_Equal Protection for Posterity

J.D. Ellis

While it is good to see that Personhood USA is providing at least some accountability for at least one of the five anti-personhood Republican presidential candidates whom they allowed to sign their personhood pledge, the softball questions lobbed by host Steve Deace to the other four candidates during their “Presidential Prolife Forum” only confirms suspicions that Personhood USA has fallen into the compromised “lesser evil” approach to presidential politics, and has determined to apply only gentle pressure (if that, but certainly not the promised accountability) to mainstream Republican candidates in whom they have placed their trust for an end to abortion in America.

On Thursday, December 22, Ron Paul became the fifth presidential candidate to sign Personhood USA’s candidate pledge.  Paul also attached a statement of his own, effectively explaining away his “commitment” to personhood.  On Monday, December 26, Personhood USA released an open letter to Ron Paul asking for further clarification, and threatening to publicly reject his pledge if Paul could not provide satisfactory answers to Personhood USA’s questions.  Ron Paul has responded to Personhood USA; but at this time, the issue does not seem to be settled.

Of significance to the apparent partiality with which Personhood USA is treating the other four candidates who have signed their pledge is the rigor of their demands on Ron Paul.  Personhood USA, rightly, asked some very tough questions of Paul, in their open letter, and set a high personhood standard for the congressman to live up to.  But such a high standard and difficult questions for the other four candidates who have signed the Personhood Pledge were conspicuously missing from the Presidential Prolife Forum, held by Personhood USA, hosted by Steve Deace on December 27, broadcast live on Deace’s nationally syndicated radio show, and still available for listening or download on Deace‘s website, or on Personhood USA's site.  One has to wonder why these four, more mainstream Republican candidates--Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, and Perry--are receiving special treatment and more freedom to express their anti-personhood views without being called to account by Personhood USA.
At the beginning of the call, Personhood USA president Keith Mason expressed his excitement to have an opportunity to “really understand where the candidates are on life”--something one would think Mason would do before putting the name and credibility of his organization behind these politicians’ candidacies.  In spite of Personhood USA’s past insistence that they, as a non-profit organization, do not endorse candidates, Mason also verbalized his eagerness to “really help support” the candidates who have signed Personhood USA’s pledge.  And regardless of the fact that all four candidates still hold positions contrary to personhood, Mason described them as “championing life”.  Ron Paul, rightly, did not receive such accolades from Personhood USA’s president.  One has to wonder why the partiality toward the other four signers of the pledge.

Rick Perry: 
In his opening statement, Texas governor Rick Perry pointed to his support for informed consent laws.  In spite of the fact that support for such laws reveals a lack of understanding of the personhood principles, Perry continues to tout them as evidence of his supposedly strong stance on life.  Personhood USA never asked him to renounce his support of such legislation, or to try to explain how they are consistent with personhood.   In fact, the inconsistency between the two positions was never brought up at all.
Perry also declared, “For me, this is not about politics.  It’s about protecting human life.”  And yet he has never shown a willingness to jeopardize his political career in order to provide equal protection for even a single unborn child in Texas, much less anywhere else in America.   Personhood USA never questioned the fact that his statement was inconsistent with his past actions.

During the question and answer segment with Perry, Deace asked, if federal personhood legislation were passed by Congress, and struck down by the Supreme Court, “would you enforce the unalienable right to life, or the court’s opinion, as the law?”  Perry, somewhat vaguely and dismissively, replied, “Well, obviously, you would enforce the right to life opinion.”  He then went on to talk about the need for more pro-life judges on the Supreme Court.  Deace and Mason (the only ones allowed to directly interact with the candidates) failed to ask what should be an obvious follow-up question for any personhood pro-life interviewer:  If Perry would side with the unalienable right to life, over the opinion of nine black-robed tyrants--then why is he is not doing so now?  The 14th Amendment, which Perry says he believes applies equally to unborn persons, is law.  Roe v. Wade is a court opinion.  Why is Perry not using his office to uphold the 14th Amendment, as he has sworn to do, if he believes it applies to the unborn.  This inconsistency was, again, not addressed.  Instead, Mason voiced his pleasure that “the pro-life movement is focusing more on the fundamental goal of the pro-life movement, which is personhood for all human beings,”  perhaps thus betraying his false impression that personhood is a “goal” to be attained, rather than, as it is in reality, a self-evident truth to be acknowledged.

