For a while there, I thought liberals were actually taking their defeat at the polls rather graciously. Then I heard that a man despondent over Bush's victory killed himself at ground zero, saw these insane reactions to the election by San Francisco leftists, and watched the commentary on The McLaughlin Group on Sunday in utter disbelief.

In the course of a half-hour program, Eleanor Clift claimed that the judicial ramifications of the election could lead to a liberal "revolution," while Lawrence O'Donnell opined that "secession" in the next twenty years is a real possibility for some of the blue states. Clift may have been using the word "revolution" rhetorically, but O'Donnell was as serious as a heart attack. Someone remind me why this unglued individual remains a regular feature of talking-head shows? O'Donnell behaved as a lunatic a few weeks back when John O'Neill of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth appeared on MSNBC. Now he's discussing the idea of secession--thus far, I've seen no television commentator but him float this--because his side lost the election. Boo-hoo!

"Secession" is a kissing cousin of "states rights". What are the odds that federalism will, once again, become the clarion call of the party of Jefferson and Jackson?

What are the odds that the "governing party" will become the "party of government"? Given the trend in voting and spending patterns, the odds are good.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

"Now he's discussing the idea of secession ... because his side lost the election. Boo-hoo!"

Wasn't that the reason the South took seceded? Don't like the legitimate results of an election, just fire on Fort Sumter and talk about phantom rights.

Brad: That is the reason why the initial southern states seceded, but it was NOT the reason the moderate southern states [e.g. Virginia] seceded.

What is ironic is that the Bush's win caused O'Donnell's threat of secession, but Bush's win itself was caused by the liberal destruction of federalism, federalising moral issues like contraception then abortion, and now threatening h-mo marriage. And now O'Donnell is appealing to the ultimate principle of federalism and states' rights, that of secession.

If we had just kept to those "phantom rights" in the first place, we wouldn't have to fight the culture war at the national level, and abortion would not be nationally legal.

How can you object to Roe v. Wade, Brad, if you call the basic principle of federalism "phantom rights"?

"How can you object to Roe v. Wade, Brad, if you call the basic principle of federalism 'phantom rights'?"

Easily. I do not oppose Roe v. Wade because it is anti-federalist. I oppose it because the murder of unborn children is evil.

Brad: it is a serious mistake to abandon rule of law just so that your side can win in a particular policy issue. Roe v Wade is wrong not just because of its consequences, but because it abandons the rule of law, viz. the constitution's federalism. That is, it is invalid as law, and not just a bad law.

In this regard you are just like the liberals. You don't care whether something is unconstitutional; you only care that your side wins here and now. In the long run this is very bad for a country (and quite unconservative.)

This discussion reminded me of a great scene in the play/film A Man For All Seasons (which I found with a quick google search). It is an exchange between St. Thomas More and his very rash son-in-law William Roper:

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forrester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

An argument over the merits and current state of federalism is too grand a topic for FlynnFiles.

Leaving that aside, what is to prevent me from interpreting the 14th amendment, Section 1 as a federal ban on abortion? - "nor shall any State deprive any person of life ... without due process of law; nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws." Given the Bush administration's official definition of "person," abortion fails on both counts.

The waters surrounding abortion are deep and clear.

The laws of men have their place, but when they contravene the natural law they are ipso facto invalid. The martyrs new this fact well.

To pine about the rule of law when hundreds of millions of children have been slaughtered is to drastically misplace priorities.

Make that "knew"; damn phonetic spelling!

No topic is too grand for Flynn Files!

I think you make a great case about abortion Brad and I agree with you. The exchange from A Man For All Seasons is only to indicate the issue of methods, that a means to a noble end is not justified simply by that end.

Brad: the scene from A Man From All Seasons only undermines your case by defending the importance of defending human law, which is what you're scoffing at.

Regarding your construal of 14th Amendment,
1) the due process clause, "nor shall ANY STATE deprive any person of life ... without due process of law" would only outlaw the STATE from performing abortions.
2) the equal protection clause is more interesting, except that I doubt whether a zygote is a 'person' unless you mean simply by that "a living thing of the human species." But legal-historically I don't think it meant that.

In what will probably be the only reference to Boethius ever on Flynn Files, I consider a person to be a "individual substance of a rational nature" which would seem to be a definition that applies to a zygote. However, in terms of the legal tradition it is hard to say what would have been meant by the term person, but we can note that even with relatively poor knowledge of fetal development both contraception and abortion were generally outlawed until relatively recently in the nation's legal history.

This would indicate to me that the original understanding of the term "person" seems to include a zygote implicitly.