Limited government, yes. Limitless bloodshed, no.
INTRODUCING A GUEST POST: A number of otherwise Reformed men are making the case that Federal laws against abortion are unconstitutional. They claim conservatives who call our nation's civil magistrates to stop the baby slaughter are the legal equivalent of liberals who claimed the Constitution as their authority for legalizing that slaughter. They announce there is moral equivalence between the two sides with each abusing the Constitution in the name of their own pet social issues.
So, as promised earlier today, here's an exposure of their argument written by a Presbyterian elder with significant appellate experience who currently serves in a high post of civil authority. Read it carefully and have the faith and courage to rise above these theological masters so once again we will expect of our civil magistrates, both federal and state, faithful protection of the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of each citizen whether he is black or white, rich or poor, old or young, born or unborn. (TB, w/thanks to...)
* * *
Limited government, yes. Limitless bloodshed, no.
Men advocating on behalf of the Tenth Amendment and stumping for federal indifference to abortion nullify the very principle they purport to champion. The Tenth Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Reserved to those people, that is, who aren’t selected for State-tolerated dismemberment in the womb...Those little people, whose tiny body parts are discarded like so much bio-hazardous waste, must be grateful to men like Gary North and Scott for their scrupulous adherence to federalism.
Unfortunately, their precious handling of the Tenth Amendment is patently unnecessary and betrays a callous disregard for the defenseless in our land. Really, how hard is it to see that the U.S. Constitution constitutes a government whose purpose is to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”? (U.S. Const. Preamble.) That’s what the document says it’s doing. But how just and tranquil can it be in a land soaking up the blood of 1.3 million unborn children every year? We’re to believe the Founders took great pains to secure themselves and their posterity from foreign invasion, insurrections, rebellions, and domestic violence, but they would have shrugged their shoulders at the widespread, State-endorsed abortion of their posterity whose death toll exceeds 50 million since 1973?
Clause, after clause, after clause of the U.S. Constitution demonstrates a careful division of power, but not for the monumentalizing of delicate political arrangements. The Founders purposed to divide power because they knew men were sinful and would be corrupted by power to the injury of their fellow citizens. They divided the executive department from the judicial and legislative. They divided the legislative itself in two. They maintained the separate governments of the States and the general (what we now call “federal”) government. They feared the centralization of government because that political system, when operated by descendants of Adam, tends toward oppression. The evil to protect against ultimately is oppression.
Gary North and Scott’s admonitions call to mind the image of men carefully and delusionally attempting to shutter their homes only after a Category 5 Hurricane has pulverized everything to bits. They worry that federal protection of unborn children may somehow justify current or beget later federal transgressions against the Constitution. What could possibly be worse than the hellish, ghoulish slaughter ofmillions of little ones throughout these United States? Congress cannot now foist upon us abortion on demand; the Supreme Court has already done that. Indeed, this historical fact further justifies federal action to stem the tide of murderous hatred the High Court unleashed and perpetuates.
Taking the Constitution at its word, we simply cannot believe that a clause forbidding States to impair contractual obligations would appear in a document that would allow States to tolerate the systematic slaughter of unborn children. (U.S. Const. art. I, § 10.) We cannot believe that an amendment forbidding slavery would appear in a document that is indifferent to the systematic slaughter of unborn children. (U.S. Const. amend. XIII.) We cannot believe that a provision allowing the federal government to protect States from an invasion would appear in a document that is neutral to the systematic slaughter of unborn children in those same States. (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 4.) To the contrary, federal action to protect unborn children from abortion falls under the legal principle once described by the U.S. Supreme Court as: “coming within the spirit of the law and . . . not opposed to the letter of the law.” See Polk’s Lessee v. Wendal, 13 U.S. 87, 97 (1815).
The spirit of the law controls. The Constitution was made for man, not man for the Constitution.