Chastisements Left & Right

I never got to the Library today.  It took me too long in the composing of my blog.  I'll try again tomorrow.  I do want to check out how the process went & unfolded.  Curious soul that I am.  Hence the name of my blog.  And, in a number of permutations of it (kibitzer2 or 3; etc.), the various sites that I post on.

And speaking of that blog.

I undoubtedly came across as a bit cross in that blog (regarding how The People - in My Country  - have failed to clean up the voting-process act here, in the world's 'last, best hope' for democracy).  Well; I was.  And while I'm still in the mood, I might as well continue in the same vein; and get a number of 'issues' - that I have with My People - off my chest.1

1.  If you believe in and would implement doctrinaire socialism - big-stick government and all; and with that mentality, of power Over The People: Consider yourself chastised.

2.   If you believe in and would Implement laissez-faire capitalism - regardless of the effects it had on many people: Consider yourself chastised.

And a major, major one:

3.   If you believe in and would implement quote 'a living document' as a substitute for the Constitution: Consider yourself chastised.

A little more comment on that one.

I have thin patience for legal hotshots - from either the 'Left' or the 'Right' (although it is my perception, in looking at the record of this issue, that the problem emanates mostly from the Left; 'progressives', as opposed to 'conservatives') - who attempt to make the Constitution mean something other than what the words and phrases meant at the time they 'passed muster' - passed the test of becoming part of the Constitution: the test of what the words or phrases were understood to mean by those of the time.2  And far from someone being 'stuck in the 18th century' who believes in this 'take' on the Constitution - this contract, between the federal government and the States of the United States -  they simply believe in the rule of law.  Which, in this instance, allows for changes in itself.  Just not for 'light and transient reasons'.  As it should be, in a structure built to last. 

And speaking of the political form of federalism.

It is disheartening to see how many citizens these days seem not to understand the basics of their country's political structure.  Which is bringing up the issue itself of the Roe vs. Wade decision, and how that decision is playing out in the minds and consciousnesses of The People, and in particular, of 'the women'.

To open this commentary on that subject. 

I was appalled, in reading some commentary about the elections, how more than one source said that Romney 'shot himself in the foot', or outrightly lost the election, by saying on the political stump that he would rescind Roe vs. Wade; and thereby lost 'the women's vote'.  

Excuse me??

First of all, the president has no power to do such a thing.  He - or she; speaking of the female factor in politics these, more 'enlightened', days - can nominate people for seats on the Supreme Court (as they come up available; which a few likely will in the next four years) who hold political views similar to their own; but that's about the extent of their power in that area.3  Second.  Roe vs. Wade NEEDS to be 'rescinded'.  (But that sort of thing is classically done by the SCOTUS itself, in subsequent decisioning, based on appeal.)  Because that subject - of abortion - falls outwith the parameters - the 'penumbra', if you will - of the federal government's powers.  (Which are limited and delegated - "few and defined," in the words of the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.)  Is clearly covered under the terms of the Bill of Rights in general, and the intention of the 10th Amendment in particular.  Where this sort of thing is unambiguously spelled out.

The SCOTUS acted in error in taking on the naked power that it did in the Roe vs. Wade decision.  If I were the president, I would do the something that Romney announced - only in a constitutional manner.  Because otherwise, that person would be setting themselves up above the rule of law in the country.  And that is tantamount to tyranny. 

Hey - let's call it what it is:

tyranny.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, a) the U.S. is not a central form of government, and so that federal government can't just do whatever it wants to do, willy nilly.  (Didn't teach you anything in school about the form of government that you daily salute the flag to???  And be glad for it - those of you who believe in 'proper' government.  That notion, of a central form of government, is often the notion of people who want to take over a country as easily as possible.  In one fell swoop.  Yay.  Not.)  And b) we need to get back to a true understanding of the American form of government just as soon as possible.  Even if it is going to be dissolved, with the advent of a higher form of 'government' coming in for the whole of humanity, people need to learn their 3D lessons; if they're going to advance, and not have to take a grade all over again.  

And now we come to addressing just 'the ladies' in this matter.  Who seem particularly inclined to wanting to enlist 'the government' in their causes, of 'emancipation from patriarchy' and so forth.  And I can sympathize with the sentiment.  But sometimes, you have to 'go by the book'.  And in this case', the book' is the Constitution of the United States of America.  Which is the only thing standing in the way between the rule of law in the country, and either despotism from above or anarchy from below.  So listen closely.     

     

Ladies - that is to say, those souls currently incarnated in female bodies, in this classroom: If you believe that the American form of government is a national/central form of government, in which the SCOTUS can rule - legally; constitutionally - on issues like Roe vs. Wade: you are wrong.  That is the sort of issue that it is up to the several States to decide for themselves. in a federal form of government.  That's number one.  Numbers two and so forth: 

If you believe that it is okay to abort a viable fetus; i.e., defined as well as having a nervous/'feeling' system: Consider yourself chastised.  (And ESPECIALLY regarding so-called 'live birth' abortions.)

If you believe that it is okay to abort a fetus before the development of its nervous system; even if your State of residency allows it/gives you that right: Give that decision serious thought.  including the knowing that we are talking about the incarnation of a soul, here.  Not just 'a blob of tissue'.  And it may well have a particular life contract to work out with you. 

If you believe that it is okay to abort a fetus that is still well in its first trimester of development: Give it serious thought.  Certainly not  with an attitude of 'abortion on demand - it's my right'.  

If you believe that it is okay in principle to abort a fetus: Consider all of the permutations of that decision.  Including the possibility of there developing, in your culture, an attitude that has been called a 'death culture'.  Which includes, at the other end of life, an attitude of doing away with the elderly just as soon as possible/with the slightest of excuses, because they are a drain on the society's resources; are merely 'useless eaters'.  The pragmatic approach to life.  Which does not take into consideration the fact that - as it has been described neatly - we are 'spiritual beings having a human experience'.

And as such: we have free will.  

And as always:

Consider your choices well.

---

footnotes:

1 I'm still in the mood, because something that a person said who responded to a blog comment of mine the other day is still sticking in my craw.  He took me to task for, in effect, being stuck in the 18th century, and not understanding that times change, and today there is something he called 'comparative constitutional law', and that I really, in effect, needed to 'get with it'.  I'll 'get with it,' all right.  Right here…

      (For fairness's sake, here's the guy's comment: '

     "Why are right wingers so possessed with what people 200+ years ago thought a document meant?
     It is so bizarre.  We have the ability through meta-analysis and comparative constitutional law to provide more vigorous and robust constitutional elements.
     Why is progress so scary to some tea party members? lol"

     I replied to him on my blog 'America Pronounces Judgment On Itself', and don't need to repeat it here.  Although it would be helpful, I think - I feel, I could perhaps rather emphasize; the way I'm feeling about all of this - to append here a comment someone else made on that thread, in reply to the one I made that occasioned the above 'retort' from an oh-so- 'progressive' soul.   The fellow quoted James Madison directly on this subject; to wit:

     "Do not separate text from historical background.  If you do, you will have perverted and  subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.":

     Just so, James.  And: thanks for being there, at that time; to get the fledgling Republic off the ground on as good a footing as you Founding Fathers were able to give it.  To last the test of time.
     ...meta-analysis....comparative constitutional law.....'.to provide more vigorous and robust constitutional elements'...........where do they come up with these cockamamie concepts?  A little intelligence is a dangerous thing...
     ...any jurist who believed in such a 'concept' - scam, really - as 'comparative constitutional law' need not apply in any government that I would have anything to do with......... 

     I can see that I'm going to have to have some solid spots on my psyche seared off by the Light before I can move on.  I'm not sure precisely why I react so to these sorts of issues, going to justice and injustice (and insult to intelligence).  They really get to me.  How am I going to handle a confrontation with a really Dark situation, if I lose my cool this way over such a comparatively little matter???...But to me, it's not little.  It goes to the very heart of how we live our lives, and the principles we live them by.  That's it, I guess.  It's 'the principle of the thing.'  And so it's not so small, after all.
     There. I feel better now. 

2 I just used the word 'emanates', in relation to the Left's perspective on this matter.  I think that is a most apposite word to use, in the circumstances.  Using it in this context, I am reminded of the use of words like 'penumbra' and 'emanations' by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in respect of   - strike that; in disrespect of - strike that; in reference to the 14th Amendment's 'equal protection' clause, which was used as the SCOTUS majority's argument in the Roe vs. Wade decision; how Douglas et al found a constitutional 'right to privacy' in the 'penumbra' of the constitutional statement, "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…"  

Justices Douglas et al decided that that clause meant that a woman had a right to an abortion, as part of the 'penumbra' of her rights to life, liberty, and so forth.  Ironically enough, that business about  (what has come to be very politically known as) a 'right to life'…anyway, to clarify my statement, let me substitute the word ''originates'  - so that the sentence reads: "…that the problem originates mostly from the Left…"

     Wouldn't want to be confused with that lot…

     …and a little more about the Roe vs. Wade decision itself, back in the main body of this piece.

3 Now, if the SCOTUS justices began clearly to go beyond their constitutional powers and direction, the Executive could challenge them in that; and if the Executive got the support of the Legislative branch of government in the matter, could even 'stand down' the miscreants, for 'conduct unbecoming'.  Because "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts…hold their Offices during good Behavior…"  (Art. III, Sect.1)   

     I don't think that the Executive, acting alone, could go to such an extent, without the acquiescence of the Legislatives branch of the federal government.  But then, I'm not an expert in constitutional law.

     I just know how to read English.