WASHINGTON, April 16, 2016 – When Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton appeared on ABC’s “The View,” Paula Faris elevated that silly TV daytime talk show by asking a rather profound question.
“I want to ask you about some comments that you made over the weekend on Meet the Press regarding abortion. You said, quote, ‘The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.’ My question is at what point does someone have constitutional rights, and are you saying that a child, on its due date, just hours before delivery still has no constitutional rights?”
“Under our law,” Clinton answered coldly, “that is the case.”
That answer was eerily reminiscent of those that prosecutors heard when questioning Nazi officials standing trial before the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg.
“I was just following orders. You know, the law.”
But there exists a more profound natural law. The one engraved upon our hearts and minds.
Saint Paul in the New Testament book of Romans writes,
“For the invisible things of him [God] from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and deity; so that they [humanity] are without excuse.”
Thomas Jefferson, echoing these sentiments, wrote in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
What connects the two paragraphs above, you ask?
Both are moral declarations that refuse to absolve kings or commoners of their moral obligation to acknowledge “self-evident” truths, thus leaving them “without excuse.”
In other words, within all of is sits a moral compass.
These truths, insisted Jefferson, entitled free Americans “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”
Or as John Locke wrote in his 1690 “Treatise on Government,”
“To understand political power right… we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.”
And who is it that dispenses these rights? According to St. Paul, John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, our “Creator.”
Hillary Clinton disagrees, bowing to a much higher authority. One that parcels out “rights” on a whim – a majority of robed lawyers sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.
That same august authority ruled in 1857 that neither Dred Scott nor any African-American had rights “which the white man was bound to respect”:
“The question is simply this,” wrote Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the high court’s majority opinion, “can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?”
Godlike, Justice Taney answered his own question.
“No one of that race had ever migrated to the United States voluntarily; all of them had been brought here as articles of merchandise… The only power conferred [by the Constitution] is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner in his [property] rights.”
It took a civil war and the 13th Amendment to extinguish the lie of slavery from the Constitution to bring it – and the despicable high court – into compliance with the Declaration’s “self-evident” truths.
But the Supreme Court fell back on old habits 116 years later in its 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling by stripping an entire class of Americans, the unborn, of their humanity and thus the “Right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
But most of all, life.
This election year, Hillary Clinton and her Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders are vying for the votes of America’s youth. And Hillary’s views downplaying individual freedom is right in sync with the views of many Millennials (ages 18-34).
According to the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of young Americans believe the government should have the power to curtail speech. And “nearly twice as many Democrats” (35 percent), compared with Republicans (18 percent), believe the same.
Ironically, they found a 70 percent majority of Germans, whose world-view and skewed moral compass triggered two world wars and the Jewish Holocaust, is right in line with a substantial number of U.S. Millennials.
And campus Millennials are organizing to stamp out open displays of liberty that make them sad. A protest sign at Amherst College proclaimed, “We condemn freedom of speech that hurts other people’s feelings.”
Back in 2015, the Annenberg Public Policy Center found only 31 percent of Americans “could name all three branches of the U.S. government.”
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the center’s director, said “those who can identify… key provisions in the Bill of Rights are more likely to support the system embodied in the Constitution.”
That does not bode well for the future survival of ordered liberty in America.
It is “self-evident” that a growing number of America’s deluded youth have forgotten the meaning of freedom.
And they, like Hillary, are “without excuse.”