Mason also tossed a softball question to Perry, asking whether he had changed his mind about allowing exceptions for rape and incest.  Perry explained that his views have, in fact, changed “over the last few weeks”.  Apparently a man who says he has been personhood pro-life for only “a few weeks”, but who still holds anti-personhood, pro-regulation views now qualifies to receive the “support” of Personhood USA for the highest office in the land.

Michele Bachmann:
Like Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann also stated that life “is a not check-the-box thing for me.  This is the core of my conviction.  This is what I would literally die for.”  Deace and Mason failed to ask her, why then, has she not been willing to put her political career (much less her physical life) on the line to do all within the power of her office to demand and provide equal protection for the unborn.  Why has she--indeed, why does she still--support legislation that actually denies them equal protection?

Michele Bachmann praised the Hyde Amendment, and said that, as president, “I will veto any congressional attempt to provide federal funding of abortion”.   She voiced her opposition to Obama Care, inaccurately claiming that “Obama Care, for the first time in the history of the country, funds tax-payer funded abortion.”  Personhood USA failed to point out that the Hyde Amendment itself explicitly allows federal funding for abortion in certain cases.  Mason and Deace, did not even bring this up--much less did they require Bachmann to give account for her actions in voting for, and continuing to laud a bill that allows federal funding of abortion.

When asked what she would do to stop chemical abortion, Bachmann’s only answer was to direct attention to Obama.  She displayed no understanding of the duty of either the office for which she is running, or of the office which she currently holds, in protecting the unborn equally and without condition.  Apparently, Personhood USA requires no such understanding from candidates that they “support”.

Deace again asked, if personhood legislation were to pass Congress, and be struck down by the courts, how would a President Bachmann respond.  Bachmann replied, “…the Supreme Court doesn’t make the law of the land; it’s the Congress and the President of the United States who do.”  She went on to state that the legislative and executive branches need to “reclaim that authority.”  Bachmann was not asked, why then, since Roe is not law, is she not already using the power of her seat in Congress to demand and provide equal protection for all persons.

Rick Santorum:
Former Senator Santorum introduced himself with a passionate statement that we concede ground when we say that we “believe” life begins at conception--that life at conception is not something to be “believed” or rejected at our whim, but that it is a scientific fact--and that life must, therefore, be protected from that point.  Santorum was not asked why, if he knows the unborn are persons, would he ever support pro-choice candidates, like Arlen Specter, who would allow living human beings to be murdered with the consent of their mothers.  (Later, as his show continued, Deace said the reason this question was not asked was because it was submitted by a member of the Bachmann campaign; but that he wished he could have found someone to ask the question, who was unaffiliated with any of the campaigns.  Let it be known that true personhood pro-lifers did try to ask this question; but Deace and Mason denied them the opportunity.)
Santorum voiced his support for personhood, but allowed that “incrementalism has its place”.  Neither Deace nor Mason asked the former senator to clarify, or took the time to point out, either to Santorum or to their listening audience, that compromised incrementalism is in direct opposition to the personhood of the unborn, and has no place in the policies of a signer of a true personhood pledge.

When Deace asked the same question about personhood legislation being overturned by the Court, Santorum said that if that were to happen, he would continue to fight for personhood by working toward other personhood legislation, or a personhood amendment to the Constitution, or through executive orders, or regulations--that he would “challenge the court, and give them opportunities to find the error of their ways, and come to a resolution where all the branches of government can agree”--an answer that obviously betrays Santorum’s judicial activist views.  Neither Mason nor Deace took time to ask Santorum how that view would accord with his sworn duty as president to execute the 14th Amendment’s protection of all innocent life.  Instead, they ate up precious interview time with a bizarre question about foreign policy--almost as if they were trying to find anything to talk about, other than Santorum’s inconsistencies with personhood.

Newt Gingrich:
Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich incorrectly stated that “in the 14th Amendment it says very specifically, ‘Congress shall define what is a person.’”  (If you read it for yourself--which apparently Speaker Gingrich is betting against--you will find that the 14th Amendment says no such thing.)  Mason and Deace failed to point out Gingrich’s inaccuracy with regard to the content of the Constitution, or the inconsistency of his position with personhood.  If the Congress has the right to “define what is a person”, then they have the power to define “person” in such a way as to exclude the unborn (or blacks, or the elderly, or any other group) from receiving the benefits of personhood.  On the other hand, personhood, as expressed by the Founders, in the Declaration of Independence, means the right to life comes from God and is unalienable--not that it comes from Congress, and can be taken away by Congress, based on their definition of “what is a person”.  Apparently, Deace and Mason either do not understand this vital difference, or do not consider it relevant when discussing personhood with a candidate who has signed a personhood pledge.
Gingrich went on to talk academically about the processes by which the executive and legislative branches can reign in an out-of-control judiciary.  He discussed this as though it were an advanced, scholarly concept, that he has just recently been able to grasp himself, and that is still up for debate--not as a basic feature of our form of government, formerly understood by every fifth grader in America.  But Mason and Deace did not consider it appropriate to ask how a man who spent decades in Congress, but who is just now discovering the checks and balances written into the Constitution, could be trusted to exercise the office of President of the United States.

