Sunday, September 14, 2008

Slavery, Whoopi, McCain, and the Constitution

Sen. John McCain obviously walked into a hornet's nest by appearing on The View, which he knew would be a hostile environment. He also had to know that the Big Question was going to come up: abortion - that most sacrosanct of "rights" for the Left.

Whoopi Goldberg played the ultimate Race Card, triumphantly tossing down the Queen of Slavery as a trump while her fellow affluent girlfriends swore on their "white skin privilege" to protect her from the Bad Man.


John McCain played a very safe, but ultimately impotent, retort: "Good point. That's an excellent point. Thank you." Huh? He punted.

Of course, sometimes there is nothing to do but punt. The problem is that Sen. McCain missed a real teaching moment. All he had to do was inform Whoopi that the Constitution protects her from slavery - the Thirteenth Amendment. And when judges strictly interpret the Constitution without weaseling around looking for new interpretations of a "living document", the protections all Americans enjoy (the pre-born excepted, thanks to activist judges playing loose and fast with our Constitution, spurred on by pro-abortion politicians and a culture of death) - such as the protection against forced labor - we all win.

McCain should have pointed out to her that slavery was outlawed by amending the Constitution, which would have been the proper legal channel for those who wished to see the federal government have the power to either prohibit or require the states to make abortion legal (neither of which are powers delegated to the federal government).

Here is what John McCain should have answered:

"Excellent point, Whoopi. I want to address that, because I think it's important. Slavery was abolished not because a judge was able to impose his own opinion, but because the Constitution was amended to give Congress the power to abolish slavery. Would you want to place your freedom in the hands of a changing, politically appointed handful of judges based on their ever-changing interpretation, or would you rather have a black-and-white amendment explicitly spelled out and made crystal clear to everyone? Activist judges may get you what you want today, but they may well enslave you tomorrow. Can you imagine if the Supreme Court suddenly decided that the Thirteenth Amendment didn't mean what the plain language says it means? Can you imagine if they were to "find" a "new" right to enslave other people where the document says nothing of the sort? This is why I believe in a strict reading of the Constitution. It protects you from being a slave."

I can think of one of Sen. McCain's conservative colleagues in the Congress who would have given an answer along those lines. Instead, Sen. McCain surrendered the ground.

If he wins the election, let's hope he doesn't surrender the actual Constitution in the real world the way he squandered a golden opportunity to defend it on a TV show.


Brian P Westgate said...

Long live that conservative colleague! Now if only he'd read the Scriptures like he does the Constitution, so that he might join one of our parishes.

Father Hollywood said...


I'd be satisfied if our own synod and district officials would read the scriptures and the confessions without turning them into "waxen noses" or "living documents."