Im not out to change anyones mind, and Im sure I couldnt anyway, we are all a little bent on how we see things I suppose, and now the time has come for a appointee for the Supreme Court, which is the Presidents constitutional right to select; and of course, to be subject to questioning by the Supreme Court judges, and Senate. I guess if I believe in anything in AmericaI would go with the statement a CIA Agent made recently, and I cant remember his name, but when he asked if he worked for the President of the United States, he said, No, I work for the Constitution of the United States. I couldnt have said it any better. Having said that, I look at all this fuss going on about President Bushs selection for the Supreme Court; of course everyone on the left, or lets say, those for Abortion Rights, are worried about Bushs candidate; to the point, they are looking at religion; and they should be warned, they could be trespassing on his First Amendment rights of the candidate. I mean, does Bush have to select an atheist to appease the Democrats? I hope not; like Clinton, a president has the right to select any one he wants, providing he is qualified. If Bushs appointee claimed to be pro abortion, this dispute would not be forthcoming by the left. This could turn into a Civil Rights dispute I dread, somewhere down this slanted line; should this continue. But we are of course looking at Roe Vs. Wade, are we not? The Supreme Court decided on January 22, l973 to endorse, or however you want to put it, but I say, Give Federal Constitutional Protection to women who wish to have an abortion. Which they say is the law of the land I guess now (which I believe is really unconstitutional); now let me jump ahead a bit, and come back to this. Under the Constitution, Article II, Section II, the president has this right to select whom he pleases. I am not sure what constitutional right the Supreme Court Judges upheld in Roe V. Wade; and I think Mr. Roberts sees it that way also. I mean the First Amendment deals with the freedom of religion, and speech, and freedom for the Press, which is being violated at this very moment, by holding a certain newspaper lady behind bars for not disclosing her source of information. But the point Im getting at is the law of the land, the Constitution does not produce such a freedom. It may be a womans right, but not a Constitutional Right according to the United States Constitution; the Supreme Court makes that up; they know it, and so does the left, and that is where the fear comes in Id say. Now lets take this to another level. Why did the Supreme Court even make such a diluted law, or judgment? Simple, because under Amendments V and VI, an abortion would normally fall under a Capital Crime, or Infamous Crimes; and thus, the judgment wipes away any criminal prosecutions that might emerge from a woman having an abortion. In essence, the law of the land was modified to accommodate abortions, which it was never meant to do. What bothers me is, if we can do that to our precious Constitution, if nine-judges can alter the most precious document an American has, what they can not do! God help us all. |
