Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rick Santorum predicts a convention fight with Ron Paul delegates over party platform
Yahoo ^ | 06/08/2012 | Chris Moody

Posted on 06/08/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd

ROSEMONT, Ill.—Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have never gotten along, and while the primaries are effectively over, their intraparty rivalry could stretch on through the summer.

With 267 delegates pledged to him so far, Santorum is planning to flex his muscle at the Republican National Convention in August, where he predicted Friday there could be a showdown over the party platform between the social conservative delegates who pledged support for him and Ron Paul's libertarian supporters. Paul's campaign predicts that about 200 delegates will attend the convention on his behalf.

Both want a piece of the party platform, but the candidates agree on very little politically. Speaking to reporters here Friday at a conservative conference, Santorum said his supporters are ready for a "fight" in Tampa.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2012rncconvention; 2012rncplatform; conventionfight; ricksantorum; romney2012; ronpaul; ronpaul2012
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-384 next last
To: tacticalogic
And there is no legitimate power of the federal government to enforce that.

No legitimate power to accomplish what the founders said was the reason governments exist? That doesn't make sense.

"That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

101 posted on 06/12/2012 1:25:29 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The national governemt is one of limited and enumerated powers. All the powers of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution. Where is that power enumerated?

The 14th Amendment was ratified over 140 years ago. If that amendment was understood and intended to outlaw the practice of abortion and the power to enforce that prohibition given to the national government by the States, it would have been outlawed then, and enforcement procedures established.

102 posted on 06/12/2012 1:39:11 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
No legitimate power to accomplish what the founders said was the reason governments exist? That doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't make sense. You've left out the qualification of it being a power granted to the national government, and then tried to make it appear I'm arguing that NO government has the authority.

Are they paying you to help destroy the idea that we are a republic, and that the state governments can exercise their authority, or did you decide you just don't like the idea of a republic?

103 posted on 06/12/2012 1:47:13 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
To say that the oath-taker does not have the legitimate authority to fulfill the primary purpose of his office is to make a complete mockery of the oath, and ultimately, to completely negate the Constitution.

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for LIFE, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?" -- George Washington


104 posted on 06/12/2012 1:51:35 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
To say that the oath-taker does not have the legitimate authority to fulfill the primary purpose of his office

The primary purpose of a federal office cannot exceed the enumerated powers of the federal government.

In fact, the oath-taker is obligated to refrain from trying to exercise any power not transferred to the federal government by the States.

105 posted on 06/12/2012 1:57:52 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

There is no American constitutional republic if our rights are subject to the arbitrary whims of men, instead of what the founders said they are: God-given.

You’re missing the forest for the trees.


106 posted on 06/12/2012 2:33:58 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The primary purpose of a federal office cannot exceed the enumerated powers of the federal government.

Powers enumerated to the President:

Article II, Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America...

That is the Power to execute the laws, the Constitution being the supreme law of the land.

Article II, Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

What are the armed forces of the United States for, primarily? To defend the lives of the people. Aren't they?

In fact, the oath-taker is obligated to refrain from trying to exercise any power not transferred to the federal government by the States.

1. The legitimate powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States to the general government are powers granted by the people, not by the States. That's why it starts off "We the People of the United States, in Order to..."

2. Neither the States nor the People could ever legitimately grant the authority to alienate the God-given, unalienable rights of the people. You can't give what you do not possess.

3. No written constitution or man-made law could ever legitimately relieve the body of the people as a whole from the sacred obligation to protect the lives of the helpless and the innocent.

I repeat, the primary reason for the existence of the office of the President of the United States is the protection of the God-given, unalienable rights of the people. All of them. Equally.

107 posted on 06/12/2012 2:54:48 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
What are the armed forces of the United States for, primarily? To defend the lives of the people. Aren't they?

You appear to be proposing that the President of the United Stated use the US military against the general populace to enforce a ban on abortion, at gunpoint.

1. The legitimate powers delegated by the Constitution of the United States to the general government are powers granted by the people, not by the States. That's why it starts off "We the People of the United States, in Order to..."

Amendments are ratified by the State lagislatures, not by a general referendum. The federal government is, and always has been a product the States. The States created the federal government, and only the States can ratify an amendment. Furethermore, the President is elected by the States, through the Electoral College.

The liberals have been trying to destroy the republic by changing that, making office of the President, and ultimately the process of amendment subject to a vote of the general populace and leaving the States with no power at all.

If you understand the consequences of what it is you're trying to help them do and still want to do it, you are a traitor to the republic.

108 posted on 06/12/2012 3:16:49 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You appear to be proposing that the President of the United Stated use the US military against the general populace to enforce a ban on abortion, at gunpoint.

Wrong. I am proposing that, finally, all officers of government in this country do their primary duty, which is to provide equal protection for the God-given, unalienable rights of the people.

There would be absolutely no need for the military if the civilian authorities would simply do their job.

109 posted on 06/12/2012 4:19:48 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

However, if civilian authorities will not fulfill the most important requirement of our constitutions, that the people’s lives be protected, they are insurrectionists and rebels to the Constitution, which brings the provisions of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment into play.


110 posted on 06/12/2012 4:23:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

I think its sad how many republicans follow their media right into the hands of communism and confusion. That's why I travel neither left nor right. They are two gears working the same machine. So I choose to go where my soul desires. I choose to remain an individual. And an individual is exactly who we should be voting for, not someone who speaks the views of a party.

So many of you berate Ron Paul like it's hate week in Orwell's novel 1984. And that's what they want. They want you to hate. Because it makes you weaker, and it makes them stronger. I can promise you the republicans and the democrats who spend the majority of their time flooding the media with hate is not your friend.

The republicans at the top don't want the republicans at the bottom to discover the truth in what Ron Paul has to say, because, at that moment, the communism which has been growing since the great depression will finally be stripped from the darkness it dwells in and thrown into the light. The tyrants will be revealed on top of their financial pyramids where they hide in secrecy, watching our moves and pulling our strings while most of us don't even realize we slave away everyday to put the power of the many into the hands of the few.

Everything is nationalized. All of our money goes up and up until the government, the corporation heads, and wall street possess the majority of currency. Not because they need the money but because our poverty ensures their power over us. These are people who ally with the mafia to protect themselves from them and us and support foreign trade to fatten their wallets and leave us with the change (I Suppose that's what Obama meant when he offered it to us).

We are a communist country. There is no in between. Just as Franklin would say, we have traded our liberties for securities by giving the government more power because it falsely promises change, but we deserve and will attain neither. Just as Washington would say, we have given our souls to political parties and now we will face our inevitable failure. And just as Paine said, “These are the times that try men's souls”.

Our government has been corrupted and Ron Paul is the only one trying to change it. Meanwhile, the republican party is doing nothing but joining the democratic party in trying to destroy him through hate and lies.

It's funny - in this country, it seems everything people are for, they are against, and everything they are against, they are for.

111 posted on 06/12/2012 4:31:39 PM PDT by Washingtons-Paine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Do you have anything to back that up? Dr. Paul has personally delivered thousands of babies.


112 posted on 06/12/2012 4:33:13 PM PDT by PoliticalArsonist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
However, if civilian authorities will not fulfill the most important requirement of our constitutions, that the people’s lives be protected, they are insurrectionists and rebels to the Constitution, which brings the provisions of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment into play.

Nice speech, but you're begging the question of "personhood".

Are you going to let them vote on that or not?

113 posted on 06/12/2012 4:33:13 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Let them vote on what?

The only vote that might be appropriate in this case would be a constitutional amendment, one that would negate the Declaration of Independence, all the stated purposes of the Constitution, and repeals the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.

Which, of course, would be the end of the republic.


114 posted on 06/12/2012 4:48:30 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: PoliticalArsonist

Paul voted against life regarding sex selection abortions being made illegal.
He also against life by voting against making it crime to transport minors over state lines with out their parents permission.
He also voted against life by voting in favor of the post rape abortion pill.
He has only a 53% rating from NRLC(2012).
It really doesn’t matter how many babies he has delivered in the past, his voting record not his words show where he really stands on the issue of life.


115 posted on 06/12/2012 4:54:52 PM PDT by svcw (If one living cell on another planet is life, why isn't it life in the womb?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The first State house the military tries to take over because they won't outlaw abortion is going to start a full blown civil war.

Do you want that?

116 posted on 06/12/2012 4:57:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Persevero
The Libertarians should try building up their own party and stop trying to co-opt the Republicans.

Exactly.

I voted for Paul in the primary because I am and have been registered as a Republican all of my voting life - nearly 50 years and it would not make a difference in my tiny little State in a very late primary.

Having said that, I think that the party system needs to go. This is not a party. A party is supposed to be a fun thing - a social event.

This has turned into something else. It is now gang warfare - the DemoCrips vs. the RepubliBloods. Even the colors are the same.

The American people voting with the major parties in the next election will have a choice between an avowed Socialist who may or may not meet the primary Constitutional test of being able to hold the office; or a liberal Republican opponent who believes in magic underwear.

I'm voting for Gary Johnson in the general election. Arrange for me to be banned for that if you wish, but that is the way the mop is going to flop when I go to the voting booth.

My vote will not make a difference, because Obama does not stand a chance. It may make a difference in keeping the Libertarian party in play in future elections.

117 posted on 06/12/2012 5:03:27 PM PDT by elkfersupper ( Member of the Original Defiant Class)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
If folks want a war for a mythical "right" to kill innocent babies, that's their call.

All I want is for every officer of government in this country, at every level, in every branch, to do their sworn duty.

That's not an unreasonable expectation.

118 posted on 06/12/2012 5:46:29 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: elkfersupper

“Arrange for me to be banned for that if you wish”

I respect your right to vote for the person you want, and would never try to arrange your ban!


