Slow Fade: The Promise Dims
by Pauly Fongemie
November 17, 2016

Trump is over his head, at least he leaves this impression etched into one's thoughts.

Now you see it, now you don't!

When queried by CBS about his intention to appoint Supreme Court justices who were in the mold of Antonin Scalia, specifically about Roe v Wade and "gay marriage," his response was an answer from someone who has not thought matters through and who is at the very least conflicted, as well he might be as he simply appears to have no core moral values based on Tradition and the natural law, written in the hearts of men at their creation and which can be known by reason:

"I am pro-life." Meaning he is committed to over-turning Roe v Wade or else why say this in conjunction with Antonin Scalia, etc.? Words have context, which is an aspect of the depth of the meaning. In the very next breath he adds that this will not get rid of abortion because abortion belongs to states' rights. Wrong. If the child in the womb has the right to life as he clearly stated in reference to the Declaration of Independence [because of the supremacy of the natural law], then that right to life, which is innocent, is inviable and cannot be taken away. This must mean, logically and morally, that no state has the right where the federal government has no right because innocent life must be protected under our system. Since all our rights come from Almighty God, we as individuals cannot, i.e., have no right to invest government with rights we do not as individuals possess. For example, we have the right to protect our duly acquired property. Since most of us prefer to conduct life through police surrogates for convenience and efficiency, we invest the locality and state with police powers in our stead. We do not have the right to kill our neighbor or her unborn child because she is an inconvenience, since they are both innocent. Thus we cannot permit the government to take innocent life, no matter how vulnerable that life may be, and it can be done efficiently and easily because the vulnerable cannot defend themselves.

 Even the guilty have the right to a trial before their lives are forfeited. All of government has the duty to protect the right to life and property of its citizens. Any other obligations and undertakings on the part of the government is in relation and proportion to its two chief mandates. The constitution of our governments at all levels are restrictions on the government abolishing or restricting our natural rights in an unjust manner that violates the meaning of the text of those constitutions.

Moreover the natural law is the very foundation of all our laws, Constitutions and so forth, according to the Founders, who may have violated that natural law in part as men of their age, but they did recognize the necessity of the natural law. Since it is the foundation of all man-made law it must rest securely through it's constant upholding of the structure of the law which crumbles in stages just as any building does when bereft of its base. Gravity may hold it up for a brief time, but it eventually collapses of its own dead weight. This is the same with the law.

Why is the natural law the foundation of all other law that involves society? Because it is part of humanity itself. It is our social law of gravity if you will, for it provides the boundaries beyond which we may not transgress without losing our reason, our decency, our very dignity as human persons with immortal souls created by God. It is He Who is the supreme lawgiver and Who has given man the natural law. Man is bound to the natural law in his very essence, even if some profess to not believe in God, just as some foolishly pretend there is no law of gravity.

 Ignore this absolute precept, pretend it does not matter, and then all human law descends into sheer pragmatism and the utter disregard of those deemed less worthy by the powers that be. All of history has demonstrated this relationship and the consequences of denying it. Since man prefers to ignore that history and its lessons, he has predestined himself to repeat the tragedy over and over. Modern man almost always thinks he has "advanced" viz a viz earlier generations and considers himself progressive, that Tradition is something of the past that no longer applies unless one personally approves and can convince a majority to go along with the derogation and or abrogation. The natural law is not like other aspects of tradition, small t, which can change and often do over time. Those traditions are not actually a part of Tradition, capital T. The natural law is unchangeable because man's nature as a created person cannot ever change for the very meaning of what it is to be a human person would be subject to change through social pressure. Inevitably some persons would be deemed sub-human or less worthy of natural rights inherent in their very being. We saw this in the Court's unjust alteration of the definition of eminent domain, which refers to the just appropriation of some private property [with just compensation] for a government use, not private businesses. Now a business can lay claim to our homes if it wants to be so ruthless. How could this have have happened? Easy, the Court no longer recognized the absolute right to life of the innocent, hence property could be negotiable through clever legerdemain. This is not a mere coincidence!

