aragorn Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 I am Catholic, and my heart, my conscience, my religion, and my brain all tell me to vote for John Kerry. A vote for Kerry is NOT a sin at all. The good folks at this forum have earnest intentions, and believe that God's will commands a vote for Bush because Bush is pro-life. However, our country is set up in a way that does not allow a president to set any rules regarding abortion. Not every one has studied the separation of powers and the Constitution, so that is why I signed up to explain to this forum. I majored in Political Science and now attend law school on a full-tuition scholarship. An understanding of the US Constitution is helpful in determining WHEN one should consider abortion as an election issue. If you are hiring a basketball coach, is it a SIN to hire a pro-abortion basketball coach? Of course that's not a sin. Is it a sin to hire a pro-abortion police officer? No, the basketball coach and the cop have nothing to do with abortion. As a political science student, I can tell you that the Chief Executive office also has nothing to do with abortion. In fact the cop works for the same branch of government, the executive branch, as the President. This may be shocking to you, but use your God-given intelligence and reason with me please. First, the 10th amendment reserves the "police powers" (aka "residual powers") to the STATE governments. These include the power to regulate health, safety, welfare, and morals. STATE governments alone, not the NATIONAL government, regulate health and morals. That is why some states allow prostitution, gambling, death penalty, and some states do not. The Constitution does not permit the national congress to regulate on these matters. Abortion, clearly, is an issue of 'health, safety, and morals'. As such, it is STRICTLY within the domain of the state governments. That's why some states have lenient rules on abortion, and some states are more strict. The national congress in DC can NOT regulate abortion. The US Constitution simply does not allow the federal government to regulate abortion. That is why Federal judges will always strike down abortion laws passed by the national congress. It's an issue of states' rights, or federalism. Now, I'm sure you've heard of ROE v. WADE, and you're thinking that the President can appoint Justices to the Supreme Court. While that much is true, a president has NO power to interpret whether the Constitution permits abortion. Furthermore, the Constitution strictly forbids conditioning an appointment to the Supreme Court based on a stance on any issue, including abortion. This is in accordance with the separation of powers doctrine. A president may only ENFORCE existing law. A president wholly lacks power to CREATE law (that's the legislators' job) or to INTERPRET what the Constitution says about abortion. If a presidential candidate campaigns on abortion as an issue, then that candidate is either (1) lying or (2) violating his/her sworn oath to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, any presidential candidate who runs on abortion should arouse immediate suspicion. Imagine if a basketball coach said, "Hire me because I'm pro-life, and the other job candidate is pro-choice." Such a pitch would be similarly inappropriate. In sum, it is indeed important and wise to consider ABORTION as a relevant moral issue, but only when the office has a power to regulate abortion. The President, like a police officer, has NO such power. State legislators, however, DO have power to regulate abortion, so in state congress elections abortion becomes a relevant political issue. Electing a president based on abortion is like hiring a basketball coach based on abortion. Neither has any control over the matter. ********************************************** I anticipate incredulous disbelief from forum members. However, if we cling to misinformed beliefs we are not honoring the intelligence and reason granted by Providence. Thank you for reading. -Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scofizzle Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 well aragorn.....impressive argument. There is only one problem with it. The supreme court had made a decision that says abortion IS constitutional. A state government can make no law that is unconstitutional. That is why our push must be at the national level. The only way to make abortion illegal is an amendment to the United States Constitution. There essentially 2 ways to amend the constitution (i'm sure you know this being a political science major but I will help out some of our non politcal science friends out there) The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. As it says the second route has never been used and in my opinion is not likely. So we must try to do it through the national government by, electing a congressmen who will vote for such an amendment and a president who will sign it into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Actually, the US Constitution does give the president some power, direct and indirect. Naturally, he can veto any bills that would weaken what pro-life infrastructure we still have, as well as carry great weight in promoting legislation. Furthermore, he can make Executive Orders limiting certain types of government funding for abortion and related issues, as he has done at least twice (cutting foreign funding of abortion and limiting the number of stem cell lines). Furthermore, John Kerry, likewise, would be able to use these tools to promote abortion. Furthermore, you cannot be in the place to say that it is not a sin to vote of John Kerry, when the Magisterium has clearly pointed out that unless there are proportionate reasons, it is gravely evil to do so and would likely be a sin for most voters, as most of them would be of sound mind to make that moral judgment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Change your signature to a more appropriate one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scofizzle Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 hey raph....should this be moved to the debate table? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 [quote name='Scofizzle' date='Oct 4 2004, 01:50 AM'] hey raph....should this be moved to the debate table? [/quote] No. Political debates stay in this phorum, theological debates go there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scofizzle Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 ah kewl....just curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RemnantRules Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Blessed Be God!!! Hey all...i'm sorry if this has already been posted or already adressed but i just wanted to mention to aragorn that this president who is elected will probably be appointing 2 to 3 new judges on the supreme court. So it comes down to in my opinion do we want a judge will let pro-death judges on the courts or pro-life? God Bless Jason Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aragorn Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Scofizzle' date='Oct 4 2004, 12:44 AM'] A state government can make no law that is unconstitutional. That is why our push must be at the national level. The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. As it says the second route has never been used and in my opinion is not likely. So we must try to do it through the national government by, electing a congressmen who will vote for such an amendment and a president who will sign it into law. [/quote] 1) The office of the President has no role in either method. You err in stating that we need a president to sign an amendment into law. The President can neither sign nor veto an amendment. The crux of my argument stands unmitigated. 2) In your opinion the 2nd option is not likely, so you ignore it. The 1st option is not likely either! So in that case, should we ignore it too? One option is enough. 3) When was the last time a President did anything about abortion? (hint: never) That should answer the question of whether a President has any authority on the issue. Edited October 4, 2004 by aragorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 [quote name='aragorn' date='Oct 4 2004, 02:20 AM'] 3) When was the last time a President did anything about abortion? (hint: never) That should answer the question of whether a President has any authority on the issue. [/quote] I'm no poli-sci major, but my brother is a dual history and journalism major. Presidents have done things about abortion, including Ronald Reagan, who spoke adamantly against it, and George W. Bush, who cut foreign funding and put a limit on stem cell lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aragorn Posted October 4, 2004 Author Share Posted October 4, 2004 (edited) [quote name='Raphael' date='Oct 4 2004, 12:48 AM'] Furthermore, you cannot be in the place to say that it is not a sin to vote of John Kerry, when the Magisterium has clearly pointed out that unless there are proportionate reasons, it is gravely evil to do so and would likely be a sin for most voters, as most of them would be of sound mind to make that moral judgment. [/quote] The Magisterium said that it's a sin to be an enabler of abortion; it's a sin to vote for politicians who will, in turn, vote for abortion. I have demonstrated that a President cannot vote for abortion under our Constitution. Executive orders of the sort you mentioned do not apply here: (1) such orders are rare and comprise an infinitesimal portion of presidential duties (2) such orders do not amount to enabling or 'voting for' abortion, and are only tenuously connected at most. Is it a sin to hire a police officer who will protect abortion doctors? Is it a sin to vote for a city council member who will grant an abortion clinic a zoning license? Is it a sin to hire a firefighter who will put out a fire at an abortion clinic? The ones in a position to declare a Kerry vote a "sin", the Vatican, have not done so. Further, the Vatican has eschewed the opportunity to endorse Bush. Bush has on several occasions solicited an endorsement from the Vatican (see eg, [url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/14/bush.vatican/"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/14/bush.vatican/[/url] ) even after ignoring the Vatican's admonition not to invade Iraq unilaterally (see eg, [url="http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=15&num=1883&printer=1"]http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/art...=1883&printer=1[/url] ). Though some bishops, acting individually, have endorsed Bush, the Vatican has not. The Vatican spoke before the UN General Assembly to harshly condemn unilateral, preventive military action (known academically as the "Bush Doctrine"). [url="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/868616.cms"]http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/868616.cms[/url] . In fact, the Vatican has called Bush's military policy "a defeat for humanity". The Vatican's statement to the UN is basically IDENTICAL to Kerry's foreign policy, and directly OPPOSED to the Bush Doctrine. I don't think a devoted Catholic should be so eager, nor proud, to vote for what the Vatican calls a defeat for humanity. PS: RemnantRules, the Constitution forecloses your argument, which is also addressed in my initial post. Edited October 4, 2004 by aragorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest T-Bone Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 aragorn-- You're speaking to deaf ears here. Faithful Catholics will not vote for a President that publicaly speaks against the teaching of the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 Catholics do NOT vote for "catholics" who believe we should slice and dice babies. End of story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
franciscanheart Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 true dat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toledo_jesus Posted October 4, 2004 Share Posted October 4, 2004 excuse away your complicity in murder, aragorn. If John Kerry actually acted like a Catholic and at least spoke out against abortion, I don't think we would be so adamantly opposed to him. The fact is that he is a supporter of abortion. The fact is that we are called to fight evil like abortion in every level of society. It's not about the Constitution. That document doesn't trump God. It's also not about what the President can do. That's a [b]supreme[/b] cop-out. Simply speaking against it is enough! The sooner you realize that the sooner I'll take you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now