The use of the word, “choice” has been relevantly employed in the recitation of the contemporary plight of pregnant women who need or desire to abort their pregnancy but suffer the legal impediment of unconstitutional proscription of that natural right. The controversial issue, in our view, is more properly attributed to the overweening and pathological desire for power than the averred grounds of morality and religious obedience, The prohibition of this personal right of privacy and self-determination has proven to be the responsible cause of uncountable instances of suffering and tragic mortality and has been opposed under the public banner of “Right to Choose.”
The popularly known, existential, and contextual application of the “Right to Choose,” has additional relevance and reference to the exercise of many other inalienable rights of “choice,” most notably those foundationally inscribed in our constitution specifically prohibiting governmental interference and assuring the protection of the American citizen, It should require no authoritative or referential support to declare their legitimacy or universal application.
[V OTING] :
The democratic mantra: “One man,. one vote,” may constitute the greatest failure in our traditional assertions by the constitutional endurance of its roadblock, the “Electoral College.”
Five American Presidents in U.S. history have been elected President, despite losing the popular vote,.The most recent was Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump in 2006. We have read that Hillary Clinton garnered over 2.8 million votes than Trump, nationwide, but not enough key States to win the election. ( The 538 electors are determined by the size of their Congressional representation.) This constitutionally mandated (ART. 2) is inarguably undemocratic and violative of the declaration of, “One man, one vote.”.
In addition, “gerrymandering,” where shown, should be effectively criminalized, as should all species of democratic voter interference
[FREEDOM OFV SPEECH]:
The legally permissive existence of censorship is inarguably violative of the democratic feature of free speech. The profound evils of book banning and censorship in general (including the abridgment of curricula relative to all levels of education) are in principle, dissonant with our Nation’s protestations of free speech and liberty of expression. Consistent with the avowals of the Constitutional “Bill of Rights,” such arrogant, arbitrary arrogation of quasi-governmental authority is more empirically attributable to autocracy than Republican Democracy.
[RELIGION]:
The “Establishment Clause” (ART.1 ) of the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the government from establishing a State religion or influencing any religion or belief. Readers of American history are reliably informed that the (theistic) Founders, mindful of the European long and cruel history of established religion (viz., inquisitions, wars, social injustice, and cruelty), presciently created the referenced constitutional proscription.
Notwithstanding the clearly worded prohibition contained in the relevant Clause, American history has demonstrated intentional and demonstrative violation in several instances, One example was the “Blue Laws.” prohibiting commerce on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath. The criminal Statute provided punishment for any business enterprise (with a few exceptions, viz., milk and dairy) that chose to operate on Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, These religiously founded proscriptions were mercifully repealed after a substantial period of injustice.
A religious violation, causing substantial criminal disruption throughout the Nation was the c constitutionally offending, religious-based prohibition of alcoholic beverages (subsequently withdrawn by constitutional amendment).
[ WOMEN’S RIGHT OF ABORTION] :
The (quasi-religious) issue du jour, dramatically roiling the already divisive Nation has arisen from the recent withdrawal,( shockingly, approved by SCOTUS) of the natural and precedential right of women to obtain a termination of their pregnancy. This religious lobby-influenced policy is based upon nuanced moral-religious principles, and i; irrefutably contrary to the underlying theme and history of the Constitution, (viz., the protection of human rights, as opposed to their reduction), of human rights; and productive of countlessly avoidable tragic clinical consequences, and mortalities. Despite the clear language and philosophical context of the Establishment Clause, evinces the recent influence of the religious lobby upon contemporary SCOTUS, especially upon its demonstrably irresponsible and deceitful, Justice Samuel Alito, and has unconstitutionally and materially limited citizen choice. This alarming and impactful reversal of constitutional intent and policy, as known, is popularly identified as a denial of the “right of choice.” As we have declared, above, this, most egregious and damaging denial of choice is the most horrific, but not the sole instance, of denial of citizen’s basic rights.
As thematically shown, the latter is the most egregious denial of “choice” albeit, admittedly the most negatively impactful, is neither singular nor exclusive. We will materially enhance the “Founders”” radical experiment when these denials of choice are properly recognized, considered, and ameliorated.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 