In a conversation on Facebook, TJ Schwab was discussing the unconstitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Hear me-- he was not debating the highly emotional issue of abortion itself, and I have no idea what his position on the issue is. What I find incredibly freeing is that in this instance, it really doesn't matter. He was commenting solely on the fact that Roe v. Wade is a prime example of the federal government passing judgment and creating precedences which pave the road to unconstitutional federal laws.
But the gist of it is, the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade on the 14th amendment, even though at the time that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1867 (i think) there were abortion laws in nearly thirty states, which would insinuate that the 14th amendment was passed to not include "the right to an abortion". This is what we conservatives call "legislating from the bench". The 10th amendment states that all issues not addressed herewith shall revert to the States. Therefore, this is a states rights issue and Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly. So can someone be pro choice and against Roe v. Wade? You bet. The states shall decide this issue.The issue that I'm wrestling with after reading his comments is a bit removed, though not completely, from the original conversation, which involved the constitutionality, or lack thereof, of "legislation from the bench." Roe v. Wade is just an example of how we've gotten to the point where certain things that should not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, now *do* in fact fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government
When this country comes to election time, each voting citizen must make dozens of decisions with the pulling of a lever. In a matter of moments, we elect officials who will make decisions about national defense and domestic maintenance. Those same officials will set the moral climate of the country-- they often build their platforms around the influence they will wield on such subjects, and I find this to be a most vile form of political manipulation. It is well nigh impossible for me to vote for someone whose political agenda I respect, because I often find that person's social or moral agendas unconscionable. And it is impossible for me to vote for someone whose moral agenda is more in line with mine, because I am so profoundly at odds with their ideas of what national defense should look like.
Our laws are very much the same way. Apparently if you read laws from the 1790s (I have my reading cut out for me for the next few weeks), they are single page documents, simple and to the point, and there's no question as to what they mean. These days, a single bill may span 20 pages and such unrelated issues as "highways and pig farming and toenail cutter manufacturing," to quote my husband, "and then there's something in there about opposing child torture, and nobody can veto that. So we have a toenail clipper factory built in the middle of a pig farm, and nobody understands why."
So as I was saying, when I go to the polls this year, I should be able to vote on issues of national defense and domestic maintenance without the emotional and religious albatross of abortion and similar moral issues on my mind. Those issues can be tackled more locally, at the state level, where I can actually hope to make a difference. But as it stands, I cannot vote for either candidate without supporting 21st century military imperialism on the one hand, or partial birth abortion on the other. What we should be voting on are NATIONAL issues, not moral issues. Anything that does not directly violate the constitution, as I understand the original plans for the governance of this country, should fall to the states to decide, and so should have nothing to do with the presidential election.