To end abortion "immediately," he said, the president would simply have to declare the personhood of the unborn from the moment of conception. The executive branch, which holds the law-enforcement function of government, could then enforce that personhood through the U.S. attorneys, he says.After making the declaration of personhood, Peroutka explains, he would then appoint new U.S. attorneys throughout the nation, as did President Clinton upon entering the presidency."U.S. Attorneys could be appointed who understood that the unborn child is a person under the Fifth Amendment and shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process," he said. "So I believe that it is doable on Day 1."The candidate says the new government lawyers would then "prosecute those who would deny that personhood," such as operators of abortion clinics.The personhood declaration could be accomplished, he said, through an executive order.
May 29, 2004
May 28, 2004
This was (1) before the 17th Amendment; and (2) before the states became addicted to federal funding:We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.
-- Alexander Hamilton
(Courtesy of The Federalist's "Founders Quote Daily")
May 27, 2004
May 23, 2004
May 20, 2004
This really makes my blood boil! I'm sure they have a pill for that as well.
The drugging of children in general is bad enough, but the increased drugging of preschoolers is a moral outrage, and in many (if not most) cases a gross dereliction of parental responsibility.
May 19, 2004
A person shows his or her character in kindness and charity. And what is true in our lives is also true in the life of our nation. You can fairly judge the character of society by how it treats the weak, the vulnerable, the most easily forgotten. Our own country, at its best, strives to be compassionate, and this isn't easy. Compassion is not merely a vague feeling of empathy, it is a demanding virtue. It involves action and effort, and deep conviction -- a conviction as old as Scripture and present at the founding of our country. We believe that everyone has a place and a purpose in this world, that every life matters, that no insignificant person was ever born.
America rejects the ethic of sink or swim. America rejects social Darwinism, because strength is not the same as worth. Our greatest failures as a nation have come when we lost sight of our compassionate ideals -- in slavery, in segregation, and in every wrong that has denied the value and dignity of life. Our greatest strength as a nation is that we bravely face our flaws and do our best to make things right. Our greatest successes as a nation have come when we broadened the circle of protection and inclusion. And this work is not finished. We will press on until every person shares in the promise of our country.
May 17, 2004
Colleen Carroll Campbell, "No private affair" [excellent article]:
...behind these highly publicized marriages lies a very privatized understanding of marriage. That understanding emerged long before gay activists and activist judges paired up to remake matrimony in their own image. It came to fruition amid the sexual revolution, and manifested itself in rising rates of illegitimacy, divorce, single parenthood, and cohabitation. Today, we are seeing yet another logical consequence of our illogical decision to make marriage a private affair.
Not so long ago -- before the birth-control pill, the sexual revolution, and no-fault divorce -- couples who chose to marry assumed that procreation and lifelong fidelity were part of the deal. Their families, faith communities, and the courts assumed the same. When men and women vowed to love and honor each other for life -- for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health -- they did so publicly, in the context of a culture that expected them to make good on their contract and covenant.
Today, that expectation is gone. Traditional marriage, once generally considered the only socially acceptable way for American men and women to share sexual intimacy and a household, is now just one option among many. Serial marriages, "trial" marriages, intentionally childless marriages, common-law marriages, and same-sex marriages are now regarded by many Americans as equally valid options -- and equally deserving of public support.
Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., "A Defining Moment: Marriage, the Courts, and the Constitution" [excellent article]:
Jeff Jacoby, "The End of the Gay Marriage Debate?":
What is happening is no minor adjustment, a slight change in degree that just extends benefits or rights to a larger class, but a substantive change in the essence of the institution. It does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning, for to redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose.
Expanding marriage supposedly to make it more inclusive, no matter what we call the new arrangement, necessarily ends marriage as we now know it by remaking the institution into something different: a mere contract between any two individuals.
Those of us who think this week's revolution is a terrible mistake need to do a much better job of explaining that the core question is not "Why shouldn't any couple in love be able to marry?" but something more essential: "What is marriage for?" We need to convey that the fundamental purpose of marriage is to unite men and women so that any children they may create or adopt will have a mom and a dad.
Marriage expresses a public judgment that every child deserves a mom and a dad. Same-sex marriage, by contrast, says that the sexual and emotional desires of adults count for more than the needs of children. Which message do we want the next generation to receive?
Concerned Women for America, press release:
Homosexual activists will be saying over and over this week, "See, 'gay' couples were 'married,' and the sky didn't fall." But this is deceptive. We know that social change happens over time. It took a generation for inner city families to fall apart after the government began issuing welfare checks to unwed mothers. Likewise, creating counterfeit marriage will damage the real thing and put more children at risk. Only a callous, self-absorbed culture would create legal incentives to engage in immoral, destructive behavior with children as the guinea pigs. America must be better than that.
