Posted on 06/19/2011 1:20:52 PM PDT by ejdrapes
I haven't seen so much silliness and nasty infighting among conservatives in a long time. I only hope it means that the nomination is valuable because we have a serious chance of taking this country back in the next election.
Perhaps someone on this thread can provide an answer to a question I've been asking since this pledge came to the forefront of "news."
The first item in the pledge is "to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;" and the fourth item is to "advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion."
Let's assume a president Bachmann (or any president for that matter) signing this pledge and following through on all the items. So we have federal courts with judges who respect the original intent of the Constitution and are "strict constructionists." Among other things, this means that the "General Welfare clause" will convey no power or authority for the Congress to act, as Madison outlined in Federalist #41. And for grins, let's also assume that "Interstate commerce" authority is interpreted to mean only transactions where someone in one state is actually purchasing goods or services from someone in another state, or purchasing transportation for goods or passengers traveling from one state to another. All thiings are as they should always have been. The United States of America is on it's way back to being a great country again.
Now, the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" is challenged in the courts. Exactly which power enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, interpreted with the original intent of the founders, allows the Congress to pass such an act and the President to sign it into law? Wouldn't the judges the SBA list pledge is wanting in place find the law they are proposing to be unconstitutional?
I am pleased that Bachmann has, quite correctly, called Romney on this. I am feeling a little better about her now. There is still the matter of her employment of Rollins, which is a major red flag in my copybook, and her refusal to distance herself from his comments regarding Palin.
Bachmann is a candidate I could, and would, support if she is nominated. She is still not my first choice.
I am pleased that Bachmann has, quite correctly, called Romney on this. I am feeling a little better about her now. There is still the matter of her employment of Rollins, which is a major red flag in my copybook, and her refusal to distance herself from his comments regarding Palin.
Bachmann is a candidate I could, and would, support if she is nominated. She is still not my first choice.
If Bachmann loved America and the tea party she would trash her own campaign destroying Romney and leaving the field wide open for Sarah.
Therefore, if she does not do as you suggest, Michelle Bachmann hates America? Is that about it?
Why do I even read these threads?
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.