Stranger in a strange land - A reply! by Steven R. Snow
(originally printed in Laconia Citizen 11/4/04)
Still same country
Editor, The Citizen:
I'm not sure why Stephen McBrian felt like he had awakened in a different country Wednesday morning. After all, nothing much really has changed. George W. Bush is still the President, and the Republicans still have majorities in both houses of Congress, although the majorities are slightly larger now. We lost a Republican governor in this state, and the state went for Kerry, which should have made Mr. McBrian happy. Mr. McBrian thinks that voting for President Bush is worse than voter fraud? May I infer that he would have condoned election fraud by the Democrats if it had resulted in the defeat of President Bush? I sure hope that is not what he meant. Why did Mr. McBrian call people homophobes, just because they reaffirmed what nearly everyone has understood since time immemorial, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
As for Roe v Wade, he spreads a misconception that women will lose the right to abort their pre-born babies if that ruling is overturned. Actually that is not generally true. It would mean only that jurisdiction over abortion law would revert to the states, the way it was before Roe v Wade. In New Hampshire, for example, all of the state's abortion laws were repealed during Jeanne Shaheen's tenure in the Governor's office, so even if Roe v Wade were to be overturned, New Hampshire women would continue to enjoy that right. There may be some states with laws against abortion still on the books, but those laws could be repealed if the majority of citizens of those states want them repealed.
A conservative Supreme Court could be good for liberals, too. If the Court truly interpreted the Constitution literally (the dream of most true conservatives!), then it would act to protect the states and the people from an overly powerful central government, whether that government was controlled by conservatives or liberals. Since the Constitution reserves the power to declare war to the Congress, one could envision that strict interpretation of the Constitution might restrain the President from entering into a war not supported by the Congress. Mr. McBrian might appreciate that, I think. If not, Canada is not far away, Mr. McBrian. You might like it better there.
Steven R. Snow
Still same country
Editor, The Citizen:
I'm not sure why Stephen McBrian felt like he had awakened in a different country Wednesday morning. After all, nothing much really has changed. George W. Bush is still the President, and the Republicans still have majorities in both houses of Congress, although the majorities are slightly larger now. We lost a Republican governor in this state, and the state went for Kerry, which should have made Mr. McBrian happy. Mr. McBrian thinks that voting for President Bush is worse than voter fraud? May I infer that he would have condoned election fraud by the Democrats if it had resulted in the defeat of President Bush? I sure hope that is not what he meant. Why did Mr. McBrian call people homophobes, just because they reaffirmed what nearly everyone has understood since time immemorial, that marriage can only be between a man and a woman?
As for Roe v Wade, he spreads a misconception that women will lose the right to abort their pre-born babies if that ruling is overturned. Actually that is not generally true. It would mean only that jurisdiction over abortion law would revert to the states, the way it was before Roe v Wade. In New Hampshire, for example, all of the state's abortion laws were repealed during Jeanne Shaheen's tenure in the Governor's office, so even if Roe v Wade were to be overturned, New Hampshire women would continue to enjoy that right. There may be some states with laws against abortion still on the books, but those laws could be repealed if the majority of citizens of those states want them repealed.
A conservative Supreme Court could be good for liberals, too. If the Court truly interpreted the Constitution literally (the dream of most true conservatives!), then it would act to protect the states and the people from an overly powerful central government, whether that government was controlled by conservatives or liberals. Since the Constitution reserves the power to declare war to the Congress, one could envision that strict interpretation of the Constitution might restrain the President from entering into a war not supported by the Congress. Mr. McBrian might appreciate that, I think. If not, Canada is not far away, Mr. McBrian. You might like it better there.
Steven R. Snow
posted by M.C. Steve | 2:09 PM
2 Comments:
is this a real person or yr alter ego?
This was written by the 'real' Steven R. Snow...whomever he is, he is as 'real' as you and me!
~steve
Post a Comment
<< Home