Posted on 08/07/2005 10:20:55 PM PDT by goldstategop
What are you doing up so late?
Are you mocking me? :-)
And how about his much more time he worked on helping pro-life "Operation Rescue" defending it against abortion groups. This fact should not be mentioned either.
You can say all you want negative about Bush, just back it up with facts/truth.
Otherwise be prepared to take the heat.
Not that complicated really.
The 14th amendment doesn't apply to private citizens. I'm not in violation of that amendment if I don't rent to a gay couple.
So, do you remember whether or not you liked the Souter nomination?
__________________________________________________________
As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."
Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."
Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.
As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution.
_______________________________________________________
It applies to a CLASS of people.
Being the helpful fellow that I am, below is the 14th Amendment. Now, please direct me to the part that says that a private citizen is not allowed to say to a job applicant, "I don't want to hire a gay person." Thanks. (P.S. You smoking something tonight?)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Which conservative "branch" would that be?
BTW, what is a 'neat' Protestant? :-)
####It applies to a CLASS of people#####
Here's a question for you. Why didn't the 14th Amendment give women the vote? If the 14th Amendment bans "discrimination" against classes of people, why did it take another amendment (the 19th) over sixty years later to provide for a constitutional guarantee of female suffrage?
I refer you to this post:
It denied them all legal means to seek any protections under the law. The 14th Ammendment prohibits singling out a specific class of people, without some independent and legitimate legislative end, for such forfeiture of legal protections.
Correct. It proceeded from emotion, New Age-style feelings, not reason and good sense.
That is more strait-laced than a 'messy' Protestant.
Once again you prove you are all soft in the head. It was a ban on "special rights" laws. Such a thing might be worth playing violins over if it was about, say, black people and a few decades ago. Why don't you take a look at the demographics of the homo population? Their affluence puts the mere plebes to shame.
You make too much sense to be listened to.
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.