Posted on 05/03/2010 8:38:55 AM PDT by speciallybland
Glad to hear that. That's why time and again I take the time and energy required to engage on this most critical of matters.
A wholesale return to America's founding principles is the only way this republic can be saved and the Blessings of Liberty can be secured for our posterity.
This matter is far more important than the outcome of any single political race or the fate of any single politician's career.
The problem is that his ideology destroys the premise of American self-government.
How so?
Outstanding. Well, there were a couple of flawed founding principles. But, we've corrected those for the most part. Anyway, I like your thinking.
Now, are you willing to concede that Ron Paul and Rand Paul are anti-abortion?
No. Their position negates the principle of equal God-given unalienable rights for all persons.
It destroys the pro-life position morally, Constitutionally, legally, politically, philosophically, and logically.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
Likewise, the sovereign in America, the people, under God, through their representatives, have abdicated self-government, by declaring a whole class of human beings "out of their protection," and by waging war against them, torturing them to death in fact, by cruel and unusual means.
And so, he passively allowed the destruction of unalienable rights, when it was his duty to protect them, AND, he actively attacked them as well.
Again, exactly what is being done to thousands of innocent and helpless children in the womb in America each and every day.
Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution: We need to reclaim the Constitution from the Supreme Court
You don't think abortion is a threat to the security of our nation? On 9/11 we lost 2,995 people to al-Qaeda. We slaughter more tiny innocent Americans ourselves than that on every given day since then. We've hemorrhaged more than 50,000,000 souls since 1973. What does that do to our security? Does a person who is committing suicide worry about getting mugged? And who or what can protect us from the wrath of our outraged God when our iniquity is full?
" How, then, shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a Trial of a thousand years."
"At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
- Abraham Lincoln, January 27, 1838
Address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
Matthew 18:10
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
From the closing paragraphs of the Robert Lowry Clinton article I linked a couple posts up the thread:
What the Constitution does not do is establish the Supreme Court as the ultimate or exclusive arbiter of all constitutional questions, entitled to issue binding proclamations to other agencies of government on any constitutional issue whatsoever. Judicial supremacy, in this sense, was largely unknown throughout the first century and a half of our nation’s constitutional existence, and was not claimed even by the Court itself until 1958. In that year, the Court declared for the first time in its history that its constitutional decisions were the supreme law of the land, along with the Constitution itself, national laws, and federal treaties. This declaration effectively amended Article VI by judicial fiat, giving truth to the earlier remark of Chief Justice Hughes that “the Constitution is what the Court says it is.” Since that time, the Court has provided abundant evidence for the truth of Justice Scalia’s 1992 observation that “the imperial judiciary lives.”So if Brutus’s dire prediction of ever-expanding judicial power was right, it is not because we have followed the Constitution. He was right because we have not followed it. Judicial supremacy is not the result of anything in the Constitution. It is the result of judges’ exercising powers not granted to them in the Constitution, and of cowardly politicians’ allowing them (and sometimes encouraging them) to get away with it. If Plato’s dire prediction about democracy is not to become true for us, we need to reclaim the Constitution from the Court.
Disagree. The last thirty years has been about trying to overturn a case that was decided for a single individual on facts arising in a single state. The force of that decision is solely one of inference, that if any other individual from any other state brings the same set of facts they will get the same answer. Hypothetically, if Delaware decided to ban abortions completely, and no one brought suit, there would be no federal law preventing the ban.
Therefore, while I agree there has been much fruitless activity among federal legislators, a truly federal solution has not been in view, really, since Reagan made it clear he would sign off on federal Personhood if it crossed his desk.
Hoping for a perfect storm of congressional support to put in an anti-Roe SCOTUS is what has produced no results, and even then, the best you could hope for if you got that perfect storm would be no more than a return to a pre-Roe, state-by-state determination of the protectability of unborn babies.
In light of the federal constitutional mandate to defend innocent human life, the aforementioned state-by-state approach is unacceptable. It is invalid because it accepts the hidden premise that legislatures may determine the validity of innocent human life. Widespread, uncritical acceptance of that premise is the root of our problem. A natural right does not rely on legislative concurrence. No law may legitimately be written in any state which ends with “and then the baby dies.” And until that fact is recognized at the federal level, the prolife movement will remain quagmired in a legal strategy with no ethical, and therefore no practical, force.
