I must take issue with some factual errors presented by Skippy earlier this week:
Once upon a time, Limbaugh was what is considered a “strict construction list,” meaning that if a given right isn’t explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t exist. This was the argument Rush and ilk endlessly offer against abortion rights.
A ‘strict construction list’ is a very useful engineering document. As a Theory of Interpretation of the Law or Constitution, it’s not so useful. In layman’s terms, ‘Constructionism‘ is a theory of interpretation that limits the understanding to the plain meaning of the terms used. Many Conservatives prefer a related theory, ‘Originalism,‘ wherein the interpreted understanding is limited to the original meaning and intent of the terms used.
Continued after the jump…
The founding Fathers’ Declaration of Independence and subsequent Constitution were clear that Natural Rights and concomitant responsibilities derive uniquely from Providence.
They accepted that rights preceded the Constitution. The Constitution was structured in such a way as to grant only limited Powers to government to infringe upon mankind’s rights. The Bill of Rights was a precarious attempt to enumerate specific rights reserved to the People in an attempt to bolster them against aggressive government power. The mere existence of the list often leads to the misunderstanding that rights are therefore limited to those on the list.
It is safe to assume that the majority of conservatives do not consider the Bill as the sum total of Rights.
Conservatives may debate as to the extent of a God-given Right to Privacy. Privacy in a doctor’s office is one thing that’s nearly universally agreed upon. However, Conservatives almost universally agree that the means by which the Constitutional Right to Privacy was enumerated is bad law.
Conservatives generally agree that human life is a gift from the Creator and that life begins at the moment of conception. In this view, it is no longer just “a woman’s body” and a “fetus” but a woman’s body carrying a new human life – with it’s own human rights worthy of protection.
Conservatives generally agree that the Constitution does not enumerate, and that God does not provide, a Right to Murder.
Therefore…conservatives generally agree that the new Constitutional right to privacy is not to be conflated with a right to murder, especially where the new life poses no immediate threat to the mother and where adoption services abound. Conservatives straightforwardly reject the view that one may extrapolate a very reasonable privacy right into permission to murder. This is the point that Rush and his ilk have been making.
I have listened to Rush for almost nine years, and in that time I can not recall Mr. Limbaugh or any Conservative, for that matter, reject the notion of “abortion rights” because it can’t be found in the Bill of Rights [or on a friggin’ construction list.]
When I first started listening to Rush, I found that I was growing mad as Hell. Not at Rush; rather he agreed with most of my principles. I was angry at having been suckered for so many years by media and liars of the Left who had grossly mischaracterized Rush’s message.
As a Conservative it’s against my libertarian principles to tell you whether or not you should listen to Limbaugh (or Levin or Ingraham or or or…) I will say that Rush doesn’t waste my time, even when he’s wrong.