damn thing
"So you know more about the constitution than an expert who has taught constitutional law for 12 years? "

It's not about that. It's about: "We expect Obama will NOT violate it precisely because he supposedly knows more about it."

The beginning of an error...
So here's BhO, closing gitmo, before he has a clue what he's going to do with the terrorists there.

By the way, he's not "black", he's biracial. He's also NOT the descendent of slaves, but of slaveowners.

The south had the wealth at that time too: cotton and tobacco
At the time of the Civil War, the north had the industrial might and wealth generating capacity.

All right, you two.. who started it?
Hmm, Sherman.. Civil War.. now where have I heard that name before? :)

"They could have use LEGAL means to fight. Instead they used ILLEGAL methods. The south is responsible for their casualties."

One of the many reasons the losing side calls this "The War of Northern Aggression" was in fact that the South was just minding its own business, when northern politicians, for reasons all their own, decided to make a big issue out of slavery. And used the coercive power of government to tell people how they should live their lives.

The South may have fired the first shot.. but the provocation was the threat of a Union blockade at Sumpter, when Buchanan was still president. And most people who make it their business to parse just what is law and what is not consider blockades, sanctions and the like to be acts of war.

Here's an intro:

http://sciway3.net/clark/civilwar/sumpter.html

A good current analogy would be what's happening in Gaza. The US press takes the pro-Israeli interpretation as being the only reasonable view, but has anyone ever wondered just why Hamas decided to go back to shooting rockets? (Other than just being tools of Beelzebub, of course.)

It's not being reported here, but Israel's IDF conducted a raid inside Gaza during the period the Hamas truce was in effect.. November 5, 2008. They killed six Gazans they said were Hamas, in a pre-emptive raid. The pretext was that they had become aware of a tunnel being built, and thought its purpose might be to smuggle weapons into Israel from Gaza. So they, reasonably in their own eyes, fired first.

A more likely interpretation for the tunnel might be that the Gazans, cut off for over a year by a near-total Israeli blockade of most goods coming into the enclave, might want to smuggle food, medicine and other essentials.

They (and I) consider the act of war that began the mess to be on the side of Israeli actions, in not leaving Gaza any way to survive by conducting normal trade. So that, in your words, "when you are defending your self, the attacker is responsible for both sides."

The story I had on file about this doesn't seem to be available this morning:

Hamas retaliates after deadly Israeli incursion into Gaza - The ... [New Window]
A five month truce could be in jeopardy after Hamas militants attacked southern Israel hours after Israeli forces killed six gunmen.
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081105/FOREIGN/1385263/1047

Please try to link to it. If it works for you, I've just got a bad browser. If not, it has been removed from view over this past week by powers unknown.

You might also want google "gaza blockade" to see whether Hamas activities just erupted out of nowhere.

Reading more into the document than is there
You're preaching to the wrong congregation, clark. With this crowd, everything not expressly mandated to the federal government is prohibited.

Here's marjon:

"The Constitution limits the power of the federal government.

"If you read it you will find the amendment process and those powers not defined by the Constitution for the federal government are reserved for the people in the states."

In other words they stick to the interpretation that there's nothing anyone can ever do about it.. for all time. Even if the duly elected representatives of every state in the union vote to broaden federal powers.. too bad.

Except when it comes to things like abortion. Then federal law shall be triumphant over both a woman's ability to make that decision herself and the state's right to make law in that regard. One might call this the doctrine of Selective Federalism.

What about YOUR crowd Roy? Anything NOT expressly PROHIBITED is OBLIGATORY on the Federal GOVAGs?
Just wondering; hope you had a great beginning to ’09

Right of association
The Constitution guarantees right of association. How is right to secede any different?

That's the job of a lawyer, twist the law into what you want.

Did Kenyen tribes sell slaves to the west?
Just wondering.

Oh plleeesssee roy
"Except when it comes to things like abortion. Then federal law shall be triumphant over both a woman's ability to make that decision herself and the state's right to make law in that regard. One might call this the doctrine of Selective Federalism."

Most pro-lifers would absolutely cheer if RvW were overturned and the issue was then reverted back to the states. If the states were to decide I would bet ALL abortions would be illegal in half or more of the states. Also, things like the "late term" or "partial birth" abortion would be a capital offense (or something darn close to it) everywhere (except, maybe, California, New York, and Massachuttes). No roy, it is you and your ilk that love to dabble in selective observance of the Constitution.

"In other words they stick to the interpretation that there's nothing anyone can ever do about it.. for all time. Even if the duly elected representatives of every state in the union vote to broaden federal powers.. too bad."

There is a process called the amendment. I could care less of 101% of the population scream for a broadening of the powers, too bad! The only way to change the constitutional limits is through the amendment process. The fact that many subtle changes have been made without the process means that each and every member of congress, president and member of the Supreme Court should be jailed for derilection of duty; those charges go back a long way too (at least 80 years). All take an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution".

In the Constitution, not the Crowd.
With this crowd, everything not expressly mandated to the federal government is prohibited.


That's the 10th Amendment.

Have you thought about remedial seventh grade civics?

There are two schools of thought on that
Historically, Congress has been very lax in narrowly defining the federal government's powers. Here's the notorious wild card among the Enumerated Powers:

[The Congress shall have Power - ]"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

"Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the Taxing and Spending, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress.

"Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare," leaving the political question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare language in the Taxing and Spending Clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing and Spending Clause; for instance, the social security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause

"Despite the seemingly clear and limited nature of enumerated powers, there exists heated debate over what, exactly, those powers are. On the one hand, strict Constitutionalists believe congress's power should be limited to only those duties listed. Other, more liberal interpreters of the constitution allow for powers more tangential to those duties. Many liberals cite the Necessary and Proper and the Commerce clause as grounds for their argument. Many conservatives cite the Tenth Amendment as grounds for theirs."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enumerated_powers

The question has never been satisfactorily resolved.. and never will be. Meanwhile, Congress will continue making any law it sees fit in order to promote the general welfare of the nation. It seems only right.

The people have spoken.. repeatedly
"Most pro-lifers would absolutely cheer if RvW were overturned and the issue was then reverted back to the states. If the states were to decide I would bet ALL abortions would be illegal in half or more of the states."

That's far from demonstrable. How about South Dakota's abortion bill, intended to become a challenge to Roe? What ever happened to that? And if SD couldn't pass one, let's look at the other 49 states, who haven't even been discussing the idea very seriously.

The whole thing is really just a creature of a handful of right wing pols, beholden to the Christian fundamentalist vote. Consistently, a majority of the American people have indicated they're happy with a woman being the party enjoying the right to choose.

Here, among other comments, is the NBC/WSJ poll:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/wtprw_repro.html

Here's the CBS/NYT poll. Wow! 77 percent of us feel abortion should be generally made available. Only 22 percent feel it should be made illegal again.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/22/opinion/polls/main537570.shtml

This government of the people, by the people and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Isn't that how the saying goes?




"Congress will continue making any law it sees fit .... It seems only right" BUT WHY?
..

Majority supports murder.
That's why a constitutional republic protects individual liberty from the rule of the mob.

Sources, please
You know, I must have missed that. I didn't know that a majority of Americans were in favor of murder. There aren't many states that even execute prisoners in capital cases any more.

Maybe you could back this assertion up with some refs.

If a majority supports abortion, they support murder.

TCS Daily Archives