Human beings are not the source of their own original being and have no competence, no authority, moral and otherwise to alter the reality of an unchanging human nature. And because human nature is a set thing so is its law of being, the natural law, hence its name, residing in human nature itself. The natural law of life regarding marriage is the normative, or natural use of the sexual power for the conception and raising of children. If a man and woman are infertile, they are still using their sexual powers in a natural manner that does not violate their dignity as created. Sodomy cannot be a right because it defies human nature, no matter how "natural" it may seem to those who practice it. By "granting" a right where the Court has no right to grant, it signaled that human nature is up for grabs and now we see the gender benders of all stripes being mainstreamed as if normal, in fact superseding the natural or normative all too often, even defying basic common sense to do so. Again, this is not a coincidence. Unpin one aspect of the natural law from its origins and anything and everything is possible and eventually probable. There is no end the evil mischief of man flexing his contempt for the supremacy of the natural law!

Let us repeat: the purpose of the government under our way of Constitutional life is the acknowledgment that rights are from God [again the Founders] and those rights are to be upheld. The national and state constitutions are a recognition of the rights held by the people and are restrictions on the government. The government cannot create or grant rights or remove them, such as the right to life, the right to property, because these are natural and necessary to man's existence if he is to fulfill his obligations in life, first to His Creator and to others, for God wills that men live in society. Ergo, neither the state nor the federal courts have the right to withdraw the right to life of the innocent, period! All the innocent HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO LIFE, by definition. There are those who argue that since the child is in the womb, he has no rights as a person because he is not "ensouled" yet. This is a faulty notion, not to mention a disastrous, cruel one. The child is growng, developing, meaning by biological definition, he is already alive! We distinguish this growth from that of the growth of a tumor or cluster of cells. The baby in the womb inspires, breathes, feels emotion, etc. Cancer growths do not as they have no soul.

When a person dies, we refer to the dead body of the person, meaning his soul is no longer united, thus there is no movement henceforth. Technically the body is a cadaver and not a person in the strictly legal sense [apart from the supernatural reality of the immortal soul] because a human person is a body-soul being in this life before entering eternity. But because we have special reverence for the sacredness of human life we do our best to treat the body of the dead with reverence, even in our discourse. All human beings that are alive are persons by very definition. There is no such thing as a living human being that is not a person. He must have natural rights because he exists, wherever he resides, in the womb or after birth.

In his exchange with CBS, Trump indicated that Roe was not settled law, in so many words. Right. Immediately, Trump reversed course by saying that "gay marriage" as a right was settled law and that "he was okay with it." HUH??? Let's see, now, if we have this straight. Roe is not settled law [correctly as it violates natural rights] although it is more long standing than "gay marriage" - going back to 1973. The ruling mandating the "right" for two men or two women to "marry" [Obergefell v Hodges] is less than 2 years old, but since he, Donald Trump is okay with it, then it is settled!

Either a law is righteous, conforming to human nature in its normality or it is is not. If a law is unjust, such as Dred Scott, then the length of time between its unjust enactment and its overturn is simply irrelevant. Donald Trump has taken a conclusion of his own instincts and rendered it the premise on which to base the conclusion, an irrational act.

Now, suppose he actually intends to overturn Roe and retain Obergefell. Justices schooled in the Constitution and the Tradition of the natural law are not inclined to dismiss one while accepting the other. The natural law is natural to men and women of reason who forsake pragmatism when it comes to foundational law. How does Trump envision his vision taking effect, precisely???

And this is if he has the chance to nominate more than one replacement for the Supreme Court. Even if he replaces Antonin Scalia over the will of a deliberately, maliciously obstructive sizable minority in the Senate, we are still at an impasse since Justice Kennedy sides with the nihilistic bunch on the left who legislate from the bench even if they have to twist logic to do so. Thus, President Trump needs at least 2 new justices to overturn Roe, and then and only then if Roberts still has maintained his understanding of the purpose to the Court and its role to uphold the natural law at the very least. And at this matters are still a crap shoot, pardon my English. We have come to expect over many Republican administrations justices appointed who are not strict Constitutionalists, despite the claims beforehand. Justices have been known to lie before the Senate Judiciary committee and to the President's vettors prior to nomination: the irony ought not be lost on us. I mean, if it is justifiable to lie to secure a seat on the Court, then logically all bets are off, again by definition. Judge Bork was not willing to lie and thus he did not become a US Supreme Court Justice to his honor and his eternal salvation. We have a pottage of gruel to ingest in the vast swamp we have permitted to engulf us in Washington and in much of the states.

Will Trump's advisers set him on the course of sound reasoning or not? Will the promise continue in slow fade before our very eyes and ears?

As things stand today, now you see it, now you don't!

BACK                      NEXT