Attempting to Do in Fifty Days What You’ve Not Done in Fifty Years

Or

Never Let an Emotional Issue Go to Waste.

The leaking of a draft decision in the case of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women's Health Organization indicated the high court may overturn a previous court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade, that a woman had a right to abortion, throughout the nation.  All those who see opportunity in this have risen up to defend or condemn the potential ruling.  Facts don’t really matter here.  Those who are pro-abortion are outraged, while those who are pro-life rejoice.

What does matter is how the politicians of the two sides are going to react!

We see the feigned outrage of the DNC as Senators, Representatives, Governors, and even the President (and his spokespeople), come before the nation to condemn the court, and vow action to undo the decision to return the right to decide on any limits to abortion to the states in accordance with the U.S. Constitution[1].  The Democratic members of the House and the Senate, as well as the President, believe they can craft a law that either makes abortion a national law or limits the ability of each state to decide its own standard.  I believe this is simply a politically opportunistic folly, that shows how little our politicians really know about the Constitution, and the belief they will be able to change the composition of the Supreme Court to move it to the politically liberal side to overturn whatever ruling comes out of the Dobbs case.

Now let’s be clear, in the almost 50-years since Roe v. Wade there has been little if any effort to codify a woman’s right to choose what to do with her pregnancy. In fact, since 1972 there has been only one amendment to the Constitution approved.  The 27^th Amendment, first proposed in 1791, but finally ratified in 1992, sets limits on Congress to give themselves pay raises.

So now the left thinks they can write a law that will “codify” a woman’s universal right to abortion before the fall elections.  All I’ve got to say is good luck!  Even if they wrote such a fanciful law would it stand the scrutiny of a court that defers to the Constitution as a principle?

Of course, there are those “radical” politicians who think this can all be corrected if we just pack the court with enough radical justices to make the Constitution irrelevant.  Again, good luck in achieving that before the mid-terms.

---

[1] Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.  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. 

 

That Was Then - This is Now.

In 2009 I was hopeful the Democratic sweep into the Congress and the White House would result in a functioning government where they would learn from the failures of the Bush/Cheney administration and they would work in a bipartisan manner to solve some of the big problems of America.

I was not against universal health care and would have supported it if they had simply shown how they would pay for it, but they couldn’t.  As it turned out with acknowledgments after the fact there was never any attempt to make it affordable.  It was simply a bait and switch to consolidate government power.

Today, I have no such allusions regarding the transition of power.  The DNC will simply enrich its major stakeholders while making the neediest more dependent on government largess for their survival.  In many ways, it will be a return of the plantation system which is at the heart of the Democratic Party mindset.

It's a Mystery.

I am a little confused by the DNC primary process.  There is nothing in their policies, public statements, or candidates to suggest they are at all interested in what middle America (the flyover states) have to say.  Why then do they hold their earliest primaries there? 
Wouldn't it be more cost effective to just divide NY, MA, CA, WA, and OR into like 50 different districts and concentrate the primaries there and then tell everyone else how it turned out?