President Bush's Second Inaugural Speech

I thought this line was intereseting:

Not sure exactly waht all he meant by it.

 

Wonderful speech. I especially enjoyed this part:

Joseph Botwinick

 

It seemed like a thinly veiled pro life statement to me, Ken. I hope that is what he meant by it.

 

Yeah, thinly veiled statements by the President will be a big comfort to the 4000 babies who will be ripped apart today.

 

"..."The unwanted have worth." (President Bush, January 20, 2005, Inaugural Address)

I would like to believe that President Bush would include unborn babies in this statement, but his actions on this subject prove otherwise.

More than four million unborn babies have been mercilessly slaughtered in the wombs of their mothers since G.W. Bush first took office in 2001. Abortion on demand is still practiced undaunted in these United States, rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.

Regarding abortion, President Bush and his fellow Republicans in Congress have proven to be "paper tigers." They talk pro-life during an election campaign season, but they have no intention of actually saving the lives of the unborn.

Even the Partial Birth Abortion bill which Congress passed and President Bush signed is nothing but an elaborate ruse to make Christians and pro-lifers feel good about voting Republican. There was nothing of substance to it!

If anything, the Partial Birth Abortion bill serves to cement abortion on demand into the legal fabric of America. By singling out only one abortion procedure (the least one used, no less; it accounts for less than one percent of all abortions), all remaining abortion procedures are thereby certified to be tolerable and legal.

Beyond that, President Bush has increased federal funding for both domestic and overseas abortion providers to record numbers. (Reference: CovenantNews.com.) He has consistently refused to make the life issue pertinent to his selection of federal judges. In fact, reports I have read indicate that no less than two-thirds of his judicial appointments to date are either neutral or lean pro-abortion. That is hardly the track record of a true pro-life leader!
..."

SOURCE

 

But as those familiar with the government know, Bush cannot stop abortion on demand. Until Roe is overturned, or until Congress acts, Bush is powerless. He certainly hasn't done enough talking about it however. I was glad to see what he said.

The author of the article you posted is a few bricks shy of a load in teh thinking department however. The PBA ban did not certify all other procedures as tolerable and legal. It made no statement about them at all. What the left gets that the right doesn't is that incrementalism works. We all complain about incrementalism when it works against us. That is a big complaint about the civil liberties fo the Patriot Act and others things: "They are slowly taking our rights away." But we don't see the value of incrementalism in the other direction. How utterly foolish of us. Rather than go out and trumpet the fact that we got a foot in the door, we complain like we aren't even on the right porch. What a shame that we do not have better thinking about this.

As most people know, the left is scared to death of Bush's judicial appointments. Why? Because they think he is pro life. He has appointed pro life judges already and I hope he will continue to do so. But, in the meantime, we can certainly celebrate the good that has been done.

 

So, do you think that Bush's increasing the federal funding of Planned Parenthood, the largest pabortion provider, is a good thing?

 

As those with a heart for the unborn know, there are things that the President could do to fight abortion. Here is one:


"...The point is, if President Bush truly wanted to end the slaughter of unborn innocents, he could do it! By declaring unborn babies persons under the Fifth Amendment, he could issue an Executive Order to his justice department that the federal government would not interfere with those states that would choose to enact laws against abortion. Again, this would allow state legislatures and state governors to implement abortion laws as they deemed necessary. ..."

SOURCE

 

Another great speech by Michael Gerson. Just what Bush supporters needed to hear.
Michael Gerson

 

I wonder if this includes his friends, the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia?

Iran, Syria, Lebanon, China, and North Korea are next to be freed from oppression by American troops?

Well, there are plenty of ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder in so-called countries without tyrrany, such as Egypt and Turkey.

WRONG, President Bush. The only "force" that can break the reign of hatred and resentment is a relationship with Jesus Christ!

 

Of course not. That was a silly question. You know better.

Whether or not this is actually true is debatable. It is also inconsistent. If he declares unborn babies persons, then states cannot enact laws "as they deem necessary." Life is protected and murder is prohibited in all states. If he declares them persons, then the laws are already written.

But the reality is that this approach sounds good, but I don't think it is constitutional since the constitution doesn't seem to address executive orders and certainly doesn't put them outside of judicial check and balance. Not to mention the fact that it would not work. It would inflame and entrench abortion supporters and prolong the battle. There are similarities to be sure to the civil rights movement, and we need to capitalize on that. But we need to do it judiciously. Empty rhetoric doesn't work, no matter how conservative you are.

 

I think that the "Executive order" in this case would involve an order that is operable wholly within the executive branch, in which case it would not be unconstitutional.

 

Where does the constitution give authority for executive orders that are beyond judicial review and that deal with essentially making law?

 

I think that the term "executive order" may have been used in a copnfusing way here. The President is head of the executive branch; therefore he gives the orders within that branch. It's his constitutional function, simply heading the executive branch. I think that is what is in view here.

 

I don't diasagree with that, but it doesn't really answer the question. Where in teh constitution is the president given the power for such an order that is beyond judicial review and that in fact overrides previous judicial review and sidesteps the legislative prcess?

 

The same place it gives the judicial branch the power to override the executive and legislative branches.

There is supposed to be a tension between the branches, that is why we have the term "checks and balances". The founders feared a monolithic federal government, so set it up with these tensions in place. It's time for the administrative and legislative branches to fight back against a runaway jusiciary. But I fear that the pension checks are looking pretty juicy, so why rock the boat over a few million dead Americans?