Gingrich also clearly expressed his approval of a compromised, incremental approach to ending abortion, by which he and others would consent to the murder of some children, in order to attempt to save others.  This was not even addressed at all.

Mason concluded the Tele-Townhall with an appeal to the listeners to “vote for the candidate they thought was best”--completely overlooking the fact (or even the possibility) that not a single one of the candidates on the call met a minimum criteria of understanding and willingness to do the duty of protecting all persons equally, as they have all sworn to do, and would swear to do again as president.  Such appeals make it clear that Personhood USA has abandoned their former principled personhood stance, has thrown out any non-negotiable minimum standard, and has adopted, in its place, the morally relativistic approach of supporting who they consider to be the lesser evil.  In effect, they have become another Republican apologist organization, selling out their credibility with anyone who truly understands and is committed to personhood, in exchange for a seat at the GOP table.  This fully explains why Deace and Mason would look the other way as these four mainstream Republican candidates expressed views that are completely at odds with their signatures on the Personhood USA pledge, even as they hold Ron Paul to a higher standard.Do not misunderstand:  Ron Paul is no personhood pro-lifer.  But neither are Bachmann, Santorum, Gingrich, or Perry.  They just happen to be more aligned with the typical establishment Republican talking points.  The fact that Personhood USA did such a thorough and principled critique of Ron Paul’s position demonstrates their understanding of the personhood principles, and takes away ignorance as an excuse for not holding the other four candidates to the same high standard.  Their oversight of the candidates’ anti-personhood positions can now be seen as nothing but intentional, hypocritical, and deceptive.  Despite Personhood USA’s promises that all signers of their pledge would be held accountable, their treatment of these four candidates demonstrates that they never intended to do any such thing, but only to give them political cover as they continue to play the same anti-personhood games with the lives of the unborn that false pro-life Republicans have been playing for decades.

_NumbersUSA

By Roy Beck

Monday, May 2, 2011

The biggest problem with Rep. Paul's (R-Texas) latest comments on immigration is that they are NOT just some ad hoc thoughts tossed off carelessly at some speaking event. These are engraved in a brand new book.

Until the release of the book, Liberty Defined, Dr. Paul had a mixed record in Congress and the fact that he had taken the NumbersUSA "No Amnesty" pledge at the end of his Presidential campaign in 2008.

That had earned him a C-minus on our 2012 Presidential Hopefuls Immigration Stances Report Card. Not impressive, but the third best (behind Rep. Bachman with a B-minus and Gov. Tim Pawlenty with a C+) of all the Hopefuls.

PAUL NOW 2nd WORST OF ALL HOPEFULS ON IMMIGRATION

In the graphic below, you will see how we have had to rate Dr. Paul on the 12 most important immigration categories.

The ratings add up to an overall stance that just barely misses warranting an F-minus and squeaks through just better than Pres. Obama. It is significantly worse than the grade of former Speaker Gingrich who had previously been the worst of all Republican Hopefuls on immigration.

Click here to read all citations and analysis behind each of the 12 ratings for Dr. Paul.

Also, here is where you get information about how to contact Congressman Paul about his immigration positions.

Click here to see the ratings and grades of all Presidential Hopefuls.

PAUL SUPPORTERS, YOU HAVE YOUR WORK CUT OUT FOR YOU

We do not endorse candidates and we do not judge them on anything other than their immigration stances.

For those of you who already support a Hopeful for other reasons, we encourage you to pressure your favorite candidate to improve his/her immigration stances to earn a better NumbersUSA grade.

Obviously, those of you who are big supporters of Ron Paul have your work cut out for you.

PREZ GRADE WORSE THAN CONGRESS GRADE

If you look up Rep. Paul's immigration grade for his congressional actions, you will find a much better report. He earns a 'B' grade over his career.

But you will find that only one Republican in Congress has a worse grade on border issues than Ron Paul. Furthermore, he has failed to act in every category of immigration during this new Congress.

His grade on Presidential stances is different because it is based not just on what he has done but on what he publicly says he would do as President. As a Member of Congress, he has been able to avoid acting on many immigration issues, thus protecting his grade a little.

SEVERE BACKSLIDING ON AMNESTY

In his book, Dr. Paul sounds very much like supporters of Comprehensive Amnesty measures by talking about the impossibility of sending back home 11 million illegal aliens.

Like most amnesty supporters who say they oppose "amnesty," Dr. Paul seems to buy the false choice between "legalization" or mass deportation. Since he says mass deportation isn't possible, he feels he has to choose some kind of legalization.

He fails to support Attrition Through Enforcement, which is the middle way supported by most anti-amnesty Members of Congress.

He would limit the legalization by perhaps not allowing the illegal aliens to ever be citizens or to vote. But they still would get to stay in the U.S. and to keep their U.S. jobs, while millions of Americans who want the jobs would have to stay unemployed.

"It could be argued that (this system) may well allow some immigrants who come here illegally a beneficial status without automatic citizenship or tax-supported benefits -- a much better option than deportation," Rep. Paul writes on page 156.

MORE FOREIGN WORKERS SOUGHT WHILE REMOVING EMPLOYERS FROM RESPONSIBILITY

Congressman Paul in his book espouses a largely unfettered business philosophy that seeks to allow employers to import far more foreign labor than they do now. His comments in this vein seem oblivious to the 22 million Americans unable to find a full-time job.

Nor is he much interested in punishing businesses for hiring illegal foreign workers, saying the U.S. should NOT "punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration."

Requiring businesses to verify the legality of workers is a form of "compulsory servitude," he writes. This is consistent with his record. In his more than a decade in Congress, he has never co-sponsored a bill mandating E-Verify.

He says the federal government -- not businesses -- should keep illegal aliens out. But how does that happen without cutting off the jobs magnet at the work place? Tens of millions of foreign citizens visit our country each year legally as students, temporary workers and tourists. Border enforcement can do nothing to keep them from overstaying their visas and taking U.S. jobs.

Nearly every business that has ever used E-Verify extols its virtues and ease of use. Rep. Paul seems to want to set himself up as a protector of businesses, but his positions primarily protect outlaw businesses to the disadvantage of patriotic, law-abiding, community-loving business owners who comprise the majority of employers.

For political supporters of Rep. Paul, they can hope that the immigration sections of the new book were ghost written by naive aides and that Rep. Paul will soon disavow them. For now, though, NumbersUSA has to rate and grade him on the best available information we now have.

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

Views and opinions expressed in blogs on this website are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect official policies of NumbersUSA.

_Still a Ron Paul Fan?

By the editor at Lonely Machines

I wrote briefly about the Congressional amicus curiae brief [pdf] in support of the petitioners in McDonald v. Chicago when it was submitted.  We saw a great deal of support from both sides of the political spectrum, but one signature was notable for its glaring omission: Ron Paul.

I'd been wondering about that, and Howard Nemerov was able to get a statement from Dr. Paul's office:

Congressman Paul’s DC office said he didn’t sign the brief because he believes that it interferes with state’s rights, whose policies shouldn’t be dictated by the federal government.

Let's get a few things straight here, people.  First off, states do not have rights. Like any other government, they have powers that are delegated to them by the people.  Only people have rights.

Second, the 14th Amendment does not conflict with the 10th, and in no way does it interfere with the agendas of individual state governments.

Some background:

The 10th Amendment has undergone a bit of a renaissance over the last year.  The Federal government has long been over-reaching with a rather loose reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause.  Though the Rehnquist Court had long been keeping abuses of the clause in check, a schism took place in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich.

In Gonzales, the Court ruled that the cultivation of marijuana for personal, medical use was illegal under Federal law, even if it was legal under California law.  Despite the fact that "commerce" was in no way involved, the Court found that the clause applied because of "the likelihood that the high demand in the interstate market will draw such marijuana into that market."

In his dissent, Justice Thomas lamented,

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption (not because it is interstate commerce, but because it is inextricably bound up with interstate commerce), then Congress' Article I powers — as expanded by the Necessary and Proper Clause — have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to "appropria[te] state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.

The Gonzales decision was closely followed by the Court's disastrous reading of the Takings Clause in Kelo v. City of New London.  Reaction to the Kelo verdict was swift, and a movement began to revive the ailing 10th Amendment.

I'm very supportive of the initiatives taken thus far.  Dr. Paul deserves credit for his work in bringing attention to the issue.  I agree with many of his positions.

But I can't understand how a man who calls himself a libertarian and a "Constitutionalist" opposes an originalist reading of the 14th Amendment.

