I think I must be wrong about John McCain and change

He certainly wants some change – but is it good change?

As the McCain camp wants to spike John McCain up as a fluffy bunny who all Americans are going to love – one thing we should know about him is that John McCain wants to change the American Constitution.

No, really.

John McCain on Roe Vs Wade.

Now that is probably bad enough – for women, that is – but we also have to look at the very wording of that post of policy.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

fi·at (ft, -t, -ät, ft, -t)
n.
1. An arbitrary order or decree.
2. Authorization or sanction: government fiat.

fiat [fie-at]
Noun
1. an official order issued without the consultation of those expected to obey it: the junta ruled by fiat
2. official permission [Latin: let it be done]

Now, which one do you want to take on board?

Using his own words – John McCain is against something that he advocates. Arbitrarily, John McCain will bring about a change to the US Constitution – why, if he should get into power, will he not put Roe Vs Wade to the people in a referendum? He says that he will change the Supreme Court make up so it favours right-wing Republicans – how can that be representative of the people of the USA?

John McCain is for change – I was incorrect in saying he wasn’t – but that change will put the US back years, decades even.

The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need

So, looking at this, from John McCain’s own website, community organisers are, in fact, worthy of support – a great deal of support. What is it that his running mate keeps saying?

John McCain is, as I keep repeating along with thousands of others, a hypocrite – he is nothing more than a carpetbagger and a charlatan.

And you – the American people believe him!


Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

About Bolshy

Blogging in the ether to see if that elusive literary agent or publisher wants some new talent.
This entry was posted in Blah!, Blogroll, Christianity, Comment, Conservatives, Personal philosophy, Politics, psychology, Sociology, Technology, What a Bitch!, WTF! Moment and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to I think I must be wrong about John McCain and change

  1. At the link there is nothing about changing the Constitution.

    I read McCain’s position at believing that Roe v Wade was wrong, and not Constitutionally-based. This is what he (and everyone, really) means by “judicial fiat”. Thus in advocating for the overturning of Roe, he is simply advocating that case law conform to the Constitution as he reads it.

    You may disagree with his reading of the Constitution, but for him to have a different reading from yourself doesn’t equate to him wanting to “change the Constitution”.

  2. Pingback: I think I must be wrong about John McCain and change

  3. lunawolf says:

    Ah yes, caring for the pregnant mothers in need. Until they deliver, than they are just welfare leeches.

    Now, this whole argument about State’s rights holding more water than the Constitution is just bog-wash. The Incorporation Doctrine is inherent in the 14th amendment, the power of the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land” is laid out in Article VI, and the power of the Supreme Court as THE Judicial power of the US is in article III. The ninth amendment allows that the rights of people are not restricted to the Bill of Rights, therefore, unstated rights cannot be taken from the people.

    The people who dispute the Incorporation Doctrine (because, in the past, it has failed, such as in Palko v. Connecticut, the case that set up Selective Incorporation) must answer to me, why is there a Federal Constitution and Bill of Rights if those things don’t apply to states and only states can choose to adopt them or not? Who, then, are they protecting, if not the people in the States?

    Federal Law is the Ultimate Law, period. Federal Law is interpreted by the Judicial Branch of the government, who has had the authority to interpret Constitutional Law since Marbury v Madison. Judges said that the right to privacy falls under the ninth amendment, Article VI says Constitution is Supreme Law, 14th amendment clearly states that Federal Laws and Rights apply to the States, No one can agree on when “life” begins and it is not up to the court to decide, therefore, usually during the first trimester, before the fetus is “viable” it is a matter of privacy what a woman decides about the pregnancy.

  4. Will Rhodes says:

    Ah, Luna – you have met, Sonic, a pseudo-intellectual who wants to be right, and is a John McCain supporter. 🙂

  5. Now, this whole argument about State’s rights holding more water than the Constitution is just bog-wash.

    The argument of most Roe critics is not that States’ rights “hold more water than the Constitution”. The argument is that Roe was incorrectly decided – i.e., that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to have her fetus aborted. If you’re going to criticize others’ position at least make an effort to understand them.

    The ninth amendment allows that the rights of people are not restricted to the Bill of Rights, therefore, unstated rights cannot be taken from the people.

    True. And the argument of Roe critics is that unborn children are humans and thus have a right to life that cannot be taken away. Again, you can disagree with this all you want but a starting point is understanding the position you’re opposing.

    The people who dispute the Incorporation Doctrine

    As I said above, opposition to Roe is not usually based on disputing the Incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment.

    No one can agree on when “life” begins and it is not up to the court to decide, therefore, usually during the first trimester, before the fetus is “viable” it is a matter of privacy what a woman decides about the pregnancy.

    This is how the SC seems to have decided things in Roe. McCain’s position seems to be that they interpreted ‘privacy’ incorrectly in doing so.

    It’s simply not the case that this position amounts to wanting to “change the Constitution”. Interpreting the Constitution accurately is not “changing” it. The position of Roe critics is that the Constitution did not say what the USSC said it said in the first place – hence, their decision was judicial fiat.

    You seem intelligent and informed enough such that it beggars belief that you sincerely weren’t aware that this was the position of Roe critics.

  6. Will Rhodes,

    When did I ever say I was a “McCain supporter”?

  7. You might also check out the list of lies in McCain’s convention speech.

    That’s not change we can believe in!

