Mary Mostert
Bush's remarkable leadership - - the Constitution, Iraq, and partial birth abortion
By Mary Mostert
Two major issues that seemed to come to a head last week will one day hopefully be recognized great accomplishments of President George W. Bush.
In spite of the media, most of the public and practically all of the Democrats, President Bush has had the courage and leadership skills that may be this generation's last hope to save the U.S. Constitution when it is "hanging by a thread," so to speak. One issue involves the unalienable right to life, which the Declaration of Independence states is "endowed by our Creator" and the other involves the authority and responsibilities given to the commander in chief of the United States by the U.S. Constitution to defend this country and preserve the U.S. Constitutuion.
On April 18th, in GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART et al. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html) in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court proved the president's maligned and embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was right and his opponents who are trying to force him to resign are wrong. The majority of the Court found no "right" in the Constitution allowing women to kill their late-term unborn infants by paying an abortionist to deliver a live and kicking infant feet-first until all but its head is outside the cervical canal, then killing it by crushing its head with forceps and sucking out the baby's brain. There is no medical need for this procedure. It is only used in the USA to evade the US Constitution which would protect the infant as soon as he or she took a first breath.
However, it has taken more than 10 years to get this matter settled. It rose during the Clinton Administration when the Republican Congress passed a bill outlawing the barbaric practice and it was vetoed in August of 1996 by President Bill Clinton, while surrounded by women who had their infants killed in this manner. I noted at the time, in an article entitled Dred Scott and Roe Vs Wade (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/6-6-1996.2.html) that the basis for not allowing the unborn any constitutional rights in 1973 and the basis for not allowing blacks any constitutional rights in 1857 were based on Supreme Court decisions that declared neither of them were "persons."
President Clinton praised the women who had their infants killed in such a manner and announced: "We need more families in America like these folks.
...This is what this veto is all about."
Justice Taney wrote in 1857 that "slaves are a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who ...had no rights or privileges but such of those who held power and the government might choose to grant them." Justice Blackmun wrote in the Roe Vs Wade that unborn children are "not included within the definition of 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment." Both decisions resulted in many deaths. Over 620,000 died in the Civil War and racial discrimination that some thought was justified by the Taney Decision. In just the 23 years following Blackmun's decision in Roe v Wade, the Guttmacher Institute claims 47,187,000 unborn American babies, about one-third of the rising generation, have died at their own mothers' requests. That almost equals the deaths worldwide that took place during World War II.
Using Guttmacher's figures, since we invaded Iraq, in which approximately 3300 of America's fighting men have died fighting terrorists, more than 4 million unborn American children have died. Sadly, there is no daily count in the headlines keeping track of the more than 3000 unborn American infants who die each DAY at the request of their own mothers.
Now we have Democrat leaders such as Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi trying to undermine the President and our troops by announcing that we have "lost" the war against terrorism and they seem determined to assume the Constitutional authority of the President to direct our troops by denying them the supplies, armor and weapons to finish the job. Yet, they claim they are not undermining the military and the Constitution because they SUPPORT the troops!
This has clearly emboldened the terrorists. Last week, according to an Al Jazeera news report , a terrorist coalition appointed 10 ministers as a shadow government for their future "Islamic State of Iraq" after the Americans leave. They clearly expect to demolish the government elected by 12 million Iraqis. After the American military found, and killed Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2006, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who heads the collection of terrorist groups, appointed current Al Qaida leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajer as "war minister" for the "Islamic State of Iraq."
This now concerns me personally. I have a grandson in the Army who is scheduled to go to Iraq this summer with his battalion. He will be going about the time Senator Reid is determined to undermine the military and the president by blocking the funding and micromanaging the surrender that Democrats seem to be demanding.
