Posted on 11/04/2007 6:37:35 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
You can take much comfort in your own purity of thought, ideals and action. Meanwhile, nobody is paying the slightest attention.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and that's what states are for.
I simply want to win the next election to keep Hillary out of power.
If your pro-life beliefs lead you to prefer Hillary over Fred or "fill in the blank" then this forum has lost its reason to exist.
Go vote for Hillary, or, just as effective, don't vote for the Republican nominee, and live with the legacy of her rule.
You heart will be pure, but our country will suffer.
Nothing is "non-negotiable" in the real world.
We all need to get a clue.
I guess the first casualty in your world would be the Constitution.
If I am, then God help us all.
Except for the fact that it is the pretext for the entire document.
Nowhere in the Constitution itself can you find the idea that the preamble is not binding. In fact, nowhere in the document is it even called a preamble. We just call it that for the reasons of identification. It is the cornerstone for the Constitution, laid first, intrinsic to any decent understanding of it.
Are you suggesting a new Civil War?
It’s you that’s fixated on Hillary, not me. No decent human being would ever cast a vote for that corrupt Leftist.
FR is, as Jim has said many, many times, here as a vehicle to fight liberalism. And nothing is more liberal, in the pejorative sense, than the destruction of the very reasons for the existence of government in general, and our government in particular.
Cite me ONE instance of a prescriptive statement that could even potentially be considered a binding provision in the "preamble".
Then cite me even ONE case where a decision of the Supreme Court was grounded in that statement.
I'll wait.
Rove, is that you?
Is the Preamble the pretext for the document or not?
Why would you excise the paragraph that the founders gave us to understand what was to follow?
while I disagree that the WBTS was simply over slavery, ending abortion could be a fight one day
no doubt....amongst many other culture issues
it’s killed many times the number the North American bound slave trade did...and counting.
Fred seems ambivalent.
it’s one thing to say you can’t get a constitutional amendment to ban abortion outright versus you don’t want one
that is what troubles me about Fred
as much as George Bush aggravates me on some issues I imagine he would support such an amendment
According to the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence, that's what all human government is for, explicitly. And most particularly the government they were setting up. The United States of America.
In terms of personalities you are spot on.
I'm not either. That's why I've made my viws abundantly clear. I'll fight any party that doesn't stand for equality before the law, the personhood of every individual, and the Constitution of the United States. Just as hard as I fight the Democrats.
America already has one evil party. It doesn't need a second.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence weren’t setting up any government at all. They were declaring that the colonies, the predecessors of our present day States, were henceforth independent of England.
Later, these same States relinquished SOME of their powers to the newly created Federal Government. But, the vehicle by which THAT was accomplished was NOT the Declaration of Independence. Not by YEARS.
The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are two DIFFERENT documents with differing significance for our history and for our jurisprudence.
Please get a grip on reality.
It is impossible to rightly understand the Constitution apart from the Declaration. The Declaration is the spirit of the Constitution.
I'm not sure what you mean by "pretext". The Constitution embodies every word from first to last, but not all the words are imbued with equal importance or significance.
Why would you excise the paragraph that the founders gave us to understand what was to follow?
Of course, I would not excise any part of the Constitution. Neither would I elevate any part of it to a status that does not naturally accrue to it by virtue of its place in the document and the significance and import of its content. Some parts that may be very inspirational have little or no juriprudential relevance.
Your devotion to the Declaration of Independence is apparently at least equal to mine. It is literally one of the finest expressions of the human impulse to freedom and self determination ever penned by the hand of man. I could call it inspirational, and it would be an understatement. But despite my love for the document, I would not be honest if I did not concede the fact that it does not have jurisprudential significance.
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.