Kerry Morgan - Fed. vs. State Law

[COMMENT: From an email in which Morgan responds to a query about state vs. fed. laws regarding abortion. I agree, almost. I think Brian Carney below has a better answer.

Go to Kerry Morgan's website at http://www.revivetherepublic.com/pro-life_article.htm one of the best I have seen on a Biblical view of civil government, especially the strategy for winning the pro-life battle. E. Fox]

Abortion has always been a function of state criminal law ever since the states began to recognize the offense and punish those who procure it (1860-1880). This rule that it is a state matter does not come from God, but rather it is how the framers elected to organize the governments of this country. The Declaration says that the people are free as a God-given right, to "organize[] its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness . . . " How did they organize the powers of the federal and state governments in such a way as to them seemed most likely to secure their safety and happiness (being legal shorthand for the certain "unalienable rights"?)

They said "Hey, lets give the national government only a little power over common objects and strictly define that power in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Constitution." Everything else including basic criminal law stays with the states because the last thing we want is a national criminal code with national police and national jails. All of the grievances listed in the Declaration were against such a national power.

So that is the way it is set up. Now over the years the Constitution was amended to take away some powers from the states and give it to the national government. Slavery and voting among them. Alcohol was a big deal too and a mistake from my view. Yet, after the new deal the court began to solve problems by legislating from the bench and purported taking power from the states, not by amendment, but by opinion. Abortion and sodomy are but two examples. These transfers were and are lawless and unconstitutional.

However, if the People want to take abortion from the states by a constitutional amendment and give it to the federal government and transfer the power to investigate abortion providers by federal marshals and try abortionist in a federal court and incarcerate them in a federal jail they may certainly do so. But they should fist be persuaded that such a reorganization of "its powers in such form" shall to them "seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness" i.e., better secure their "unalienable rights"

For me, and I drawn no rule here for another, I am loathe to give the federal government one mustard seed more of power. The people must fight this out state by state. In so doing their thinking will be drawn to the virtue of local self government, and to solving local matters locally and not fly toward the further expansion of federal power. Yet, abortion is of the nature of slavery and deserves to be regarded among those rights a national power ought to protect, provided that the states have first shown themselves incapable of securing same. My problem with this is one of timing. The states have shown that they did punish abortion until the Court wrongfully intervened. I think that the states need to recover that authority first and then prove their worthiness. If they fail by and large then nationalize the matter.

As far as why McCain says its a state matter . . . well, he says this because he wants the pro-life vote without any obligation to do anything about it. He is either ignorant or a charlatan. Here is the real option. To move the matter to the states requires the President to say to his federal marshals, "Don't enforce a single federal judges order interfering with a states efforts to prosecute an abortionist in a state court because I as President and having Constitutional authority over my branch and you working for me, I have determined that the Court decision in Roe is unconstitutional and I will not be a party to such lawlessness. Congress ought to come to the same conclusion and use its power to impeach Stevens, but I have no power over Congress in such matters and I leave that to them." This is the promise which we should be eliciting from John McCain, and which our leadership should be eliciting. But of course we do no such thing. We let him off easy with a promise that he will support a pro-life amendment to the Constitution. Sounds good except that the Constitution extends no power whatsoever to the President in regard to amendments. So we fail to demand of McCain what is Constitutionally authorized and accept from him what is not, and claim we are doing the right thing! Its even worse. He says "I will appoint pro-lifers to the bench." So we 1) fail to demand of McCain what is Constitutionally authorized and 2) accept from him what is not, and 3) are asked to vote for him based on a mere promise of what he might do in the future and which is not entirely within his power (as the Senate must ratify). Our leadership calls this savvy political action. It is rather a call to join in league with a lawless man by suppressing our reason and the evidence.

The people must fight this out state by state. In so doing their thinking will be drawn to the virtue of local self government, and to solving local matters locally and not fly toward the further expansion of federal power. Yet, abortion is of the nature of slavery and deserves to be regarded among those rights a national power ought to protect, provided that the states have first shown themselves incapable of securing same.

AbortionFederal vs. State Law

Abortion
Federal vs. State Law