Whether or not President Bush succeeds in winning sufficient support to save the Constitution, we may find ourselves looking back wistfully to this point in time and belatedly honor him for his efforts in TRYING to save our Republic and the lives of millions of people worldwide. President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and nominated two members of the US Supreme Court who would support and defend the Constitution. Eventually, those actions alone could save millions of lives. His determined, often lonely, and valiant battles in defense of the US Constitution and American freedoms may be our last hope. Today, it seems that most Americans have no stomach for defending their liberties.
President Bush observed in his statement on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban decision of the Supreme Court that it "affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America." Hopefully, there are enough Americans left who will actually support laws that reflect compassion and humanity and those laws, passed with the votes of many who now want their laws ignored that required the President to send troops to Iraq. Yet, none of those members of Congress who have now changed their minds have the decency to try to REPEAL the law they voted for authorizing sending troops to Iraq!
The Constitution requires that the president defend laws passed by Congress, such as Public Law 105-235 passed by the 105th Congress, (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.2.html) Public Law 107-243 passed by the 107th Congress (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.1.html), Public Law 107-40 passed by the 107th Congress.
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107) Those laws require him to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." (Note the law says the PRESIDENT, not the Senate Majority leader or the Speaker of the House gets to decide the course of action.)
There is absolutely no doubt that Al Qaida was the organization that conducted the terrorist attacks of 911 and is now conducting terrorist attacks that kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's determined support of our troops, may well be our last, best hope in preventing Al Qaida from achieving its goals not only in Iraq, but in perhaps most of the Middle East and possibly Europe.
Links:
Supreme Court Decision on Partial Birth Abortion Ban -
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html
Dred Scott Decision on Slaves and Roe vs Wade on Abortion -
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/6-6-1996.2.html
Iraqi Breach of International Law — 1998 -
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.2.html
HJ Res 114 — To Authorize the use of US Armed Forces in Iraq -
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.1.html
Public Law 107-40 — To Authorize the use of US Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States — Sept. 1991 -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107
© Mary Mostert
Two major issues that seemed to come to a head last week will one day hopefully be recognized great accomplishments of President George W. Bush.
In spite of the media, most of the public and practically all of the Democrats, President Bush has had the courage and leadership skills that may be this generation's last hope to save the U.S. Constitution when it is "hanging by a thread," so to speak. One issue involves the unalienable right to life, which the Declaration of Independence states is "endowed by our Creator" and the other involves the authority and responsibilities given to the commander in chief of the United States by the U.S. Constitution to defend this country and preserve the U.S. Constitutuion.
On April 18th, in GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL v. CARHART et al. (http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html) in a decision written by Justice Kennedy, the U.S. Supreme Court proved the president's maligned and embattled Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, was right and his opponents who are trying to force him to resign are wrong. The majority of the Court found no "right" in the Constitution allowing women to kill their late-term unborn infants by paying an abortionist to deliver a live and kicking infant feet-first until all but its head is outside the cervical canal, then killing it by crushing its head with forceps and sucking out the baby's brain. There is no medical need for this procedure. It is only used in the USA to evade the US Constitution which would protect the infant as soon as he or she took a first breath.
However, it has taken more than 10 years to get this matter settled. It rose during the Clinton Administration when the Republican Congress passed a bill outlawing the barbaric practice and it was vetoed in August of 1996 by President Bill Clinton, while surrounded by women who had their infants killed in this manner. I noted at the time, in an article entitled Dred Scott and Roe Vs Wade (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/6-6-1996.2.html) that the basis for not allowing the unborn any constitutional rights in 1973 and the basis for not allowing blacks any constitutional rights in 1857 were based on Supreme Court decisions that declared neither of them were "persons."
President Clinton praised the women who had their infants killed in such a manner and announced: "We need more families in America like these folks.
...This is what this veto is all about."
