I did this up for a class tonight. Maybe something on clouds tomorrow.

Ry Amidon

Write-Up on Abortion, Three Candidates

June 12, 2007

Abortion

The issue of abortion rights has been a prominent and contentious issue in American politics for decades and its controversy does not seem likely to fade from the spotlight in 2008. The question of abortion is a major aspect of presidential politics because, beyond limitations such as “partial-birth” bans, consent laws, and waiting periods it is entirely a federal matter; Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113), decided in 1973 under the Burger court, mandated that the right to of a woman to have an abortion was protected under the Fourteenth Amendment[i] and struck down all state laws prohibiting abortion. The democratic candidates are fairly unified on this issue, and are all pro-choice; little attention need be paid. Republicans take differing positions on the matter, with some opposing abortion procedures with certain exceptions, including at least one pro-choicer. Some, such as Arizona Senator John McCain write overtly of “overturning” the 1973 Supreme Court decision[ii]. Any president’s ability to “overturn” is limited to indirect methods, due to the separation of the three branches of government; all he/she could do is hope for a more liberal justice of the High Court to peace out or keel over to allow for the appointment of an adjudicator who will adjudicate in favor of abortion restrictions. Stevens, a moderate-to-liberal Ford appointee (long may he live) looks like a good candidate. The replacement of a moderate or liberal judge with a conservative one would tip the ideological balance of the Court safely to the conservatives:

A List of the Pretty Conservative Supreme Court Justices[iii]:

-Alito

-Thomas

-Roberts

-Scalia

Moderates:

-Kennedy

-Souter

Liberals:

-Bader-Ginsburg

-Stevens

-Breyer

So, if a judge such as Stevens were replaced by another Thomas or Alito, the conservatives would have a solid 5, the majority needed to decide a case. Presidential candidates (and possibly the voting public, too) are very aware of this scenario and most make clear their stance on abortion, though some have records that indicate a change of mind. Here is what the deal is.

Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is pro-life, the pure, simple, and old-fashioned way. As president, he says he would protect life at every stage. This war-enthusiast says he hopes that “one day America will remember the value we once placed on human life”[iv]. Maybe one day, Senator.

Former governor of Virginia Jim Gilmore is opposed to abortion, and did everything in his power to restrict in during his tenure there including: a waiting period, parental notification, and “partial-birth” ban[v]. Interestingly enough, the state’s motto, “Sic semper tyrannis” is what John Wilkes Booth said after he killed our 16th president.

Former American Hero—errr- New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is in favor of “reasonable restrictions[vi]” on abortion, which in the English language means he believes there is a right to abortion, but would like to see fewer of them; he does not want Roe overturned but will ecstatically support parental notification and the usual ban on “partial birth” business.

Former governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee opposes abortion rights[vii]. Yawn. His state’s motto is “Regnat populus.” It means the people rule, and was instituted during the Civil War.

California Congressman Duncan Hunter is not afraid to get specific about his opposition to abortion rights. He would support a Right to Life amendment to the Constitution. He has proudly cosponsored many pieces of legislation limiting abortion and other fetus-related acts. He also opposes “Fetus Farming,” and having government funded abortions for soldiers or their dependents overseas[viii]. Neat.

Arizona Senator John McCain, as mentioned above would like to overturn Roe v Wade. He says he will nominate judges who won’t confuse their judicial rule with a legislative one, and that it the government should make it easier for a woman to give birth to an unwanted child “by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need.[ix]” He would also promote the practice of adoption.

A US Representative of Texas, Ron Paul, says that Roe was “wrongly decided” and that the matter should be left up to the states. Ron is also for banning “partial birth” abortions[x].

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo also believes Roe v Wade was “wrongly decided,” and sees it as a state issue. Also, Tom thinks we need education on “the potential life-long medical problems and emotional scarring associated with abortions[xi]”. (That's a good idea, Tom we should do the same thing for people who want to enlist in the military!)

Former Wisconsin Governor and Health and Human Services Secretary Thomas “Tommy” Thompson says that he is pro-life, and touts having signed one of the first bans on “partial birth” abortion; he promises to appoint “strict constructionist” judges to the bench[xii].

Actor/Former Tennessee Senator/Red-Truck Leaser Fred Thompson has only just kicked off his run for office. His stance on the abortion issue is kind of unclear right now and remains to see what his officially stated position will be. In the past he has supported Roe and characterized abortion as a personal decision with which the government has no right to interfere[xiii]. His website is called I’m With Fred!

