Like the author of last week’s column, I too am frustrated with the political realm and the choices we face for presidential candidates. Unlike the author, I decided weeks ago to avoid watching the many regional and statewide appearances of the remaining competitors, especially given the hate-filled vitriol that permeates the press and televised proceedings.
I finally decided to allow my moral compass, forged by my faith and life experience, and the law in the guise of the U.S. Constitution, to guide my decision.
As a Christian I agree with the author that the life of the unborn child is priceless.
But also as a Christian, I abide by and respect the law of the land (Matthew 22:21-22).
Does the Constitution force a belief in any one religion? No. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Is there an intrinsic need to change this for a better and safer society? Not in my opinion. Freedom of and from religion is a key pillar of our society and the republic.
Does the Constitution allow citizens to carry a weapon? Yes. The second amendment, states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Is there an intrinsic need to change this for a better and safer society? Personally, I believe there is room here for improvement. What is a “well regulated militia” in today’s society? Do we need greater controls on the flow of AK-47s, or armed drones like the father-son duo built for fun per recent news accounts?
How much control should the federal government have over the lives of “the people?” Article 10, states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This begs the question where to place the line for a free and just society, a point much in contention. And this is where the power of the ballot box comes into play.
So which is the “party of no, no, no?” Is it the one that strives to strike the ideal balance between absolute freedom and managed control for the betterment of its citizens? Or is it the one whose persistent refusal to negotiate effectively shut down its government for the last seven years and ultimately boxed itself into a corner with a gargoyle?
O’ for the days of Reagan and O’Neill, who feared not communication or the art of the deal.