Justice Taney wrote in 1857 that "slaves are a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who ...had no rights or privileges but such of those who held power and the government might choose to grant them." Justice Blackmun wrote in the Roe Vs Wade that unborn children are "not included within the definition of 'person' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment." Both decisions resulted in many deaths. Over 620,000 died in the Civil War and racial discrimination that some thought was justified by the Taney Decision. In just the 23 years following Blackmun's decision in Roe v Wade, the Guttmacher Institute claims 47,187,000 unborn American babies, about one-third of the rising generation, have died at their own mothers' requests. That almost equals the deaths worldwide that took place during World War II.
Using Guttmacher's figures, since we invaded Iraq, in which approximately 3300 of America's fighting men have died fighting terrorists, more than 4 million unborn American children have died. Sadly, there is no daily count in the headlines keeping track of the more than 3000 unborn American infants who die each DAY at the request of their own mothers.
Now we have Democrat leaders such as Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi trying to undermine the President and our troops by announcing that we have "lost" the war against terrorism and they seem determined to assume the Constitutional authority of the President to direct our troops by denying them the supplies, armor and weapons to finish the job. Yet, they claim they are not undermining the military and the Constitution because they SUPPORT the troops!
This has clearly emboldened the terrorists. Last week, according to an Al Jazeera news report , a terrorist coalition appointed 10 ministers as a shadow government for their future "Islamic State of Iraq" after the Americans leave. They clearly expect to demolish the government elected by 12 million Iraqis. After the American military found, and killed Abu Musab al Zarqawi in 2006, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who heads the collection of terrorist groups, appointed current Al Qaida leader Abu Hamza al-Muhajer as "war minister" for the "Islamic State of Iraq."
This now concerns me personally. I have a grandson in the Army who is scheduled to go to Iraq this summer with his battalion. He will be going about the time Senator Reid is determined to undermine the military and the president by blocking the funding and micromanaging the surrender that Democrats seem to be demanding.
Whether or not President Bush succeeds in winning sufficient support to save the Constitution, we may find ourselves looking back wistfully to this point in time and belatedly honor him for his efforts in TRYING to save our Republic and the lives of millions of people worldwide. President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban, and nominated two members of the US Supreme Court who would support and defend the Constitution. Eventually, those actions alone could save millions of lives. His determined, often lonely, and valiant battles in defense of the US Constitution and American freedoms may be our last hope. Today, it seems that most Americans have no stomach for defending their liberties.
President Bush observed in his statement on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban decision of the Supreme Court that it "affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way of the people's representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America." Hopefully, there are enough Americans left who will actually support laws that reflect compassion and humanity and those laws, passed with the votes of many who now want their laws ignored that required the President to send troops to Iraq. Yet, none of those members of Congress who have now changed their minds have the decency to try to REPEAL the law they voted for authorizing sending troops to Iraq!
The Constitution requires that the president defend laws passed by Congress, such as Public Law 105-235 passed by the 105th Congress, (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.2.html) Public Law 107-243 passed by the 107th Congress (http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.1.html), Public Law 107-40 passed by the 107th Congress.
(http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107) Those laws require him to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." (Note the law says the PRESIDENT, not the Senate Majority leader or the Speaker of the House gets to decide the course of action.)
There is absolutely no doubt that Al Qaida was the organization that conducted the terrorist attacks of 911 and is now conducting terrorist attacks that kill Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. President Bush's determined support of our troops, may well be our last, best hope in preventing Al Qaida from achieving its goals not only in Iraq, but in perhaps most of the Middle East and possibly Europe.
Links:
Supreme Court Decision on Partial Birth Abortion Ban -
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZS.html
Dred Scott Decision on Slaves and Roe vs Wade on Abortion -
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS-1996MQC/6-6-1996.2.html
Iraqi Breach of International Law — 1998 -
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.2.html
HJ Res 114 — To Authorize the use of US Armed Forces in Iraq -
http://www.bannerofliberty.com/BOL-06HL/11-20-2006.1.html
Public Law 107-40 — To Authorize the use of US Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States — Sept. 1991 -
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ040.107
© Mary Mostert
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
