"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." — John Quincy Adams
Help me out here all you die hard "Pro-Life" "Anti-Abortion" Christians…why is it that you spout on about overturning Roe vs Wade and then say you will be voting for McCain? Clearly, Chuck Baldwin cares far more about saving unborn babies lives than John McCain?
I really need an answer to this? Especially all of you in Oregon…voting for McCain in Oregon is wasting your vote, Obama's got this state locked up for the next 8 years.
So, Anti-Abortion Christian's of AMERICA…this is your candidate…this is your vote:
"I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to demand that Congress enact Dr. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act which would set forth that every unborn child is a 'person' under the Constitution, entitled to equal protection of the law and therefore, no unborn child could be killed without due process of law."
–Chuck Baldwin
Having just watched “V for Vendetta” which fed my naturally conspiritorial nature – why dont we all vote our conscious? As disgusted as I am that my church basically yelled “Vote for Mccain” last week as they pushed the pro-life movement & marriage=1man+1woman. I’m also disgusted that those who hate Bush=those who love Obama.
There are around 12 candidates on the ballot – why do we let the media decide the right & left ones for us?
JAIAM: I am feeling the same way right now. That could change tomorrow, but for now I am looking at the 3rd party folks. It is a protest vote I guess.
Our political system is not set up very well for thrid party candidates. You have to have 5-6% to make a difference. There are too many small parties for anyone of them to make a real dent in politics. Historically, successful third parties have ended up being co opted by the major parties. This has broadened policy positions but the unique viewpoint alternative parties bring is lost.
I just read 11 independent party platforms and perused their websites. The 3rd party candidates want us out of Iraq ASAP. They want the US to have a less active military role around the world. They want a more responsible and ethical government with less corporate influence. They want a trade policy that is a bit more protectionist in relation to the price of goods. It seems that all of the groups seemed to agree to that. If we could just get those things done, I would be pretty happy.
I also realized that while I am a fan of certain social programs, I am definitely not a socialist.
So true Fred – My husband & I at the request of I think Tim Nashif, were precinct committee people, when we were first married – republican of course. Thats where all the action starts. The enormous amount of people at that level fuels the 2 parties to flourish – I doubt such organization for 3rd parties exists.
So question? How do we establish a legitimate 3rd party? How can we establish term limits on our ‘distinguished’ gentlemen & women in DC – who I understand would have to vote themselves out? I guess the president has the power to enact term limits but would he – of either party?
Totally off the subject – I ‘ve been watching some youtube videos of a senator claiming the bailout bill bails out china & the saudis and is treasonous in nature – also makes the assertion that we are now in martial law – having US troops deployed here at home at the sole discretion of the president. I initially found this info on
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/10/23/shocking-loss-of-freedom-in-u-s.aspx
theres a woman making a claim that those responsible for the bailout passing & this troop being deployed on US soil amounts to a military coup that happened on Oct 1st, 2008 and these folks should be arrested. Her link was supported by ACLU, not my favorite folks at all but still quite disturbing – anyone here with other info?
OK I’ve been on youtube and googling the treasonous bailout – Interesting posts on this subject but nothing mainstream – still it has got me mad at myself for falling for this bailout – all we probably would’ve needed is a guarantee by the USgovt of these loans.
…and let me apologize for getting totally OFF the subject of abortion here. If you hate abortion, support the Crisis Pregnancy Centers.
If RoeVWade were overturned this country would be in chaos. Better to work the grassroots and touch these women one by one IMHO.
I totally agree with you here Catalyst. I guess pro-lifers figure they are voting in a “lesser of two evils” by voting for McCain. I had one person lecture me that in not voting for McCain, I was voting for Obama, but to me their kinda the same so I don’t really care and besides, like you said Obamas got Oregon anyway. I have to say I do agree with John Adams here, in that I absolutely have to vote my conscience. That is why I am voting for Ron Paul, even though he’s not on the ballot. Ron Paul endorsed Baldwin for some reason, but I think Ron Paul is way more qualified and way more consistently pro-life, in that he is as against the Iraq war as much as he is against abortion. Also I read Baldwin’s stuff and it made me feel slimy, he’s just way too evangelical for my liking, and way more Bible thumping than a president should ever be.
