| Tuesday, March 07, 2006 |
| SD Bans Abortion |
Like Rush Limbaugh's radio show, my posts seem to be on the cutting edge of societal evolution. The bird flu posts were bit early and I have a feeling that the Liberty 101 series is too far advanced. You see, I was listening to the news on the way home today and heard the following: "The ink is now dry on the bill in South Dakota that will ban most abortions. Governor Mike Rounds signed the bill into law today." And then the newscaster ended with: "Most people in the U.S. disagree with the law according to a poll taken today."
I say, "Who cares what most American's think?" Set aside the abortion moral and anti-choice arguments for a second and look at it with the United States' legal and legislative process in mind. The United States Supreme Court got it wrong in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. And South Dakota got it right.
In 1973, building on a false premise that there is a Right to Privacy in the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that there is a Right to Abort and, therefore, legislated law (or amended the Constitution if you want to go that far) from the bench. I could go on and explain in more detail; but the gist is that Roe was put on our books without due process from Congress and was neither signed nor vetoed by the Executive. On the other hand, the citizens of South Dakota used the ballot box to elect representatives who, in turn, used the State's charters and legislative processes to put the law into writing. Today, the Governor had the perogative to sign or veto. And now, we'll watch the Judiciary do its job.
Notice that no one from Virginia, or Wyoming, or any other state for that matter had any say in the decision. Also notice that the law was not put on the books by referendum. There is no hint of democracy in the writing of this law -- only a republic at work.
In Tennessee we have no state income tax. Our interstate speed limit is 70 in rural areas and 55 in the city. We have a seatbelt law and a helmet law. We also have legalized abortion. Our representative, who used due process and approval from state courts, put all these into place.
But don't get me started on the lottery. Sheesh. In fact, don't ever mention "referendum" around me ever again... |
posted by Joe Napalm @ 7:28 PM   |
|
| 5 Comments: |
-
Joe, didn't many states define marriage between one man and one woman by referendum? However, I know of at least one state Judiciary that still considered the decision unconstitutional.
-
Actually, God defined marriage as one man and one woman in union. Many states agreed with Him by referendum. If the states had disagreed, it doesn't change the fact that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Like when reporters say that 70% of Americans believe that there is a god. 30% are wrong. Believing something has no bearing on reality. Believing that God is not there doesn't mean He isn't there.
-
This port decision seems similiar to the military recruiters at Yale. I agree with the 8-0 vote by the Supreme Court that recruiters are allowed on the campus. Could this idea apply to the battle ships? I do not know enough about the harbor decision by SF.
-
Joe, God defines many things that the majority believe. But what if the republic makes law that is contrary to the people and therefore contrary to God? Would a referendum not then be better than a republic decision?
-
Aha! Now we have the dilemma: Why are our representatives making laws that the people do not want?
Two things are necessary for a successful, flourishing republic:
1. The People must recognize the inherent sinfulness of man. We need God's guidance. I agree with Ronald Reagan when he said, "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under."
2. Ignorance and Liberty cannot coexist. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson warned, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
Joe, didn't many states define marriage between one man and one woman by referendum? However, I know of at least one state Judiciary that still considered the decision unconstitutional.