The concern now, as it was in 1868, is that the 14th Amendment somehow violates the principles of federalism and stands in the way of self-determination for states.  This is a stilted reading of the matter.  As the Paragon Foundation brief [pdf] explained:

Federalism is central to this Republic and dearly important to amicus curiae. However, federalism is a shield for States against the federal government, not a sword for States against fundamental, individual rights. States cannot sacrifice those rights on the altar of federalism.  p. 9

As Justice Brandeis wrote in his dissent in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann,

To stay experimentation in things social and economic is a grave responsibility. Denial of the right to experiment may be fraught with serious consequences to the nation. It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.

The 14th and 10th Amendments can coexist gracefully. States still have power to pursue their own economic and social policies, but by no sane interpretation can they infringe on the basic rights of citizens enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

This idea goes back to the framers. Madison believed that the federal government was ultimately responsible for the protection of our rights, even when the states failed in that regard.  An early draft of the Bill of Rights had the passage, "no state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases."

In Federalist #51, he wrote,

It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it.

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were drafted to rectify such abuses.  An Amendment guaranteeing liberty to all Americans fits right in with Madison's ideas.

Federalism did change a bit during Reconstruction, and I for one am not the least bit sorry that it did. We needed clearer, more specific protections of civil rights than were given by the Framers.  Akhil Amar has pointed out that the contours of the 2nd Amendment (among other civil rights) changed between 1789 and 1868. It was an organic, logical evolution, to which I doubt any of the Framers would have objected.

Madison's proposal for a Bill of Rights stated,

In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this Constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

(…)

It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty.

The Constitution grants certain powers to the Federal government, which are clearly defined and should be narrow in interpretation.  The remaining powers of government belong to the states, which are entitled to a great degree of sovereignty in their policies.

However, the ultimate sovereign in our system is the individual.  Federalism stops where the Bill of Rights begins.  The 14th Amendment, particularly the Privileges or Immunities clause, is the guarantor of that idea.

Regardless of one's position in the libertarian spectrum, the ultimate idea is the same: when there is a confict between state interest and individual freedoms, the rights of the individual stand paramount.

Could someone please explain this to Ron Paul?  I find it sad that Harry Reid, Arlen Spector and Olympia Snowe have shown more interest in civil rights than he has in this case.

_The dirty secret in Uncle Sam’s Friday trash dump

Washington Post

Bryan R. Lawrence

Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, it made sense to read them closely.

Since 1997, the United States has been a rare example of a government willing to publish financial statements using accrual accounting, which counts the cost of promises made as well as cash paid out. And the GAO’s professionalism over the years has won it a reputation for impartiality and effectiveness.

That professionalism is evident in the GAO analysis of the net present value of the Social Security and Medicare promises Washington has made to Americans. “Net present value” means the total that would have to be set aside today to pay the costs of these programs in the future. The government puts these numbers in appendices, rather than in headlines. But the costs are real.

In fiscal 2011, the cost of the promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion, based on the Wilshire 5000 index, and the value of the equity in U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there is not enough wealth in America to meet those promises.

If the government followed corporate accounting rules, that $2.9 trillion increase would be added to the $1.3 trillion cash deficit for fiscal 2011 that has been widely reported. And a $4.2 trillion deficit is something that Americans need to know about

Read this story at washingtonpost.com ...

The GAO report is here.

_"The Founding Fathers expressed in words for all to read the ideal of Government based upon the dignity of the individual. That ideal previously had existed only in the hearts and minds of men. They produced the timeless documents upon which the Nation is founded and has grown great. They, recognizing God as the author of individual rights, declared that the purpose of Government is to secure those rights.

To you and to me this ideal of Government is a self-evident truth. But in many lands the State claims to be the author of human rights. The tragedy of that claim runs through all history and, indeed, dominates our own times. If the State gives rights, it can—and inevitably will—take away those rights. Without God, there could be no American form of Government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first--the most basic—expression of Americanism. Thus the Founding Fathers saw it, and thus, with God's help, it will continue to be. ...Veterans realize, perhaps more clearly than others, the prior place that Almighty God holds in our national life.

And they can appreciate, through personal experience, that the really decisive battleground of American freedom is in the hearts and minds of our own people.... The path we travel is narrow and long, beset with many dangers. Each day we must ask that Almighty God will set and keep His protecting hand over us so that we may pass on to those who come after us the heritage of a free people, secure in their God-given rights and in full control of a Government dedicated to the preservation of those rights..."

— Dwight D. Eisenhower