In the next few weeks, both the Republican and Democratic Parties will finalize their nominations for the President and Vice-President of the United States. In November the country will elect a new President and Vice-President. Greater than the personalities at the head of each ticket will be the agendas each party presents as its guiding principles. These are incorporated in the party platforms which will soon be made public. From my perspective, a litany of critical issues are at stake. Consider the implications of the next election on the direction of our nation.
First, the President has the responsibility to nominate Supreme Court Justices. Whichever party wins the White House will determine what kind of Justices will be nominated. The critical question is do we as a nation want a court that legislates from the bench, or one that honestly interprets proposed laws based upon original intent? Issues related to abortion and the sanctity of human life, religious liberty and the defense of the free exercise clause, and government over-reach will be decided by the make-up of the Supreme Court. The notion that this does not matter is nonsense. The vote in November will affect the standards of the nation for the next 25-35 years.
Second, the President has the responsibility to reign in runaway government spending. The amount of the national debt is staggering. It has doubled over the last 8 years. The people of the United States cannot afford to continue on this trajectory. The size and scope of our government needs to be curtailed. If anyone continued to spend borrowed money with no intention of paying it back, we would consider it theft. Why should we assume that this is acceptable when it comes to our national government? Moreover, a serious revision of how our government collects and distributes tax money is way past due.
Third, the issue of Religious Liberty and the insistence on the practice of the free exercise clause must be protected. The idea that a pastor would be forced to remain silent on a moral issue because someone labels a biblical conviction as "hate-speech," is unacceptable. The notion that a Christian would be forced to violate his or her conscience is unacceptable. Government intimidation of churches and threatening to remove tax-exempt status is unacceptable.
These are three issues that are critical in my estimation.