Oh, excuse me, Reformed Pope, I totally assumed it was a Catalyst post…
RockyRoad – I’m a fan of Ron paul too however i wonder if he has what it takes to run the most powerful nation in the world. He seems a bit lacking in presence. Something Obama has alot of and I understand why everyone is so enamoured with him. I think Ron Paul would be a great cabinet member however.
I’m def torn regarding this election…
Abortion is a judicial issue, not a legislative one. So the President’s only influence will be through the appointment of judges. Those judges will have the opportunity to decide whether or not to overturn Roe. So if you care about this issue exclusively, you vote judicial philosophy.
Doc, While abortion was legalized on a judicial level, that is not the only means by which abortion could be affected. The president would have the power to overturn Roe V Wade by way of an executive order, which I don’t think would ever happen, but just for your info, it could be done.
But aside from overturning it, abortion can be reduced through the president’s power in many other ways. However, I don’t believe that McCain or Obama really care much about doing anything other than sucking up to whoever gives them the most money. *sigh* people wonder why I vote third party, or don’t vote at all…
Yeah JAIAM, Let’s face it. Ron Paul’s not gonna win. Obama probably will. I feel like my vote is a protest for respectable 3rd party candidate. I mean, come on, there’s gotta be more than 2 people in the country who could be a potential president! I like Ron Paul cause he has guts and I agree with him on a lot of things.
This is soooo not true. An executive order can never be issued to overturn a decision of the Supreme Court. If that was possible Roe. v. Wade would have been overturned by Regan in the 80s. Only the Supreme Court can overturn their own decisions or Congress can enact a law that goes against what the Supreme Court has ruled on. If a President was able to overturn a Supreme Court decision, there would be no need for a Supreme Court.
Gotcha RockyRoad.
So being this is my first election where I even considered voting for anyone than a “God-fearing” Republican – I found myself on a road to the truth – I’ve read everything from a woman claiming we’re in a coup & Bush should be arrested to investigating all the allegations brought against Obama.
The Odinga-Obama marxist relationship turned out to be an ambassadors trip by Obama & Odinga was trying to capitalize on Obamas superstar status. Obama was neutral in that election & called for an end to the bloodshed.
The Ayers connection Obama has is real, the Obama camp downplayed it. Factcheck.org has called Obama out on that. Another connection: Factcheck.org is funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Obama served on the Chicago Annenberg Foundation where he met Ayers. Walter Annenberg found the CAF with 50 million to better the public school system there.
The Annenbergs are republicans and friend of the Reagans.
So my seemingly endless research of Obama on this issue is that He is correct. He worked with Ayers on this foundation to help the local public schools in that area – Since Ayers is in education – this makes sense.
So bottom line for me is While Obama downplayed his relationship with Ayers, They’re work together was for a common good. I’m satisfied.
I havent studied Ayers yet – my next assignment for myself.
I get frustrated with the media spoonfeeding us what they want us to believe. So sorting out truth from opinion has been my goal.
So thanks to this blog for allowing me to talk out all my frustrations and my political journey.
Reformer, Ok, so this is info (about the president’s potential power to overturn Roe V Wade) I got from a reliable source, but maybe a little sketchy in my memory (I had to think about it for a minute to recall the name “executive order” and I couldn’t ask the person from whom I had originally received the info, since he is currently dead), so maybe I shouldn’t have spoken without being 100% certain, but as I said, I thought it was a pretty reliable source, and you, I don’t know from Adam…
so what’s you’re source? I’d be willing to be corrected if I knew for sure…
Hey Rocky, my name’s not Adam but here’s my opinion:
A presidential executive order is not a law, and in my opinion largely unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)
A president attempting to use a EO to stop out existing laws would hopefully find themselves in front of congress under impeachment quickly. At least I used to believe that. The current president has shaken my belief in this. However, America is not yet under the rule of a king.
