Thursday, July 21, 2011

Constitutionalist Commentary part 2

This is part two of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This second part will cover the section titled “Sanctity of Life.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

The first part of this section quotes the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The phrasing from the Constitution quote is most important. It states, very specifically, that it secures liberty for both the current generation, and the generation to come. In other words, those which have been born, and those yet to be. If any wonder why most pro-life groups are referred to as “right to life,” this statement is why. Any termination of human life, at any stage, is a gross violation and transgression against the Constitution.

I agree fully with the statement that a pregnancy should not be terminated for the crimes of the father. Rape and incest are crimes in themselves, and ones which wreak havoc on all involved parties. However, to end the life of an innocent only furthers this damage, and furthers the crime. One innocent has already suffered in this situation- Two innocents suffering is unthinkable. A recent study showed 73% of rape victims give birth to their children; a prior study showed 75% to 85% chose the same way. Obviously, the majority of the victims in this study did not think along the lines of most pro-abortion mouthpieces. Furthermore, data shows termination of such pregnancies to be detrimental to the victim. It does not solve a single problem, and it leaves the victim feeling like a criminal.

Abortion is also not an acceptable birth control method. If one wishes to spin that roulette wheel, they can take their chances with prophylactics of varying forms. Methods such as the morning after pill do not work in practice within other areas of life- One cannot rob a bank and decide to give the money back the next morning; one cannot kill then decide to give the victim’s life back the next morning; nor can one become pregnant, then decide to give the child back the next morning. Such is life, and life has consequences which must be faced.

The only method of birth control which is one hundred percent effective is abstinence. If that seems unbearable, then spin the wheel and take what comes.

The statement that court decisions are binding only to the parties involved is true. Roe vs Wade was binding only to the parties involved, and further reference to it as binding national law is lunacy. The courts do not create federal law- They enforce them. The Supreme Court is granted the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, but it is a power not granted them to create law by ruling. Such statements are not in keeping with the express powers granted within the Constitution.

Moreover, every state is a separate government ruled by law itself. Each of these states is sovereign, independent of Federal rulings. Each state has the right to govern itself, to the extent the Constitution allows. As pertains to abortion, every state can, and must, deny and renounce the rulings of the Supreme Court as binding law.

I continue to stand behind anyone willing to stand up and be counted as pro-life. Thus, I am in full agreement with the nomination and campaign of anyone with a pro-life agenda. This includes legislation, judicial enforcement, law enforcement and executive order. No innocent life should be ended at the whim of another.

The section continues by declaring that the advancement of federal power through legislation such as the FACE Act to be in violation of the Constitution. I firmly agree, and affirm that the government must immediately withdraw the law. Such legal action is specifically and completely within the State Government’s power, and to be enacted or repealed by the State alone. The federal government has no Constitutional authority in this matter whatsoever.

Continuing, I stand with the party stance on stem cell research. Such cells are unnecessary for this form of research, and can be harvested from a number of other resources. These resources include the placenta and the umbilical cord. A human life need not be ended to research the potential extension of another.

I also stand with the party regarding euthanasia, infanticide and suicide. These are all right to life issues, all covered by this section, and all preventable with proper care and knowledge. The end of any life need not be so cheapened. Indeed, all life is far too valuable to waste in any of the afore mentioned manners.

I personally do diverge slightly from this section. While I believe that human life begins at conception, I acknowledge that there are life-threatening pregnancies which occur. By this, I mean that so-called “tubal pregnancies” threaten the life of the mother. These pregnancies are rarely carried to term, and it is even rarer for the child to be found alive in the event of a full term pregnancy.

As such, I believe that in cases such as these, such pregnancies should be monitored closely. If there is any problem inconsistent with normal pregnancy; any problem where the medical community would be unable to intervene on behalf of the mother and child; the pregnancy must necessarily be terminated. This is a last resort, and most serious in nature. Every such termination would need to be reviewed, with every bit of documentation of the pregnancy, to ensure that nothing further could be done.

This method would also be immediately halted should technology progress to the point of transplanting tubal pregnancies to the uterus. At this point, no abortion will be permissible. All emergency funding for such procedures would immediately be transferred to tubal/uterus transplants, and all further abortive procedures would be prosecuted as murder.

This is the only area in which I diverge on this issue, and one that is reconcilable with the stance as a whole. I will explain.

In war of any kind, there will be casualties. These casualties can be minimized, but sometimes this minimization comes at great sacrifice. During Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, our soldiers often had to make a snap decision regarding the right to life. When a child or a woman came walking forward with a bomb strapped to them, the choice was clear: kill the carrier, or allow many more to die.

Likewise, in an emergency situation, triage is often followed. In this instance, once more, decisions must be made regarding the right to life. For some individuals, no amount of medical knowledge will save their lives. Then, there are others who can be saved, but only at the cost of the first group. Finally, there are those who need medical attention, but can wait for only one other group before time runs out. In this situation, the first group is nearly always sacrificed to save the other two.

Finally, our law enforcement officers are placed in situations where they too must make decisions regarding the right to life. In these situations, they are often faced with a perpetrator intent on harming himself or others, and often with far more lethal intentions. The decision they face is such: Shoot and possibly kill the suspect, or allow them to harm and possibly kill others? Though it is a hard choice to make, often the only decision to be made is the shooting of the suspect to save the lives of others.

In these three examples, we see that the right to life is sometimes necessarily voided for the wellbeing of others. Likewise, my position does not contradict the overall position of the party. Rather, it acknowledges the tough reality of life itself: That sometimes, choices such as these must be made.

However, these choices are not open to those who would use them at whim. Those who do we call murderers, terrorists, Nazis and other such titles. No, these choices are made only by those facing the decision from a third person perspective. They are not the potential victim, nor are they the potential villain; they are the deciding factor in a tragic twist of life. Only in the case of a truly life threatening situation do these choices arise, and only the deciding factor can make that unbiased call.

To summarize, abortion is a violation of the Constitution in that it ends an innocent life. No court can create binding law contrary to this, as it violates the Constitution. No federal agency can force state government to allow abortion, as that violates the Constitution. Abortion is not a form of birth control, and often creates more problems. Abortion does not solve problems; it only makes the problems worse. There are rare cases in which abortion may be justified, but only until this archaic and horrific practice can be replaced with a more humane method of saving the life of the mother.

This is my commentary on the Sanctity of Life section of the Constitution Party. Next I will review the section: Bring Government Back Home.