Of all human rights, the right to life is the cornerstone to all others. For without Constitutional protection for this most basic right, American have no genuine security, no protection, no limitation to government, no real freedom, and no future. With the enjoyment of this inherent and unalienable God-given right, the right to liberty, the right to the pursuit of happiness, and to all other human and civil rights are meaningless words. And, yes, the 5th amendment does at least partially defends the right to life.
That is why all it is very important for all citizens to understand the positions of both John McCain and Barak Obama (as well as all elected officials).
The U.S. President is the only elected official who takes an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his or her ability. All others, whether members of Congress, the judiciary, federal agencies, state and local governments, give lip service by oath to support the Constitution. Because only the Executive is given veto power, the President is the only elected official with legitimate power of constitutional review, which is completely separate issue that will not be discussed further.
Because the purpose of the President is to preserve, protect, and defend the meaning and purpose of each and every part and principle of the Constitution, it behooves Americans to know whether he or she will in fact do so. If a candidate for political does not support the Right to Life, it is just and right to assume that such a candidate will neither defend it or any other if he/she and his/her party have other plans.
The National Right to Life has produced an excellent guide summarizing the positions of Biden, McCain, Obama, and Palin. You can consult their helpful guide by clicking here;.
Life News also offers an excellent and more comprehensive guide to the positions of candidates running for both federal and state offices. Their online voter guide may be reviewed by going to their www.lifenews.com/2008prolifevotersguide.htm;
PS: The mention of Lord, God, Providence, Creator, and the like in America’s founding documents were regarded by most Christians as encompassing a trinitarian view. Respectable historians and law professors like James Hutson and Philip Hamburger have convincingly repudiated the claims of popular books like The Godless Constitution and Blasphemy : How the Religious Right is Hijacking Our Declaration of Independence that the mention of those terms meant something other than a Christian view of God. The authors of those books attempt to support their claim by using biased historical data to claim that Revolution and Constitution-making era Americans were not very religious and most of the key leaders were deists or Unitarians. The fact is most of the Congressmen who created the Declaration and who rewrote the Constitution were members of churches upholding Trinitarian beliefs. That is significant because the meaning of God to such members of Congress and state legislatures included Jesus as an incarnate member of the triune Godhead. Therefore, the term year of our Lord in the preamble of the current Constitution refers to the Christian God, and the abundant terms for the Christian God employed in the Declaration objectively supports the reality that America was legally founded as a Christian nation.
Because it was, the God-given and unalienable right to life is a political principle rooted in the Christian theology of God, human nature and redemption. And, the fact that even the secular professors have concluded that America was founded by a covenant with God as well as a social contract further supports the Christian theological view underlying their founders’ natural law philosophy, which supplied the principles of our national Constitutional compact.
Because human life is eternal, the Right to Life is the most important issue.
