Miers, an Enemy of the Constitution
If you are a pro-life conservative, should you be happy that Miers is on record as supporting a pro-life amendment to the US Constitution? No. A pro-life liberal would be thrilled, but Conservatives should be concerned with her disregard for federalism and states rights.
I am pro-life. I would support a nominee who is not pro-life, but subscribes strictly to the US Constitution, particularly to the 10th Amendment. Such a nominee-turned-justice would see the error in Roe v. Wade, voting to overturn it as a violation of a state’s right to enact criminal law.
A potential SCOTUS nominee that supports a pro-life constitutional amendment must view states’ rights as whimsical, open to sculpting. If such a nominee views the 10th Amendment in this fashion, he/she will view the rest of the Constitution as malleable.
You might argue that Miers at least wants to properly amend the Constitution to achieve her goals. I argue that at best she is near-sighted, at worst, an enemy of the Constitution.
Depending on wording, a pro-life amendment could wipe out the death penalty where applicable, but worse, contribute fodder to a more liberal court seeking to find nuances by combining sentiments from various select portions of the Constitution (see the “Right to Privacy”).
A pro-life Constitutional amendment is a bad idea. SCJ Miers is a worse idea.
I am pro-life. I would support a nominee who is not pro-life, but subscribes strictly to the US Constitution, particularly to the 10th Amendment. Such a nominee-turned-justice would see the error in Roe v. Wade, voting to overturn it as a violation of a state’s right to enact criminal law.
A potential SCOTUS nominee that supports a pro-life constitutional amendment must view states’ rights as whimsical, open to sculpting. If such a nominee views the 10th Amendment in this fashion, he/she will view the rest of the Constitution as malleable.
You might argue that Miers at least wants to properly amend the Constitution to achieve her goals. I argue that at best she is near-sighted, at worst, an enemy of the Constitution.
Depending on wording, a pro-life amendment could wipe out the death penalty where applicable, but worse, contribute fodder to a more liberal court seeking to find nuances by combining sentiments from various select portions of the Constitution (see the “Right to Privacy”).
A pro-life Constitutional amendment is a bad idea. SCJ Miers is a worse idea.
posted by Scribbler de Stebbing | 10/21/2005 11:57:00 AM
I disagree. A truly pro-life person would support a Consitutional Amendment. What Miers did in supporting an amendment is perfectly consistent with conservatism. How else can you get all states to submit to a pro-life position? Federalism is considered "conservative" only because it provides a check and balance to federal power. However, in reality, federalism is only a tool of government architecture. For example, a check and balance against federal power is not so great of your local power is leftist and the feds are conservatives. Furthermore, federalism is not harmed too much by a consitutional amendment because 3/4ths of the states have to vote for the amendment for it to pass.
If Miers said she wanted to have an anti-Roe ruling from the Court, i.e., a case where the Court decides that no state can pass a law allowing an abortion then you would be correct. Miers, however, did not say she supported that.
And here is the broader point on which neocons and paleocons butt heads. Paleocons shun change, except when change is necessary to restore an original state.
Neocons believe there is such a thing as "good government." Paleocons recognize that government is inherently evil, necessary in small amounts and as locally as possible, but still evil. Poisen, administered in small doses can kill a cancer, but is still poisen.
The danger of an unnecessary constitutional amendment is partially in precedent and partially in inevitable interpretation, as discussed above.
But more importantly, it is Miers position that the Federal government should have power in criminal matters greater than local government that is dangerous.
My spelling lobe is malfunctioning today.
I think Edmund Burke rejected the argument that he was not for change. Only that change must occur with a broader concensus (that included the traditions of the society, i.e. dead ancestors and not just the current citizen majority).
Nevertheless, following your argument, banning abortion would bring the law back in line with most of history. Until the early 20th century, I think abortion was probably illegal in most places.
In fact abortion was included in the original hippocratic oath (it was taken out of the American version of the oath in the 20th century).
A neocon may rationalize sweeping centralized government action as a greater good in the interest of achieving a (hopefully) desirable result, but again, this is violating the spirit and nature of federalism and the 10th Amendment.
The conservative (at least paleocon) solution would be to repeal Roe v. Wade, returning the option of criminalizing abortion to the states.
Before Roe, some states allowed abortion in various circumstances while others did not. An immediate resumption of those policies would not be the case, but the state laboratories would then take over via restrictions to the first trimester in Minnesota, abolition in Utah, and abortion up to the 5th year of life in California.
Following S'aurus logic, Congress should consider a constitutional amendment enforcing a death penalty. Years ago, all or most states had a death penalty, eroded only by states' courts. If we, as conservatives, believe those states' courts are wrong, why not just fix it with another amendment? 3/4 of the states could decide that the 6 or 7 states not willing to go along must do so.
We tried that approach with slavery and ended up with war and a 13th Amendment? Thus, the paleocon solution can't always be correct.
Maybe you need a Constitutional Amendment to have a uniform definition of "when life begins."
The Civil War was neither civil nor about slavery. It was about a Constitutional crisis. The resolution included a 13th Amendment, but had it not, sentiment was moving toward the abolishment of slavery. My resolution would have been to let them secede.
Post a Comment