Former Massachusetts Governor with “shoulders you could land a 737 on[xiv]” Mitt Romney states on his website that he is pro-life with the exception of cases of rape, incest, and a threat to the life of the mother[xv]. However, in a 1994 senate campaign he claimed to support abortion rights[xvi].

The abortion rights issue is a crucial one for republican candidates because it can help determine two important factors: the percentage of the moderate vote that they get, the percentage of the coveted conservative Christian vote that they get. A more pro-choice opinion would probably increase the former while a strict pro-life stance would attract conservatives.

Romney, Tancredo, Dodd

Mitt Romney (R), a Mormon, was elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2002, and after serving a term decided that he would rather be president of the United States. Romney has an MBA and a JD from Harvard and was a participant in well-paying business ventures in the eighties and nineties before becoming President and CEO of the organizing committee for the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, claiming to have erased a multi-million dollar deficit[xvii]. The governor’s biggest problem in this election may be his changes of opinion on some key social issues. He claims to be pro-life, but ran as a pro-choicer in a 1994 senate race; Romney also says he is against same sex marriages and civil unions, despite having supported such a law in his own state as governor[xviii]. Motives aside, it is clear that the former governor of a very liberal state has moved farther to the right on some controversial social issues, and explaining these switches clearly may pose a challenge to his campaign. He is in third place in CNN polls in Iowa[xix] and New Hampshire[xx].

Chris Dodd (D)is a senator from Connecticut who has been a member of Congress since 1975[xxi]. Like the other democratic senators running for president who were serving at the time, Dodd voted to authorize the Iraq War in 2002[xxii]. That has turned out to be kind of unpopular with a lot of people, and if the Senator wishes to gain the confidence of voting liberals his campaign will have to do what Edwards, Clinton, and Biden also must do which is succinctly defend or excuse the vote and lay out a comprehensible plan for the future.

Tom Tancredo (R), a US Representative from Colorado is a fairly conservative type whose biggest issue is immigration. “As President, I will secure our borders so illegal aliens do not come, and I will eliminate benefits and job prospects so they do not stay,” says Tancredo[xxiii]. He holds conservative positions on most major issues and is currently polling at about 2 percent according to CNN[xxiv].

---

[i] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_18/ [All sites accessed June 11, 2007]

[ii] http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

[iii] These categorizations are my own estimates, and not based on any sort of verifiable fact.

[iv] http://www.brownback.com/s/Issues/tabid/60/Default.aspx#Life

[v] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/jim.gilmore.html

[vi] http://www.joinrudy2008.com/index.php?section=2

[vii] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mike.huckabee.html

[viii] http://www.gohunter08.com/inner.asp?z=4

[ix] http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm

[x] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ron.paul.html

[xi] http://www.teamtancredo.com/tancredo_issues_index.asp

[xii] http://www.tommy2008.com/On_The_Issues.aspx

[xiii] http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr070600.html

[xiv] http://mediamatters.org/items/200706060004

[xv] http://www.mittromney.com/Issue-Watch/Values

[xvi] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mitt.romney.html

[xvii] http://www.mittromney.com/Learn-About-Mitt/Mittxs_Biography

[xviii] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/mitt.romney.html

[xix] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/iowa.html

[xx] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/states/new.hampshire.html

[xxi] http://www.chrisdodd.com/about

[xxii] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/chris.dodd.html

[xxiii] http://www.teamtancredo.com/tancredo_issues_index.asp

[xxiv] http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/tom.tancredo.html

Ry Amidon

American Political Thought – Anti-Federalism

November 10, 2006

When the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, rather than modifying the Articles of Confederation as planned, announced its plan for a new government in September, 1787 the response was not unified. Publicly, opinion was divided into two camps. Those in favor of the Constitution are historically known as the Federalists, and those opposed are referred to as Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists held in common several criticisms of the proposed Constitution, including: the lack of a Bill of Rights, a tendency towards aristocratic rule, the comparatively small size of the Senate and House of Representatives, the supremacy of the Federal government, and the consolidation of the thirteen states into what they believed was too large of a republic. The Anti-Federalist arguments had their imperfections as well as strengths. Some were in my assessment, unrealistic, petty, or speculative. Other concerns were far-sighted, poignant, or enlightening. I will examine the Anti-Federalist concerns, their merits, and shortcomings in this essay.