  8. SSG T says:

    So here I sit wondering how this country became the place of bitterness and division. I know all you lefties out there are blaming the right and vice versa. The fact is simple. First of all I am not now nor will I ever be a supporter of abortion. Second, has anyone thought about the father of this unborn child? What about his rights and beliefs? Oh that’s right no one cares about the father and his thoughts. Third, Since when was there anything in teh constitution about abortion? I love how everything that we have a disagreement on instantly goes to constitutional law experts! It does cover the issue of rights but that is rights of BOTH parties (male and female) must be looked at. Fourth, John McCain cannot change the constitution and everyone knows it so stop rambling about it like it’s gonna happen tomorrow. There is a huge process that issues must go through before there can be any change. Fifth, it’s good to see that McCain is the only one that lies and that the mighty god Obama has never, ever, ever, told a lie. I guess no one else on this has either. Besides, when it comes right down to it, Obama has more bogus statements than any other candidate (except for Edwards) the difference is that the media won’t cover Obama’s garbage! While you lefties may not like that statement it is a fact. Even the Democratic party officials have said how bad the coverage has been, plus he has lied about everything in his past changing his story when it is politically correct to do so. AMUSING!!!

  9. steve says:

    Will:

    I’m sorry, but when you’re wrong, you are so incredibly wrong. Roe v. Wade was pulled out of thin air, creating a privacy right that doesn’t exist. Abortion is a police power matter of the states, and rightsfully should be overturned, and the issue returned to the states. Some states will ban abortion, some won’t. But saying that mccain will change the constitution, when Roe V. Wade changed the constitution to pull a right out of thin are, shows just how blindly biased you are.

    Remember Will, I’m a lawyer, I took constitutional law. I know the US constitution, I have read many, many, many supreme court cases, and I don’t think you have.

    Justice Ginsberg, a clinton appointee to the court, probably the most liberal of of the Supreme court, says that Roe is bad law. Sorry, Will, but it’s okay to cry.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/politics/ginsburg.html

  10. steve says:

    One of the funniest things about how the liberals on the courts interpret the rulings is that there basically can’t be any restriction tha tmight even discourage an abortion. Such as parental notification. Not permission, but notification.

    As everyone knows, in the US, for a minor to get medical treatment, you need permission from an adult. I remember when I was a kid, my cousin broke his leg, and went to the ER in Florida. His parents were out of town, so he had the hospital call up my parents, and got their permission so they could even treat his broken leg. Yet a 14 year old girl can have an abortion, a more invasion procedure, without even requirign just notification, not even permission. Why? Unless there is a political agenda (feminism) behind it?

    I can’t get stitches as a child without PERMISSION, but a girl can get an abortion without her parents even knowing?

    So much for equality.

  11. lunawolf says:

    “The argument is that Roe was incorrectly decided – i.e., that the Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to have her fetus aborted. ” No, Roe v Wade was decided by the right to privacy because a court cannot decide when life starts. That is a philosophical decision debated by many groups of people and even scientists.

    “And the argument of Roe critics is that unborn children are humans and thus have a right to life that cannot be taken away. ” Again, that can’t be decided by a court. It is NO WHERE in the Constitution that a fetus is a Citizen under protection of the law.

    “As I said above, opposition to Roe is not usually based on disputing the Incorporation doctrine of the 14th amendment.” When people, such as John McCain, argue that a decision by the Supreme Court based on the Constitution should be decided by individual states rather than Federal Law, they are opposing the Incorporation Doctrine.

    “The position of Roe critics is that the Constitution did not say what the USSC said it said in the first place – hence, their decision was judicial fiat.” The Constitution doesn’t have to SAY right to privacy. It’s an implied right.

    I understand their position. They are wrong 😉

  12. steve says:

    @ lunawolf

    You can only incorporate things that are in the constitution to make them apply against the states. You cannot make something out of thin air, then “incorporate it” You can incorproate the 1st andment, the 5th amendment, but you cannot make something up. All powers that are not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal government are reserved to the states. Abortions is in there. When roe is overturned, it will rightfully go back to the states to decide, just lik ejust every other police power matter. Don’t let your political views distort your view of constitutional law.

  13. Matt says:

    I have to side with Steve on this one: the Constitution doesn’t provide for a clause on abortion ergo it belongs to the states to decide.

    If the states want to say that it’s a woman’s privacy, then that can be settled at the state level: let the chips fall where they may. But it was improper and unconstitutional for the S.C. to rule as it did regardless of personal beliefs.

  14. steve says:

    @ Matt

    Yes, many states’ own constitutions provide more protection for individual rights (but might look at the rights of fetuses as well) than the US constitution. The US constitution provides the bare minimum protection, while the states are free to provide more protections for those rights that have been incorporated throught the due process clause of the 14th amendment. But let’s be realistic, not everything in the bill of rights has been incorporated. Most has, but not everything.

  15. Will Rhodes says:

    Steve –

    Sorry, Will, but it’s okay to cry.

    You make an argument that can be agreed upon, or not, as the case may be – quite eloquent an argument, too. And you end that point, after stating you are a lawyer, you end with that sentence?

    How old are you, man?

  16. SSG T says:

    Well I would guess that he just may be the smartest 11 year old out there!! But he did get ya on it! Pretty funny I think!

  17. steve says:

    @ Will

    I made that statement because you made a similar one, accusing Mccain of wanting to Change the constitution by having Roe overtturned. Your statement was a lot worse than mine. I’m just trying to get you to accept that fact that Mccain is going to win, and that he’s probably going to appoint justices during the 4 years. Some of them are really old. You just don’t seem to accept this is going to happen. It’s as certain as the sun rising tomorrow ( thursday may be a different story due to the atom smasher thing).

    But I wish you would focus on my argument rather than the last couple words of my argument that had nothing to do with my argument. You did start this topic, making all these accusations are aren’t grounded in constitutional jurisprudence. Why not discuss it?

  18. lunawolf says:

    But the issue in Roe v Wade isn’t about a right to abortion. It’s about a right to privately handle your own affairs with your own body.

By all means, leave your 2 bobs worth

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s