Further Responses To Catholic Prof Kmiec Lastest on Obama

I must say it will be great when the Catholic For McCain Committee gets someone official to respond to all of Prof Kmiec Obama propaganda. Where is Senator Brownback for instance? I would love to see him responding to Prof Kmiec on Catholic Online.

Anyway, Pro Ecclesia has a two great post that respond to the latest. I will try to give my full two cents later. Please go see his post Doug Kmiec: "After Meeting with Barack" [UPDATED] and Cranky Conservative: "But At Least He Says It with a Smile" .

Three quick thoughts though that just jump out to as to hislatest piece.

Senator Obama's position accepts the existing legal regime which leaves the abortion decision with the mother -- which is all right so long as the mother is persuaded to choose life. Senator McCain's position would leave the decision with the individual states -- which is all right so long as the individual states prohibit abortion.

Since we are assured of neither, neither position is fully pro-life. In truth, both positions are pro-choice, with the former focused on the individual and the latter focused on the state. Senator McCain's position is sometimes described as pro-life, but it is more pro-federalism (states being free under the McCain position to decide to permit or disallow abortion as they see fit).

From a standpoint of subsidiarity and prudence, one can make an argument that the Obama position is preferable since it does not arrogate to a higher level that which can be done more effectively below in direct relationship with the mother.

That said, as a constitutional law teacher, I respectfully disagree with both Senator Obama and Senator McCain since the Constitution was intended as a means to enforce and guarantee the unalienable right to life recited in the Declaration of Independence, where of course it is explicitly traced to our Creator.

What hogwash. First let me say that the Declaration of Independence, while a great document that speaks great truths in places, is not Legal Precedent. I know people have that view but that is a minority. Even among Pro-life Legal folks. If Prof Kmeic wishes that the Declaration be a part of American Jurisprudence I suggest he support Alan Keyes!!!

The fact that he tries to call the efforts to get this back to the States to where we can fight it out as akin to Obama's Pro-Choice posit on is breathtaking. I also might add that folks should at Prof Kmiec's statements way back in 2006!!

Here is a quote from Kmiec in 2006 on the federal partial birth abortion ban:

“I wish it weren’t a federal issue, but I do believe that Congress is acting under the Roe v. Wade specter we are living under,” he added. Douglas Kmiec, a conservative constitutional law professor at Pepperdine University, concurred that Congress became involved with the issue only after the courts “removed the states from the playing field” by way of both Roe v. Wade, as well as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld Roe in 2000. “Congress did what it could [under the circumstances],” said Kmiec.

While he agrees with Sekulow’s position “as a matter of policy,” Kmiec said the Court’s 2005, Gonzales v. Raich ruling, which allowed federal anti-drug laws to override state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana, had set a new precedent concerning Congressional power. Kmiec, who submitted a brief in the Raich case, said in an ideal world, Congress would have no bearing on either medical marijuana or abortion.

“The genius of the constitutional system is allowing individual states decide these questions, thereby accommodating a greater range of political and religious Americans who could have multiple answers as to when life begins,” said Kmiec, who added that deciding to impose a national policy “is a prescription for a lot of angry unhappy people.” “People feel strongly about this issue, and there is no consensus, and to pretend there is one at the national level is just that—to pretend,” he said.'

Is Prof Kmiec Pro Choice?

I find the very dishonest here and again shows that the fact Kmeic wrote this shows to me that he knows he is on shaky ground

Abortion and Racism

Some have concluded from these words that abortion must predominate over all other issues. There is much logic to this since of course life is fundamental to all else. Yet, with respect to the bishops’ own statements as quoted above from the Call to faithful Citizenship, it would be mistaken, one would think, to rank racism below abortion or vice versa, since they are both held out as intrinsic evils. Is there racism remaining in the United States needful of the attention of the 2008 Catholic voter?

I have never once heard Senator Obama speak of his race as an entitlement. It is not his way. He does not hold himself out as a black candidate, but as an American candidate. He would not ask you for a vote on that basis nor would I. Yet, as I listened to Senator Obama speak with powerful empathy for those less advantaged of all races and ethnicities in our land, I thought of the many people who say in hushed voices that America is not prepared to vote for a black man. This is inconceivable to me and many, and yet, how are we to respond when political analysts proffer the Senator’s race as the explanation for his lopsided primary defeats in places like West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania?

So let get me this straight. Prof Kmiec is saying that the Bishops statement means that if some people are voting against Obama because of Race then as Catholics we have a duty to vote for him? This is more twisted than Color TV as my Grandmother would say. The Bishops are talking about a David Duke situation. Where for example a person such as myself had to vote for a Pro Choice Edwin Edwards over the Supposed anti Abortion but racist David Duke in the last decades Louisiana Governor's race.

More Later