The greatest legacy of the Anti-Federalist movement is the Bill of Rights, as there was none included at the time of ratification. The framers of the Constitution had concluded that one was unneeded, because the people were reserved all rights not explicitly sacrificed in the Constitution. This is in line with the Social Contract Theory, which states that citizens give up certain rights in the formation of a government but retain those rights not taken, as long as they abide by the contract. The Framers did see a need to include some civil rights protections, however. Under Section 3 of Article 1, habeas corpus in legal proceedings was made mandatory, while titles of nobility and ex post-facto laws were prohibited. “The people surrender nothing,” Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Paper number 84, “and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations” (Kammen 237). The Anti-Federalists were skeptical that the government would not encroach on the liberties of its citizens as people in power have historically been “ever active to enlarge their powers and abridge the public liberty” (Kammen 315). This proved to be a valid concern when the Federalists, under the presidency of John Adams, passed the Sedition Act which criminalized the publication of “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” about the government (5^th Congress, 2^nd Session, Ch 74, Sec 2). This was not the only such violation; a similar law restricting criticism of the government during war time was passed 120 years later under the Woodrow Wilson administration.

The Anti-Federalists wanted a Bill of Rights not only to protect individual rights, but also those of the states. Concerns about the extent and vagueness of federal authority led to the inclusion of a tenth article to the Bill of Rights. This amendment handed whatever powers not given to the federal government over to the states “or the people,” and was an important addition to a document championed by people concerned with retaining as much local control of their lives and government as possible.

The legislative branch was a point of concern for the Anti-Federalists because of its size, powers, and its approach to representation. “The federal representative branch will have but very little democracy in it,” as the Federal Farmer put it (Kammen 276). The proposed Senate at the time would be composed of twenty six members; the House would have sixty five members. Critics saw this as far too few representatives for a nation of millions, and were even more worried about how few legislators were required to do business. “The power of making any law,” writes the Federal Farmer,” will be in the president, eight senators, and seventeen representatives,” (Kammen 280); this is consistent with the Anti-Federalists concerns about the concentration of power and the distancing of law-making from the people under the proposed constitution.

The Federal Farmer was using a hypothetical situation to demonstrate the degree to which power could be concentrated, but the author is focusing on the worst-case scenario. Legislators may have a long distance to travel to the capitol, but the likelihood of only the bare minimum number of legislators showing up for business is slim.

Anti-Federalist writers predicted that such an unusually disproportionate (particularly when compared with the British Parliament) number of representatives and senators, as well as the powers they hold, would create a “strong tendency to aristocracy, or the government of the few” (Kammen 278). Having so few seats, Anti-Federalists argued, meant that political power on the national level would be available only to the most wealthy and elite members of society. Critics also noted that state legislatures at the time often had hundreds of members representing a population which was much smaller than the nation, which had fewer than one hundred representatives and senators for all thirteen of its states. Such a small group of people, the Anti-Federalists argued, would not possibly be able to represent all the diverse interests, beliefs, and needs of the people of such a vast country. As a result of this disconnect of the legislature from the common people, Anti-Federalists believed that the military would be needed to create compliance with the law. The Federal Farmer predicted a bleak future: “the general government, far removed from the people…will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view…to make the government feared and respected” (Kammen 274). The Whiskey Rebellion of 1791-4, when militias were called to quell an anti-federal tax uprising in Pennsylvania, appeared to validate this concern shortly after the implementation of the new government.

Anti-Federalists also saw some of the proposed representation methods as unfair. The infamous Three Fifths Compromise, which allowed every five slaves to count as three people when determining the number of representatives apportioned to a state. To Anti-Federalists, this made no sense. Slaves had no legal ability in government or society; they had no ability to vote, could not own property, etc. Slaves were legally property under the total control of their masters, and the Three Fifths Compromise allowed slave owners to use their property for their own political benefit. Federalists saw the Compromise as essential to the continuation of the Union, Anti-Federalists, like Brutus, saw it as an absurd policy: “If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the states and the oxen in others, ought to be represented” (Kammen 320). This is a very strong point that the Anti-Federalists made, which ought to have received more attention because slave owners could continue importing slaves for several years to increase their state’s share of representatives, effectively buying seats in the legislature.

