Posted on 03/31/2013 10:26:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
They appear to be in the process of doing so. And if they do, I just stay home. There is no point in choosing between Democrats and Democrats who have Rs next to their name, contrary to what the GOP-E shills who post here think.
Hey if you want to quit and give up on marriage, absolutely.
But, I thought it was the social conservatives who were responsible for the loss, like always. Are you sayin’ it ain’t so? /sarc
We have to fundamentally change the Republican primary process or we will continue to lose.
How about a CONSTITUTIONAL party instead?
Conservative implies keeping the status quo, which, since 1910+ has grown and usurped more Rights than naught.
I too threw the level and $$ into the (C) and (L) parties.
Federalism is a two edged sword that cuts in the direction of ever greater power and restricting liberty - not protecting it.
Keep feeding the beast. I'm done with it. My mother had a saying - "hope in on hand and Sh-- in the other and see which one gets filled first" I guess you haven't had your fill of sh-- yet...
But not unborn children. It’s a-ok in all 50 states to kill one.
That’s the point. If you don’t believe unborn children are actually people, you are going to side with ‘states rights’ on this issue.
Some things are the purview of the states - protecting the life of unborn children is not one of these.
If the GOP could get the economy right, and the size of government right, they wouldn’t have to worry about social issues.
You have your facts backward. There are states which have implemented the most restrictive bans on abortion. That kind of momentum, especially when those states actually protect liberty versus your dream of relying on the Fedgov to uphold virtues, will turn the tide against tyranny. Your solution is a totally lost cause.
New Deal. New Society, New Federalism, compassionate consertativism - it's all the same thing from both parties - the idea of those in power trumps the constitution.
Stating that unborn children ought to be legally protected as persons throughout America is a lost cause?
I don’t see it at all. Throwing it to the states will bring about the modern day Kansas/Nebraska act.
Sure, they should also support amnesty and gun confiscation. This will speed up the dissolution of the United States of America and I can live in a free country again. Probably named Texas.
Because of the Fedgov's overbearing control of our "general welfare", "privacy", "interstate commerce", "taxing authority". These are all doctrines of our two party national federal supremacy war over matters relegated to states by the constitution. You argue with yourself on this matter.
The GOP is dead to me.
It’s new party time.
Again - the argument that all children in america should have their lives protected - is not a state issue. The true nature of personhood isn’t a state issue either.
There are areas where states rights can and should prevail. This is not one of them.
No, your hopes of a statist solution is a lost cause. My goals are 100% aligned with yours. Check my profile and "In Forum" posting for the last 15 years on this site (welcome newbie).
The Fedgov is not the place to adjudicate this. There's a plethora of reasons for this stance.
Many state laws have been raised to the Supreme Court level - setting a precedence. There are FAR, FAR better methods of protecting individual liberties then tilting at ever morphing windmills.
“The Fedgov is not the place to adjudicate this.”
Again, your solution is a redux of the Kansas-Nebraska act. It didn’t work back then, and it won’t work now. Why? The unborn child is a person, and recognition of this fact concerns the fundamental nature of the person. A person is a person, not because of the lines of the state - but because of what a person is.
I am not even saying that North Dakota, et al, should not pass laws where they can to regulate and eliminate abortion. These are baby steps. They have to be done. However, the ultimate goal has to be recognition of the personhood of the unborn in every state of the union.
“There are FAR, FAR better methods of protecting individual liberties then tilting at ever morphing windmills.”
No, there isn’t!
The Federal apparatus, including SCOUS, is unbalanced and out of control. You, through your great oratory and persuasive skill may get a law passed to "protect the unborn" (like the 18th Amendment with alcohol). Then, the winds of public opinion change and we have another law passed to reverse the former unanimously passed law (like the 21st Amendment). This example far exceeds anything related to the normal legislative process. It was a Constitutional Amendment for crying out loud!
There are numerous constitutional anomolies from SCOTUS that distort the original intent (Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Obamacare, Wickard v Fillburn) and your great and mighty statism did nothing to prevent their implementation. In fact, federal statism enabled them.
Maybe, just maybe, the approach you are peddling isn't the proper direction....? Maybe, a VERY STRICT inprepretation of the constitution would set us back on the course our founding fathers intended.
“Maybe, a VERY STRICT inprepretation of the constitution would set us back on the course our founding fathers intended.”
HELL YEA!!!
Only problem is, the courts already interpret the Constitution. Heck, laws supposedly can’t be passed that are Unconstitutional. Supposedly....
Again, the Fedgov imposes edicts (Kansas-Nebraska act) and all citizens need to follow – regardless of the constitutional legality. So, your suggestion is to impose more Fedgov edicts and somehow we’ll achieve the original intent of our constitution regarding Liberty?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.