It’s difficult to believe the left doesn’t understand these basics

Thank a teacher

In the aftermath of Trump’s victory, it is difficult to find women online - pundits, hosts, talking heads, Democrat press secretaries – not living down to the accelerating societal expectation that these women are perhaps not voting in the best interests of the nation or our future.

If you’ve not noticed over the past couple of years, a significant acceleration of written opinion is centered on the idea that women voters are more than a bit problematic. For every woman denying this, it seems we have 100 women demanding we vote on race or sex or abortion. The focus on these immutable characteristics and one single – completely misunderstood – policy, to the detriment of security, safety, war, geopolitics, education, the border, law and order… only proves correct the men and women beginning to look askance at the Nineteenth Amendment. 

If voting for a woman because she’s a woman, or for abortion, or for “no one is illegal” when not understanding the current constitutional framework and laws is your driving force in the voting booth, then perhaps you shouldn’t be voting. All you are doing is proving that men – and more than a few women - are correct in seeing your vote as emotional and not rational, and thereby rightly considering denying the franchise.

Of what seem to be the two driving issues of the 2024 election, let’s look at abortion first.

For the party demanding that “our democracy” is in danger, it might be good to look at how our representative democratic republic (not “democracy”) is designed. At a macro level, we limit the power of the federal government to specific issues. These are defined in the Constitution as the “enumerated powers.” Abortion is not among them. The federal government has no authority to legalize or to outlaw abortion – period. (The widely-misunderstood “Supremacy Clause” applies ONLY to conflicts between state legislation and the federal enumerated powers for the simple reason that, outside the enumerated powers, the federal government has no authority on which to demand supremacy.)

Supporting “our democracy” means supporting our constitutional limits.

To say that overturning Roe cancelled a woman’s “right” to an abortion is a facile and misleading understanding of “our democracy.” Roe, in fact, was outside the authority of the federal government; SCOTUS, a part of our federal (not “national”) government so limited had no constitutional authority to take the case. But, if we take Roe as having created a “right,” all it did was to prohibit the outlawing of abortion during the first trimester. Roe left abortion after the first trimester up to the states to proscribe or not as desired by the democratically-elected legislature of each state. You can look that up.

Because abortion is not among the enumerated powers allocated to the federal government, it necessarily falls under the Tenth Amendment and – solely – to the states. Dobbs recognized this and returned the issue to the states, where it constitutionally belongs.

If you object to Roe being overturned because you want an abortion after the first trimester, you never understood Roe. If you want an abortion legalized at the federal level, you are in opposition to the Constitution and “our democracy.” If you want an abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason, move or travel to a state allowing this or work to amend the Constitution.

It is THAT simple. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s a Constitutional issue. The Bill of Rights places abortion in the hands of the legislatures of the several states. Dobbs fit abortion into the Constitutional framework of “our democracy.”

Illegal immigration.

Interestingly, illegal immigration … is illegal. Who wrote the law? Ted Kennedy, the “Liberal Lion of the Senate.” What does the law require of illegals? That they be deported. One can yammer all one wants about Trump’s much-ballyhooed “million deportations;” what he is doing is following the law. If you don’t like the law – but like “our democracy,” your job is to change the law while enforcing the current law, as “our democracy” is based on the rule of law. If Trump were to act as the dictator lefty talking heads are insisting he will, Trump would act outside the rule of our democratically-enacted laws… and not deport these illegals. Which do you prefer? I prefer that the president obey and enforce the law.

Objecting to the deportation of illegal aliens is objecting to the rule of law and demanding the rule of man, i.e. authoritarianism… the opposite of “saving our democracy.” This has recently been expressed as “a pen and a phone” by a president absolutely rejecting “our democracy” and the rule of law.

So. Dobbs simply returned abortion to its constitutional place, and mass deportation simply will enforce our democratically-made law.

For those who missed logic in school, here’s a summary of the above: One cannot support the rule of law and our Constitutional republic… AND … demand federal involvement in abortion and to not deport illegals.