As an example George W Bush issued EO13233 trying to hide his records from the people and the history books. Fortunately the courts found parts of that illegal and struck it down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13233
If a president attempted to issue an EO “overturning” RvWade, I’m sure the courts would strike that down as well, if not congress as well.
Cheers
P.S. Ron Paul agrees with me in respect to executive orders.
[Comment ID #35674 Will Be Quoted Here]
I took 2 semester of of Constitutional Law, 1 semester of Civil Procedure, and 1 semester of Courts at this fine institution. I sold all my law books back once I graduated so don’t have a direct source to quote from but it was pretty much taught in every book that the Executive Branch (Presidents) have no power to make or overturn law where the other two branches have already spoken. Of the three branches, they are at the bottom of the todem pole when it comes to creation of law.
Rocky,
I have an MA in political science with a concentration in American politics from this fine institution .
The answer is not quite a simple as yes or no. There are a number of questions that would have to be asked. Executive orders relate to actions that the federal government will take. What specific action will the federal government take to outlaw abortion? If there was an executive order banning abortion what would it say? How would it be enforced and by whom? What current federal law will be used as a basis for the decision. An EO has to be based on current law or deal with an area where there is no specific law guiding the executive branches actions (ex. federal funding for stem embryonic stem cell research or funding for abortions overseas).
A president can try to enact whatever EO he wants. Whether or not it will hold up is a whole other thing. While it was not by EO, FDR tried to add more members to the supreme court so that he could have his people in. Presidents overstepping their role is not new at all.
In a nutshell, I am saying that a president could write an EO banning abortion but it would not stick because the president does not make law, he only executes the law. Going against Roe would be making law. On the flip side, a president could write an EO banning certain procedures or limiting abortion access under certain circumstances. He would have to make his legal case in the order itself. Then he would have to fight congress, even his own party, because he stepped onto their turf. The president would also have to defend the decision in court. After all of that, the congress could also pass a law that goes against the order. If the law overriding the EO was veto proof then the EO becomes void because there would be a specific law covering that issue. Thus, a president would only do this if there was overwhelming political will to do so in the congress.
Ok, I get it, so a president on a suicide mission (theoretically speaking) could issue a EO banning abortion, but it would not be upheld.
This makes me curious about what Abe Lincoln did specifically to abolish slavery. It obviously didn’t go down without a fight, a lot of people had a lot invested in keeping slavery around, probably a lot more than anyone has invested in abortion, but we all know that the US prez had a lot to do with this. The reason I bring this up is just to question our tedency to dismiss any influence or power the prez may have to change a law such as abortion when we all know similar things have happened in history. I would easily concede that it is a long-shot, but so were many other fenominal things that have occurred in the past…
Just thinking. Maybe some of you who carry more expertise in law than myself have some answer for this?
The devil is in the details. The Civil War was already in full swing when the order was given. More importantly, the emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in the areas not controlled by the union. Slaves who lived in states fighting for the union were not freed. So, for all intents and purposes, he did not free any slaves in the North. Here is a quote: William Seward, Lincoln’s secretary of state, commented, “We show our symapthy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.” Lincoln was fully aware of the irony, but he did not want to antagonize the slave states loyal to the Union by setting their slaves free. What he did was set a course that the nation would have to work hard to reverse. He also used the powers of the commander-in-chief to execute the order. He could not, and would not, have done it if the country were not in war. From our 21st century perspective the civil war was about slavery. For most at the time it was about states rights. Slavery was the match that lit the powder keg. Again, there were slave states fighting with the North.
The internment of the japanese in WW2 was done in 2 stages as a part of the war effort. Again, a president using national security/commander-in-chief powers to act in a drastic manner. Abortion would not fit there.
Of course, Lincoln was killed.
Interesting Fred, thanks for the info.
Interesting to that you would point out his assasination. I was speaking of theoretical suicide, in that a EO banning abortion would no doubt lead to impeachment. But with the Lincoln example in mind, assasination would not be unlikely. Then again, there is Obama who is probably just as likely to be assasinated due to the color of his skin. *sigh* Would’ve thought 145 years removed from the emancipation proclomation we’d have come a little farther than this…