Chuck Colson, "Follow the Leader?":
What is happening in Massachusetts today threatens to redefine and, ultimately, permanently damage our society's most basic institution. That being so, you would expect a huge public outcry. Unfortunately and surprisingly, that isn't happening. Congress is seeing little evidence of public outrage--not enough calls and letters to force them to act.
It amazes me since it's clear that the impact of same-sex 'marriage' won't be limited to same-sex couples. Stanley Kurtz of the Hoover Institution has written that widespread acceptance of same-sex 'marriage' will widen the already existing gap between parenthood and marriage and continue to break down the family. Countries, like Norway, that adopted same-sex 'marriage' saw their rates of cohabitation and out-of-wedlock births shoot up. There's no reason to suppose that won't happen here.
Given what's at stake, I believe that Christians need to make stopping the spread of same-sex 'marriage' their number-one cultural priority.
James Dobson, Focus on the Family press release:
We will look back 20, 30, 50 years from now and recall this as the day marriage ceased to have any real meaning in our country. The documents being issued all across Massachusetts may say 'marriage license' at the top, but they are really death certificates for the institution of marriage as it has served society for thousands of years.
(Thanks to The Alliance Alert for the links)
May 16, 2004
Brown v. Board of Education accelerated the process of bringing this creedal nation into closer conformity to its creed. But the decision also encouraged the abandonment of constitutional reasoning -- of constitutional law. It invested the judiciary with a prestige that begot arrogance. And it seemed to legitimize a legislative mentality among judges wielding an anti-constitutional premise. The premise is that ``unjust'' and ``unconstitutional'' are synonyms.
May 14, 2004
Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.--John Adams(Quote courtesy of The Federalist's "Founders Quote Daily")
May 12, 2004
Today's column by Bruce Bartlett recounts how the 17th came to be, and looks at some of the damage that can be traced to this amendment.
A couple of weeks ago outgoing last-of-his-kind conservative Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) introduced a constitutional amendment that would repeal the 17th. Not that Miller's amendment has any chance of going anywhere, but I'm always happy to see efforts to raise the debate.
Well.... if you must speak your mind, go ahead. To nobody's surprise, I reserve the right to delete any comments that I, as sole arbiter, deem inappropriate. Here are three simple rules for C-Pol comments:
- Keep it on topic!
- Keep it civil!
- Keep it clean!
I reserve the right to quote comments sent to me privately. I will, however, not reveal the name of the correspondent unless expressly given permission to do so.
The United States "is on the slippery slope to theocratic fascism." "The Catholic Church has been secretly encouraging oral sex for years."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld "ought to be tortured." President Bush should be taken out and shot.
Those are a few nutso nuggets from the hosts of Air America Radio, which calls itself the new liberal voice. The fledgling network is carried in New York on WLIB, 1190 AM. With the Iraq torture scandal everywhere, I tuned in, expecting to hear sober policy analysis mixed with glee over President Bush's political pickle.
Instead, I got 10 hours of rancid venom directed at the President, Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh, the Catholic Church and anyone else the hosts felt like slamming. If you're a card-carrying lib who likes crude sex jokes and a cartoonish echo chamber, Air America is for you.
(Note: once his article goes into the NYDN archive, you have to pay to read the whole thing. No need to, unless you want specific examples of the "rancid venom".)
Buckley closes in this way regarding the opposing forces -- political v. common sense -- driving the debate over whether or not Rumsfeld should keep his job:
President Bush is understandably determined not to let Abu Ghraib dictate the course of our entire Mideast enterprise. But he may not succeed, and Donald Rumsfeld may be giving thought to whether his continued service is a strategic mistake.
Without liberty, law loses its nature and its name, and becomes oppression. Without law, liberty also loses its nature and its name, and becomes licentiousness.
(Courtesy of The Federalist's "Founders Quote Daily")
May 11, 2004
In a major victory for liberty and equal rights on campus, California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) has settled a free speech lawsuit. The case involved Cal Poly student Steve Hinkle, who was punished for posting a flier on a public bulletin board announcing a College Republicans-sponsored speech by a black social critic. Some students at the campus Multicultural Center found the flier "offensive."
Particularly interesting was the incident where an abortionist finally admitted on the stand that the baby likely experiences pain during the abortion procedure. Apparently he hadn't really considered this before. Will it make any difference to him? Only time will tell.
Little by little, the euphemistic facade hiding the ugly reality of this procedure is crumbling.
Nothing of the sort has yet been demonstrated, and this is one of the best indicators that the Democrats couldn't care less about Rumsfeld. Their real target, of course, is the president.
If these folks truly believed that Rumsfeld ought to be held morally responsible for the outrageous events at Abu Ghraib, they also would have fallen all over themselves a decade ago calling for the head of Janet Reno over the outrageous events at Waco.