Posted by
David Smith on Saturday, September 15, 2007 2:48:09 AM
On one hand it would appear that the topics of Abortion and Gay Marriage have in common the individual's right to choose, right? I mean, admittedly, I can neither choose for a person whether they want to end their pregnancy any more than I can choose for a person to want to be with a member of the same sex, right? Of course not.
Both topics boil down to individual choice, then, right?
Well, if you've read anything else I've written yet, you know what I'm about to say.
No individual has the right to steal another person's car, or their hubcaps. They do not have the right to shoot another person's livestock any more than they have the right to shoot that horse or cow's owner. And they do not have the right to destroy their property, least of all because they "choose" to do so.
These are somewhat far-fetched examples, but they are intended to illustrate the concept of State Law.
Theft is against State Law.
Murder is against State Law.
Destruction of private property is against State Law.
Here's one further for you: Abortion and Gay Marriage are, effectively, against State Law, or at least they were until the Judiciary began to decide these cases in favor of the individual and against guiding State Laws.
Why would a Judge ever decide in the favor of one country resident who walked up to and shot their neighbor's prize-winning horse?
Why would a Judge ever decide in favor of the convenience store thief? Or how about the thief who also shot and killed three people in the act of commiting this robery?
Why would a Judge ever decide in favor of a driver guilty of destroying a $100,000 car parked in the street when they totaled it driving by one day? Or perhaps driving through a stop sign at a "T" intersection and planting their vehicle in somebody's living room of their $250,000 house?
No, these are each examples of where State Law is guiding and covers every aspect of any of these crimes. Far-fetched, perhaps, but examples of where State Law is, in fact, guiding, and covers every scenario of such wild circumstances and crimes.
Yet we see fit to allow the Federal Government to get involved in the areas of abortion and marriage, two areas that, to paraphrase Sen. Hillary Clinton, were "the area of the States," at least long before the Fed's got involved!
Today we see Republicans seeking amendments to the Constitution of the United States that bans marriage between members of the same sex, or that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. This runs in direct contravention to the Constitution's central theme of State control, and the 10th Amendment's Doctrine of States' Rights.
And on the opposite side of the aisle we see Democrats willing to discuss the continued involvement in the topic of abortion on the part of the Federal Judiciary, while anyone of reputable character and knowledgeable in these matters would easily admit that this, too, is an area of State, and not Federal, concern.
Those who feel that the Supreme Court should take up one issue and remain out of the other are hypocrites, attempting to play both sides against one another in order to benefit from this quarreling are hypocrites. And those who feel that the Congress should involve itself in either issue, seizing all powers in these issues is no better.
The fact is that issues such as gay marriage, as Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama believe, should be left to the States. Likewise issues such as abortion, although an entirely different cast of characters believe this.
There are many other issues that bear the same complete lack of Federal oversight that should be, or should have been, left to the States. They include slavery, segregation, religion in the public arena, and capital punishment.
These issues have all been taken up in the "supreme Court" at one time or another in our history. And each has caused pain and suffering for significant portions of our population while concurrently causing certain damage to the Constitution itself.
This is what I mean when I state that it is up to we the People to educate ourselves in these matters and become vigilant in requiring our elected representatives to observe the requirements for our government set forth in the Constitution.
While many of the problems we face today are historically traced to Judicial actions, there are a significant number easily traced to the Legislative and Executive Branches as well. This only accentuates the need for us to educate ourselves and to require those who represent us to adhere to the Constitution.
The old phrase still remains true, that, "We should all hang together, otherwise we may all hang separately." And I, for one, have no intention of hanging any time soon!