You were asked to prioritize and choose which is worse: 15 million "illegal" immigrants or 50 million slaughtered innocent babies with the thorough approval of the Junior League, Muffy and Skipper and why.
You chose not to prioritize. I do. The lives of the babies are far more important than the social calcification of our country by measures rooted in fear of those who will renew our civilization.
You seem to suggest that there might be some sort of "moral" equivalence based upon the oft-cited but long dead rule of law. There is not.
If you plan on actively opposing abortion, what is your practical plan to bring about its end without the influx of substantial numbers of people who will also oppose abortion, have many children per family and vote?
posted on 12/28/2006 1:20:28 PM PST
(Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
If your position is that I must choose which evil I would rather endure then you have completely missed a nuance in what I wrote. I do not desire the presence of Illegal Alienswhose presence is both a violation of our laws and a violation of that privilege which the Citizens should have to decide for themselves the state of immigration.
I have not ever written that I oppose lawful immigration on any principal, so your assertion that I'm somehow for the "calcification" of the nation is so much sophistry (and in a bad way).
If I'm to oppose lawlessness then I will do so.
As for abortion, it is sustained by a cancerous form of lawlessness that I've decried and presented sound constitutional reasonings against here at FR and elsewhere. Not to bore you but here is a short characterization of one position which may be used against abortion:
One of the principal reasons for the 14th Amendment was to enumerate to Congress the power to respect politically sourced civil rights which the several States could not disparage (the "privileges or immunities" clause).
Article 3:Section 2 of the Constitution defines the enumerated authority of the Court. It should be stressed that the article does not describe the Court as it now operats, but rather describes a Court that is only "supreme" within a limited sphere of enumerated jurisdictions (please also note that the Constitution does not capitalize "supreme" as if to say that the Court is the definitive article ... maybe it is past time we stopped doing so ourselves). The supreme Court is not even the "Supreme Court" over the several States except for these enumerated authoritieswhich are relatively narrow even considering the 14th Amendment.
At no time prior to 1973 did Congress ever seek to respect a civil right to an abortion that the several States could not disparage, so no "Laws of the United States" were in anyway involved nor has the 9th Amendment ever been extended to cover the several Statesa specific point in the debates about the 14th Amendment. Even if it were, the Common Laws that are the subject of the 9th Amendment are quite clear: abortion is indefensible.
Therefore, the Court was utterly out of place to even accept the Roe case, much less render an opinion on it. It is fully within the rights of any State, its own Supreme Court or its Legislature, to rebuke and revoke such a lawless measure as is the pretend authority of sCOTUS to rule on such a matter as they did.
In short, I am trying to convince people of the plain truth that not only was Roe a bad opinion and ruling, but it is one that they utterly had no privilege to attempt and that they can be countermanded by any entity with superior local authority over their own laws who is willing to stick to their guns ... not some imagined international law but rather the several States themselves.
Naturally, such a tactic will not prevent abortions in all States nor could it ever return one murdered child to life; however, this is one constitutionally based logic to oppose abortion that makes no appeal to anything but law.
As I said, I will oppose lawlessness no matter if it is a great evil or comparatively minor one.
It is your position that we must endure these people who impose themselves on us simply because they may have some positive benefit that is unjustifiable.
No benefit they can ever render can annul the fact that they truthfully have no right to even make a difference simply because they chose to be here outside of our laws.
posted on 12/28/2006 10:13:35 PM PST
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson