We
currently have two candidates for president, who represent fundamentally
different views of the role of checks and balances and of crucial first
amendment rights in American politics.
One has a demonstrated track record of bringing ideological opponents to
the table to find real solutions to problems; has emphasized the importance of
the different branches of government limiting themselves to their own
responsibilities; and has advocated for states being given more latitude in
solving problems their own way.
The
other has taken the position of partisanship, pushing for a polarizing agenda
to be forced through the political process in spite of bitter protest by half
of his constituents; has worked to circumvent constitutional checks and
balances on executive power by bullying and even lying to other branches of
government; and has declared support for policies that inevitably make states
and individuals more dependent on the whims of the Federal Government, and
which at the same time directly threaten Americans’ first amendment rights.
One of
these represents the ideal of political compromise written into the American
Constitution by our founding fathers.
The other reflects the image of a would-be tyrant seeking to consolidate
power. Their political backgrounds and
the social problems they seem most eager to solve are not my concern here, but rather
their attitude toward Americanism.
Before I
proceed, let me emphasize again: political ideology is not the question at
issue here; rather, the main thing is the willingness to keep or to break the
rules that protect American freedom.
I will
now give names and specifics to the situation I have described above:
The
advocate for compromise, governmental fair play, and state empowerment is
Governor Romney.
The
advocate for polarizing partisanship, consolidation of power, and attacks on
first amendment rights is President Obama.
And,
because this characterization of the President is harsh and demands
justification, I will demonstrate the truth of it using the example of the Affordable
Care Act (“ObamaCare”).
During
the heated debates surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA),
there was one issue which was particularly problematic—that of contraception
and abortion. As a matter of conscience,
Catholics and many American citizens of other faiths consider abortion and ‘day
after’ contraception to be murder. The
individual mandate included in the ACA would force these individuals and
organizations connected with their religious institutions to contribute money
to provide for abortions. As a matter of
conscience, then, the law would essentially require these individuals to help
others murder their children. Most if
not all who read this, regardless of whether they agree with the Catholic
position, may consider how they would feel if the government signed an order
forcing them to violate their own beliefs on an issue so fundamental to them as
would be killing an innocent person. This
law also creates a precedent of arbitrary government control in the operation
of American religious institutions.
Despite
complete opposition from conservatives in Congress (including a key swing group
of pro-life Democrats), Obama put extreme pressure on his party to support the
bill. He finally got enough support to
pass the bill by signing an executive order which ostensibly promised that the
ACA would not be used to fund abortions or abortive contraception. However, in January 2012, the Obama
administration reversed its position, circumventing Congress with its HHS contraception mandate requiring that all insurance policies
include free contraception. Due to intense
opposition to this requirement on the grounds of conscience, an amendment was
made that exempted churches but not their affiliated nonprofit organizations. The Catholic reaction to this ‘compromise’ has been decidedly unfavorable.
After
bullying and lying to Congress, President Obama turned to threatening the Supreme Court. The Court responded
by citing the classic case of Marbury v. Madison, where John Marshall notably
gave the President what he wanted while undercutting the executive’s power
through judicial review. In his decision
on the ACA, Chief Justice Roberts declared:
“We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make
policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders,
who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is
not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political
choices” (p. 6, emphasis added).
He then went on to declare provisions of the ACA to be a tax on
the American people, deflating the Obama administration’s arguments to the
contrary and reframing the issue squarely as a tax against conscience; or, in
other words, as the Federal Government’s ability to redefine Americans’ first
amendment rights.
Now,
public and individual health truly is a worthy cause, and President Obama and
his colleagues are not wrong or evil for pursuing those objectives. But they are doing so by using strategies
that polarize and alienate the American people, by bullying the other branches
of government, and by forcing large segments of the American people to violate
their established first amendment conscience rights—on the order of murder, in
their minds—in favor of the social cause of the day.
All
Americans need to recognize that this is not just an issue for the Christian faithful, or limited even to religious persons more generally: if the President
of the United States has the right to modify law to force religious
institutions to fund abortions in violation of their first amendment rights to
conscience, then the first amendment rights of all groups are at stake.
This particular president has shown that he is willing to trample these rights,
along with the checks and balances designed to protect them, in order to pursue
his social objectives. Thus, as Mike Huckabee said in response to the contraception mandate, “We’re all Catholics now.”
Governor
Romney, on the other hand, has shown a willingness and great skill at working
with people of opposing ideologies to find actual solutions to problems; has
insisted that it is Congress’ job—not the Presidents’—to write laws; and has advocated
backing the Federal Government out of issues that are constitutionally left to
individuals and the states.
These
are issues central to what it means to be Americans. Our forefathers fought the revolutionary war
over these issues. I think that we are all grateful that the free men of
that generation carried the day. We have
an opportunity now, tomorrow, in our generation, to decide whether we really believe
in a system of fair government, protected by checks and balances.
Colleagues
of mine in the military have confirmed reports that the gatekeepers of the
election process there have been attempting to discourage them from voting in
this critical election, and there have been rumors of voter fraud; all of this
points to the need for every American citizen with a legitimate vote to cast a
ballot, and ensure that, whatever happens in this election, it truly is the
will of The People. President Obama and Governor Romney are not really
the ones on trial in this election. Rather, it is we, The People, as the
final masters of our political destiny, who are on trial.
