Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: roamer_1
THAT is precisely the point. It is *NOT* Constitutional. It is *NOT* consistent with our founding charter. ...show me even ONE state in this union that can sanction YOUR death with the exception of 'Due Process' and 'Just cause'.

I guess you missed the part of my last reply where I said "abortion is murder".

Maybe you're an attorney. Perhaps that's why you think I'm disagreeing with you, even when I'm strongly agreeing with your fundamental principles.

I never said that states have a right to make the killing of unborn children legal. You dubbed that into my comment, just like you're dubbing it into Sarah Palin's political stance on the issue.

Seeing as how you think like an attorney, I'd expect you to understand the over-riding strategy here. It's not to ultimately create 50 Roe vs Wade laws. It's to take that power away from the feds, and give it back to the states, where the battle to protect the unborn can be more effectively won.

As you say, ultimately, no governing body has the power to condemn an innocent, unborn human to death by fiat or decree. But, it's a fight that will go on, and it shouldn't happen at the federal level. If the question is to be fought at all, who says the feds should have any say in it? I say they shouldn't, and so does the 10th Amendment.

207 posted on 11/08/2012 10:29:40 PM PST by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies ]


To: Windflier
[roamer_1:] THAT is precisely the point. It is *NOT* Constitutional. It is *NOT* consistent with our founding charter. ...show me even ONE state in this union that can sanction YOUR death with the exception of 'Due Process' and 'Just cause'.

I guess you missed the part of my last reply where I said "abortion is murder".

I did not miss it.

Maybe you're an attorney.

Nope.

Perhaps that's why you think I'm disagreeing with you, even when I'm strongly agreeing with your fundamental principles.

No, I realize that we agree on the fundamental principles... all but one.

I never said that states have a right to make the killing of unborn children legal. You dubbed that into my comment, just like you're dubbing it into Sarah Palin's political stance on the issue.

I believe you DID say it when you said the decision should revert back to the states. And Palin believes the same thing. If the decision reverts to the states, what else does that mean except that the states get to decide whether abortion is legal within their repective borders? And what is that,. if not the states being empowered to sanction death? Your thinking is decidedly flawed here.

Seeing as how you think like an attorney, I'd expect you to understand the over-riding strategy here. It's not to ultimately create 50 Roe vs Wade laws. It's to take that power away from the feds, and give it back to the states, where the battle to protect the unborn can be more effectively won.

But in practice, your strategy must ultimately create 50 Roe v Wade laws. The battle is not more effectively waged in the many states for the same reason that lobbying becomes ineffective if it is banned at the federal level (which I am *FOR*, btw)... it just takes too many resources to maintain all 50 states. And in fact, the first 'equal protection under the law' case sends it back to the feds anyway.

More importantly, 'The Next Step: Euthanasia' becomes far more likely to become enacted 'one state at a time', in the same way that abortion was enacted... only far, far quicker... because it will be settled law that the state DOES have the right to sanction death. And the 'useless eaters' will begin to be eliminated - first in the liberal states, but eventually being adopted into every state in the very same way that abortion was entrenched... By a fiat decision in the court.

As you say, ultimately, no governing body has the power to condemn an innocent, unborn human to death by fiat or decree. But, it's a fight that will go on, and it shouldn't happen at the federal level. If the question is to be fought at all, who says the feds should have any say in it? I say they shouldn't, and so does the 10th Amendment.

There you go again... Not 'ultimately'... PERFECTLY. PERIOD. Since the Constitution binds itself to all agreements and contracts previously enacted, the Constitution is BOUND to and by the Declaration of Independence. The reason for the establishment of our government (federally) is to protect our God-given rights. And FIRST among them, and FIRST enumerated among them particularly, is LIFE... More important (by enumeration) than liberty. So it is clearly the fed's to PROTECT primarily (as in primacy), and your suggestion that the 10th holds sway is patently false, else the purpose for the union in the first place is annulled.

Now, that does not mean that the states have no duty to do the very same - As they are bound by the very same. I applaud efforts by the states to protect life, as they are bound to do. And if the states had the balls to stand up to that, and forgo federal funding in order to PROTECT life, ignoring the unconstitutional edicts of the federal gov, that would be profound in it's impact. But the states can do that NOW, ALREADY... regardless of the pretended power of Roe v Wade. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. If they do not have the courage to do so now, what makes you think they will have the courage then?

Contrary to what most folks say, it does not require an amendment to change it federally... it requires only a law defining life @ conception, and a Conservative congress with balls enough to impeach a Supreme or two for writing law from the bench... And with more than twenty years in power, The Republican party has utterly failed to do that simple task... Which means that they really ain't trying.

And the Christian Right is painfully aware of that fact - which is why the Republicans are struggling now... And why 'social justice' issues are becoming more powerful. The Christians were happy to bind themselves to Reagan's promise, which gave them their important issues while binding them to federalism and civil libertarianism... Without their important issues being served and served well, they will move on to lesser things to get what they can... And without federalism and civil libertarianism to temper them, what you get is 'social justice'.

That is the main reason I think the Republicans will no longer prevail. That is why I removed myself from among them and began advocating for a Conservative party. And I think that is where it needs to go. That even Conservatives such as yourself are not willing to adhere to Reagan means that Reagan's coalition cannot be maintained any longer. It has already devolved into a contest of popularity and pragmatism, rather than a defining set of principles that we all admire and fight for with passion.

221 posted on 11/09/2012 12:44:14 PM PST by roamer_1 (Globalism is just socialism in a business suit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 207 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson