So at about the same time I voice my (current) support for Mike Huckabee, DavidL at BitsBlog calls him an idiot. I agree.
What’s really bad is that Huckabee lacks both the basic Constitutional knowledge and historical knowledge.
As DavidL states, the Constitution does not speak to “morality”, and did not speak to slavery until after the 13th amendment was ratified in 1865 did slavery become a federal issue… until then it was each state’s issue to address. That’s the Constitutional knowledge.
The historical part of this is, slavery was an economic issue, not a moral issue. It doesn’t matter how people try to position the matter today, this country’s Civil War was about money. There were certainly people who believed in eliminating slavery on moral grounds, but predominately people the Northern states, where slavery was outlawed (by the states themselves), were concerned about having to continue to compete with businesses from the South (and concern rang regarding slavery in the about to be formed Western states) that were benefiting from cheap labor.
What’s really sad is that Britain outlawed slavery long before the US every did. The Emancipation Act was passed in Parliament in 1833, and all slaves were eventually freed by 1838. Slavery will always be a moral issue in my mind, but the Civil War just was not about morality.
Abortion is only a moral issue. There is little in the way of economic basis for allowing abortions (except for keeping abortionists rich). Along with the basic moral issue of murder (which is a topic owned by the states except for a few key situations like Presidential assassinations) is the rarely openly discussed issue of holding down the African American population (the most consistent users of abortion, and most readily recommended group to do so). For the rest of those that receive abortions, it is an issue of convenience or fear (of parental discipline).
So, some key questions about abortion:
1) Since this is a state issue (without doubt at this time), what was the basis for the Supreme Court to rule as it did in Roe v. Wade? I’m not a lawyer nor a constitutional expert, but it seems to me that this case should not have even been presented let alone used as a tool for creating judicially based law.
2) Since the freedom to have an abortion has been made the “law of the land”, it has risen to Constitutional level without the required amendment process (since the Supreme Court has essentially “interpreted” the Constitution to imply that abortion is a right? ). The states’ rights have been stolen.
3) Since a Constitutional Amendment requires
a) a proposal by 2/3 of the states or 2/3 of both houses of Congress and then
b) 3/4 of the states (that would be 38 states right now)
wouldn’t both steps be contrary to the ruling of Roe v. Wade and therefor themselves perceived as illegal? I mean, if Roe v. Wade is elevated to the level of the constitution, then this feels like a Catch-22.
What I’m really trying to get to here is that Abortion may NEVER get resolved. If it was as important to the nation as Slavery, we’d be in our 2nd civil war by now. But frankly, not enough people really care enough about it to fight over it. Sad. Unfortunate.
Huckabee needs a rewrite on this talking point for sure.
I don’t support anyone for President right now. No one.
Powered by ScribeFire.
