Abortion, Christian Conscience, and American Politics
I find it interesting that conservatives (in the American sense of the word) claim, in one breath, to be strict constructionists of the Constitution and at the same time tolerate, even mandate the federal legislation of morality. The Constitution clearly prohibits federal legislation of morality as it is a “power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States” as the Tenth Amendment reads. At times, especially in the abortion debate, find myself in a position seeking to argue from a (federal)legal/constitutional standpoint that abortion is wrong (and in my heart of hearts I believe it is absolutely wrong) while it is simply impossible to do so. Indeed, the Constitution is (and ought to be) silent on the issue of abortion as it is an issue of morality.
However, although the Federal government is prohibited from legislating abortion, the States are not. Instead, the states are constitutionally encouraged to legislate moral issues as this is an element of their function in the Union. Therefore, with this in mind, what does it matter whether a candidate for a federal office is pro-choice — especially in the executive branch? Unless, of course, the candidate is a loose constructionist.
This is the problem with the loose constructionist (i.e. the Constitution is a “living document”) point of view — the order of the Union is put into jeopardy because if we ignore even the slightest detail in the constitution then what stops us from ignoring large portions of it or ignoring it altogether? If the Tenth Amendment is ignored in any part why can’t the First Amendment be ignored and the federal government mandate Islam or “President Worship” (like Roman emperor worship and Egyptian pharaoh worship) as an official state religion? In such a legal environment there would be nothing holding the government accountable to the people. With the strict constructionist view, however, the integrity of the letter of the law is maintained and no person — civilian, government official, soldier, man, woman, child… — is above the law. Thus, the government is held accountable to the people; the people are sovereign.
If a candidate for federal office (i.e. Hillary Clinton) is a loose constructionist AND a pro-choicer then, from a legal/constitutional standpoint, he or she is a fundamental danger to the Union and no one should vote for them regardless of religion, race, creed, or food preference. Conversely, however, if a candidate believes wholeheartedly in each citizen’s inherent right to choice in all regards and is therefore pro-choice by default but is of a strict constructionist persuasion then he poses no threat to the integrity of the union and is thus a votable candidate.
Therefore, I reason that “maybe” a Christian could possibly vote for a pro-choice candidate if the candidate is a strict constructionist especially for the office of President since it holds little policy-making responsibility. One such highly votable candidate would be Rudy Giuliani. Vote for him.