Anti-Federalists saw the powers given to Congress and the president as too broad and vague, while the framers of the constitution saw strong federal government as a necessity in the preservation and security of the country. Anti-Federalists would have preferred a federal government which had narrow, specific, and enumerated powers. Any power not specifically granted to the federal government should be reserved for the state and local government, which, according to the Anti-Federalists, were better able to consider the interests of their constituents. Another point of concern for Anti-Federalists was that Congress had control over the government’s funds, which in turn allowed them to control all other powers by cutting or increasing spending. This has proved to be true in that Congress can, and has forced states to change their laws or risk losing federal monies. For example, under a section of the Federal Highway Act (Title 23, Section 158) which was enacted in 1985, any state which has a drinking age lower than twenty one will lose ten percent of its Federal Highway funding. This turned out to be an effective way for Congress to control states’ drinking age laws; today not a single state in the union has a drinking age less than 21.

Anti-Federalists also thought the United States of America was too large of a country to be effectively governed by a federal republic which had far too few representatives for the new nation’s large and diverse population. It was also argued that a populace so varying in interests and political beliefs would tend to lose confidence in and connection with the federal government. Having so few legislators making decisions affecting such a large and diverse body of citizens would cause the common people to be “acquainted with very few of their rulers” (Kammen 311), and the rulers would likely know very few of the common people.

The sentiments of localities would not be as well represented as in state legislatures, which tended to have hundreds of members for the whole state as compared to fewer than a hundred members for the entire country. Anti-Federalists believed that the states were far better equipped to satisfy the numerous different demands of their citizens. They took to quoting Montesquieu, who popularized the belief that republics can not persist long over large areas. “In a small [republic],” Montesquieu wrote, “the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen” (Kammen 308). Anti-Federalists felt that in a country as large as the United States, there was no practical way that the government could be in touch with the interests, needs, and beliefs of the common folk.

This detachment, according to Anti-Federalist writers, could lead to domestic insurrection and despotism. If certain factions feel that their interests are not being represented in the legislative process then they can refuse to obey the laws. If civil disobedience is rampant, the government may choose to use the military to force cooperation. Government leaders might see this as useful tool to promote domestic peace and engage in it more often. Anti-Federalists saw this as one of the ways in which the United States constitution can lead to aristocracy.

The Anti-Federalists were fearful of the democratic-republic transforming into an aristocracy backed by a standing army. In history, there have been rebellious factions in the population that have been upset about a lack of representation, and they have been stopped by military force. This was seen in the Whiskey Rebellion as mentioned above, when citizens upset about tax laws rebelled against the government and were beaten by militia. However, political participation, rather than rebellion has been a more common tool of dissatisfied citizens, and domestic use of the military has not been a tool used too frequently by the federal government. Federalists also believed that the country was not too big for a republic. They saw the mixed form of government, the checks and balances, the administrative decentralization combined with governmental centralization, etc. as methods of controlling as well protecting local interests. This Anti-Federalist argument was somewhat unrealistic.

Some Anti-Federalist concerns about the Constitution have carried over to contemporary political culture: the “states’ rights” debate has been prevalent since the early days of the Constitution, even sparking a civil war, the United States has added thirty seven states since the early days of the Constitution which makes the “vast” thirteen state nation seem tiny and easy to run, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most prominent and fought-over aspects of Constitutional law, and has proved to be very necessary in protecting individual liberties from infringements by the federal government.

Some of the Anti-Federalists’ arguments were valuable and influential in the formation of the constitution. They can claim credit to the first ten constitutional amendments known as the Bill of Rights, which the Framers did not even see as necessary, but have in countless circumstances been essential to the preservation of civil liberties. The absurdity of the Three Fifths Compromise was not apparent to most political leaders until much later, but Anti-Federalists were criticizing it from the start. Some arguments were unrealistic or unlikely situations, such as the bare-minimum of legislators showing up to do business, or the transformation from democracy to military despotism because of insufficient concern for local interests. Overall, the Anti-Federalists publicly pinpointed some important flaws in the Constitution, which aided in its modification towards a more perfect document.

Works Cited

The text of the Sedition Act can be found here:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi- bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=719

Title 23 of the US Code is available here: http://epw.senate.gov/title23.pdf

Kammen, Michael Ed. The Origins of the American Constitution: A Documentary History. Penguin: New York. 1986