Very good read. Thanks!
It’s most excellent, for sure. A real breath of fresh air.
Interesting post! I'll have to study this more. Maybe we should rename it the "Usurpreme Court".
The key is that while, yes, the Court has usurped what is not theirs, the people and their representatives in the other branches have been complicit in allowing the usurpation. It couldn’t continue to happen if they wouldn’t allow it to happen.
So, in order to put things back the way they should be, we must rally the people to demand that oaths be kept, and then unfailingly enforce that imperative demand.
But, this thread is a vivid example of how difficult that process is. Folks don’t really want to listen. They’re too wedded to their notions.
Get help.
The rest of the time they are pro-choice for states...
Federalism - look it up.
anti-war...
As opposed to being pro-war? Against the industrial-scale death and destruction that war brings? What's wrong with that?
isolationist...
Non-interventionalist, just like the founders of this nation.
throw-Israel to the wolves...
In favor of getting out of Israels way and ending US funding of Israels enemies.
You think Ron Paul hates Israel? Then explain this.
Remember back in '82 when Israel got tired of having its citizens murdered by PLO terrorists operating from Lebanon?
They invaded, drove the PLO scum into Beirut and surrounded them, only to have Reagan and the French broker a deal to let them escape.
Dr. Paul gave a speech to congress on the situation there. I don't have a copy, so I'll have to paraphrase.
It went something like this... "What are you people - f'ing crazy? The PLO has been murdering Israelis for years, Israel finally decides to stop the murdering by wiping out the PLO, and you idiots are going to stop them & let the killers escape? That's insane!"
On a related note, he gave another speech to congress around the same time. It was again motivated by his "insane" (according to you) non-interventionalist beliefs, and the subject was the sending of the Marines into Lebanon.
Once again, I paraphrase... "How stupid can you people be? You're going to stick our men into a conflict that goes back thousands of years, a conflict on the other side of the planet from us, a conflict that's none of our business? And on top of that, you're going to make these men go into that conflict with unloaded weapons? I tell you now, you people are idiots, and nothing good will come from this."
I think we all know how that one worked out.
legalize drugs and prostitution...
Get the feds out of things they are not constitutionally authorized to be involved with.
FYI, states, counties, cities and towns can have all the drug and prostitution laws they want, and the Pauls are fine with that.
destroy the institution of marriage...
Marriage is a union between one man and one woman, recognized by God - how exactly are they going to destroy that?
Libertarians
We Libertarians are the philosophic heirs of the political beliefs of the founding fathers - the republicrats are more akin to the beliefs of guys like Marx and Mao.
And American federalism doesn't mean states can alienate unalienable rights. Federalism is a system. A great one, properly understood and implemented. "Power corrupts," and federalism is the means to restrain that corruption.
But the imperative obligation to protect God-given unalienable rights is the very heart and soul of America, and a duty shared by all who take the oath of office. It's not a system. It's a world-view based in a Christian understanding of how things work on a moral basis.
America's founding paragraph:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
You're either part of that "WE" or you're not. The choice is up to you.
I hear your frustration but what concerns me even more are the folks who have scarcely a notion at all and who consider the idea of a notion to be an offensive imposition upon their imminent hedonistic pursuits.
I'm a socially conservative Christian, a veteran, and a worker who has been productively employed in a wealth-generating (engineering) private-sector job my entire adult life (excepting the hitch in the Marines). There is very little I'm ashamed of or regret concerning the path I've taken thru life.
FYI, there's a difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian. A Libertarian is a member of the LP. A libertarian is a person who holds certain political and social beliefs.
What beliefs? Just look up the platform of the GOP circa the mid 1950's for the politics, and the social beliefs would fall under "what you do in private is your own business, unless it harms someone else".
My post to you criticized your irrational hatred of the Pauls... care to respond?
Who is Adam Kokesh and why should anyone care whether the Paul family supports him, abhors him or just doesn’t care about him one way or the other?
As to the rest of your mindless blather, I would far rather have a SERIOUS small-government “libertarian” than a big government “conservative” like Juan McLame or Trey Grayson...
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.