Thursday, October 18, 2007

Conservatives should not run from Guliani/ Liberalism is changing the Constitution

It was hunting camp, we were sitting around the fire on a nice 70 degree night, and my friends decided to talk politics.

“I will not vote for Guliani no matter what,” a friend of mine said, and I rolled my eyes.

“Why not,” I said.

“Because he’s pro-choice.”

“You want Clinton to get into office?”

“Absolutely not!”

“Then you better reconsider.”

A moment of silence ensued. I listened to the crackle of the fire, the gentle rustling of the leaves as a gentle breeze wafted through them. Of all things I did not want to talk about politics, but considering the folly of his statement I couldn’t help myself. I prayed the matter had ended.

“I’m sorry, but I can’t vote for him.” He was looking into the fire.

“Do you want another Ginsberg or Kennedy nominated to the Supreme Court, or a nominee in the mould of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito?” I said this ruefully. I wished I had just kept my mouth shut and allowed the topic to blow away in the breeze.

Scalia and Thomas of course.”

“If Clinton gets into office you will not get any new Scalia’s or Thomas’s on the bench.”

“I see your point.” I hope we are done then. I slumped back in my chair, unable now to get politics out of my head.

I don’t think you do see my point, I thought. My point is not that I want more pro-life members on the Supreme Court, but members who rule by the Constitution and not his or her personal opinion.

Ginsberg and Kennedy are pro-choice. Clinton is pro-choice. These people will do anything in their power to force their pro-choice views on the rest of us, as they have done with their undying support for Roe-v-Wade.

Scalia, Thomas and Roberts may or may not be pro-life as the debate is still ongoing. They have declared that they will not force their views on the rest of us by their rulings. They are professed Originalists, meaning they will make decisions based on the U.S. Constitution and laws already on the books.

There is only one thing a the President can do to effect the abortion debate, and that is to nominate justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. While Guliani supports abortion, he has assured Americans that he will not force his POV on the people; that he will nominate originalist, constructionist judges who will rule by the Constitution and not by their own personal opinions.

Thus, if judges follow the Constitution, abortion cannot be made illegal. Technically speaking, the opposite holds true too. I thought about telling my friend this, then thought better of it.

Now I couldn’t get the matter out of my head.

"I’m sorry," my friend said, breaking the silence. "I simply cannot support Guliani."

I said nothing. I didn’t want to discuss politics. I was on vacation for crying out loud.

If I had wanted to talk politics, I would have said this:

Most people think they are right. Some people think they are so right that they want to force their views on everyone else. This is why our founding fathers created the U.S. Constitution: to prevent those in power from forcing their views on the rest of us.

This is why it is important not just to support the U.S. Constitution, but to elect officials, like Guliani, who will place this infamous document before his or her own personal opinion. This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal, or republican or democrat, but Americanism.

The folly of Roe-v-Wade is the liberal movement is forcing abortion on us all.

There is not one place in the Constitution that gives the federal government the right to force any point-of view, including abortion, on the people. If this is the case, the ruling will result in an unconstitutional slippery slope that might ultimately make the entire constitution irrelevant.

Now, I'm not proposing every conservative go out right now and support Guliani for President, what I'm saying is they should not run and hide should he be nominated.

No comments: