{"id":664,"date":"2024-07-18T13:51:25","date_gmt":"2024-07-18T13:51:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/18\/caiati-on-feser-on-the-gop-platform-re-abortion\/"},"modified":"2024-07-18T13:51:25","modified_gmt":"2024-07-18T13:51:25","slug":"caiati-on-feser-on-the-gop-platform-re-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2024\/07\/18\/caiati-on-feser-on-the-gop-platform-re-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"Caiati on Feser on the GOP Platform re: Abortion"},"content":{"rendered":"

This just in from Dr. Vito Caiati:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I am wondering if you have been following the ongoing, intense debate on the GOP platform that has taken place on X and in several conservative online journals, which was ignited by Edward Feser and other social conservatives, who are strongly critical of the removal of long-standing planks supporting a national ban on abortion and in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, viewing both as fundamental capitulations to the increasingly hegemonic secular ideology of the Left. (Feser on X: \u201cThe Left will force us into the catacombs, while the Right will tell us that going into the catacombs voluntarily is the most politically realistic way to keep the Left from forcing us to go there\u201d). <\/span><\/p>\n

Yesterday, Feser posted a short piece on his blog, \u201cNow is the time for social conservatives to fight,\u201d that references his tweets on X and several articles on this matter (https:\/\/edwardfeser.blogspot.com\/<\/a>). I think what we are seeing here is the populist nature of the MAGA movement, headed by Trump, ever more openly differentiating itself from the traditional conservatism of the GOP, and I am curious to know your thoughts about this leftward cultural shift. I myself think that Feser makes some excellent points and see no reason for him and others not to fight for their moral and social ideals within the party, but also that, given the grave crisis of the nation, these do not justify any hesitation about aggressively supporting Trump\/Vance.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We've discussed this before, Vito.  See, for starters, Abortion and Last Night's GOP Debate<\/a> (24 August 2023).  There I wrote:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The overturning of Roe v. Wade returned the abortion question to the states. That means that each state is empowered to enact its own laws regulating abortion. Some states will permit abortion up to the moment of birth. Others will not. Different states, different laws.<\/span><\/p>\n

What then are we to make of Mike Pence and Senator Tim Scott and their call for a Federal law that bans abortion (apart from the usual exceptions) during the last 15 weeks of pregnancy? <\/span><\/p>\n

Am I missing something? (When I write about political and legal issues, I write as a concerned citizen and not as an expert in these areas.) It strikes me as obvious that if the abortion issue is for the states to decide, then there cannot<\/em> be any federal abortion laws. <\/span><\/p>\n

[. . .]<\/span><\/p>\n

The precise question is: How is a federal abortion restriction consistent with the states' right to decide the abortion laws? ND Governor Doug Burgum alone seemed to understand the problem, but his fleeting remark failed to set it forth clearly.<\/span><\/p>\n

The answer to the precise question is that the federal restriction is not consistent with states' rights. It is unconstitutional.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is not a very satisfying answer given that abortion is a moral abomination. (See my Abortion<\/a> category for arguments.) But arguments, no matter how good, cut no ice in the teeth of our concupiscence. This is explained in my Substack<\/em> article, Abortion and the Wages of Concupiscence Unrestrained.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the Comments, you agreed with me:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

\u201cThe precise question is: How is a federal abortion restriction consistent with the states' right to decide the abortion laws?\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Like you, Bill, I am no expert in constitutional law, but I believe that such a restriction would not be consistent with the right of the states to determine the law on this matter. The confusion of Pence and Scott appears to arise from their understanding of the wording of the Supreme Court in the Dobbs Case, in which the majority held: \u201cThe Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives\u201d (https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/19-1392_6j37.pdf).<\/a> Specifically, they seem to interpret the phrase \u201creturned to the people and their elected representatives\u201d as one that permits the federal legislature, the Congress, to establish a national ban on abortion during the last 15 weeks of pregnancy, save for unusual cases. However, I think that such an interpretation contradicts the Tenth Amendment, which decrees that \u201cThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\u201d Of the enumerated or expressed powers granted to the United States, i.e., the federal government, none include that of regulating abortion, nor is such regulation proscribed to the states; therefore, such power resides with the latter. Moreover, an attempt to utilize the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects the rights of individuals granted by the Constitution, would not permit federal intervention, since the Court found in Dobbs that it does not grant such a right.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Posted by: Vito B. Caiati | Friday, August 25, 2023 at 02:58 AM<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I responded:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

Vito's comment above is a model of how a good comment is constructed.<\/span><\/p>\n

Note that he deals directly<\/em> with the question I raised. He does not go off on a tangent, or change the subject to a topic that interests him but is not germane to my entry. He engages what I said and he lets me know whether he agrees or disagrees. As it is, he agrees.<\/span><\/p>\n

He then supplements what I said in two ways. He points out the relevance of the Tenth Amendment to the question I posed. That had occurred to me, but I failed to mention it. Governor Burgum alluded to it near the end of that segment of the debate when he whipped out his pocket Constitution.<\/span><\/p>\n

But what I found most useful in Vito's comment is his explanation of the confusion of Pence and Scott. Vito: >>Specifically, they seem to interpret the phrase \u201creturned to the people and their elected representatives\u201d as one that permits the federal legislature, the Congress, to establish a national ban on abortion during the last 15 weeks of pregnancy, save for unusual cases.<<<\/span><\/p>\n

So the mistake that Pence and Scott made was to confuse the people of the U.S. with the people of a particular state. Here is 10A again: \u201cThe powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

Now I don't think one has to be a Constitutional scholar to know what that means. "The people" refers to the people of a given state, such as North Dakota or Massachusetts, not to all the people of the U.S.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Posted by: BV | Friday, August 25, 2023 at 02:02 PM<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

See also: More on the Politics of Abortion: Ron Paul and Subsidiarity.<\/a>  (26 September 2023)  This entry is relevant to Feser's position inasmuch as he is a traditional Catholic who, I expect,  accepts the principle of subsidiarity.<\/span><\/p>\n

Also relevant to Feser's position is his integralism<\/a>. Another prominent integralist is Adrian Vermeule who refers to his integralism<\/a> as political Catholicism. According to integralism, traditional Roman Catholic abortion doctrine could be justifiably imposed by the state. <\/span><\/p>\n

As I recall, you accepted my rejection<\/a> of integralism.<\/span><\/p>\n

You say, " . . . Feser makes some excellent points and [I] see no reason for him and others not to fight for their moral and social ideals within the party . . . ."<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What are these points, Vito, and how could Feser fight for his abortion convictions within the American political system, given the Dobbs decision?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I suspect that something much deeper is at issue here. I suspect that what conservatives such as Feser are ultimately opposing is our constitutional system of government, as she was founded to be, with its commitment to religious liberty and federalism.  What he wants is a different sort of political order than the one the Founders bequeathed to us. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One thing you and I and Feser all agree on: abortion is in almost all cases a moral abomination from the moment of conception on.  And if this is so, it it so always and everywhere. But SCOTUS has spoken and the issue is now one for the states.  Some states will enshrine the abomination, so to speak, others will not. We don't like that, but we have to accept it. I can think of only two alternatives: either change our system of government or convince people to rein in their concupiscence. Neither of these alternatives has much chance of success.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This just in from Dr. Vito Caiati: I am wondering if you have been following the ongoing, intense debate on the GOP platform that has taken place on X and in several conservative online journals, which was ignited by Edward Feser and other social conservatives, who are strongly critical of the removal of long-standing planks … Continue reading “Caiati on Feser on the GOP Platform re: Abortion”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[313,137],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-664","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abortion","category-political-theology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/664","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=664"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/664\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=664"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=664"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=664"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}