119 posted on 06/12/2012 5:52:45 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
All I want is for every officer of government in this country, at every level, in every branch, to do their sworn duty.

And to dictate what it is.

What will you do if the military follows the Constitution and refuses an order to engage civilians? Who's going to fight your war for you?

120 posted on 06/12/2012 6:02:13 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
And to dictate what it is.

No. The Constitution dictates:

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

What will you do if the military follows the Constitution and refuses an order to engage civilians? Who's going to fight your war for you?

Where does it say in the Constitution that the military cannot be used to stop those who are insurrectionists against the Constitution of the United States?

And again, there is no need for the military if the civilian authorities will simply keep their oath to protect the poeple, all of them.

121 posted on 06/12/2012 7:27:08 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
No. The Constitution dictates:

"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."

"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

And you dictate that "person" begins at conception. That's the part they don't get to vote on.

Where does it say in the Constitution that the military cannot be used to stop those who are insurrectionists against the Constitution of the United States?

If you start it, it's not an insurrection.

And again, there is no need for the military if the civilian authorities will simply keep their oath to protect the poeple, all of them.

If there's not going to be any disagreement allowed then you're going to have to kill people.

It can the ultimate "Now look what you made me do." moment.

122 posted on 06/12/2012 7:38:18 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
And you dictate that "person" begins at conception. That's the part they don't get to vote on.

A person is what a person is. You know it and so does everyone else. And no vote is going to change the facts of nature, or legitimately override God-given, unalienable rights.

If you start it, it's not an insurrection.

I'm not the one killing more innocent people every day than died on 9-11-2001, as the abortionists are. I didn't start anything.

If there's not going to be any disagreement allowed then you're going to have to kill people.

Again, I'm not killing anyone. I'm trying to stop the wanton killing of millions more of my fellow human beings.

123 posted on 06/12/2012 8:40:28 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Floor fight!

I hope Paul’s delegate give Mitt-Witt a run for his money!


124 posted on 06/12/2012 8:58:54 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Yes, that way they can keep spoiling close elections so that the Democrat beats the Republican every time.


125 posted on 06/12/2012 9:00:11 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Occupy DC General Assembly: We are Marxist tools. WE ARE MARXIST TOOLS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PoliticalArsonist
Do you have anything to back that up? Dr. Paul has personally delivered thousands of babies.

Does it sound like he is pro-life when he demands that an under-aged girl be allowed to cross state lines in order to get an abortion when they are illegal in the state she resides?
Cut and Run may have delivered thousands of babies, but that does not make him pro-life. He also SAYS he is against wasteful spending, but is there anybody running who has put in for and acquired more earmarks then him? I didn't think so.
126 posted on 06/13/2012 4:24:03 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
A person is what a person is. You know it and so does everyone else. And no vote is going to change the facts of nature, or legitimately override God-given, unalienable rights.

The first US Census was conducted in 1790, one year after the ratification of the US Constitution. How many unborn persons did they count?

I'm not the one killing more innocent people every day than died on 9-11-2001, as the abortionists are. I didn't start anything.

That's your take on it. For you to get the cooperation of the US military, every soldier is going to have to believe that too. If they don't , they're not going to follow your orders, and you'll have started a civil war you can't finish. What's the outcome of that going to look like?

Again, I'm not killing anyone. I'm trying to stop the wanton killing of millions more of my fellow human beings.

You're talking about sending the US military against civilians. Their job is to kill people and break things. Why are you sending them if you're not going to kill anyone?

127 posted on 06/13/2012 5:19:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Census is only intended to count born people.

The Constitution though, as it says, is intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.

No need for the military whatsoever if the civilian authorities will simply do their duty to provide equal protection within their jurisdictions, as I’ve told you previously.


128 posted on 06/13/2012 5:26:02 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

So, the oath doesn’t matter to you?


129 posted on 06/13/2012 5:27:29 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Do you think an officer of our government should refuse to fulfill the most important aspects of his moral and constitutional duty because you think someone else might not fulfill their own oath? Is that what you’re suggesting?

Isn’t this pretty much what has gotten us into the mess we’re in?


130 posted on 06/13/2012 5:31:12 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
So, the oath doesn’t matter to you?

You're the one it doesn't seem to matter to. It doesn't matter to you what they understood and believed they were voting on when they ratified the Constitution and those amendments. All that matters is what it means to you right now. They wrote it, debated it, and voted on it, not you.

131 posted on 06/13/2012 5:35:18 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”

“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Is the child in the womb a person or not?


132 posted on 06/13/2012 5:39:31 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Again, the burden is on you to prove that they somehow intended to exclude certain classes of persons, in spite of the fact that they used the explicit words “equal protection.”

How do you discern original intent anyhow if you ignore the simple meanings of the words they used?


133 posted on 06/13/2012 5:45:01 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Is the child in the womb a person or not?

Not to the federal government. You might not like it but that's the way it's been for as long as the federal government has existed. That can be changed by the States, but not by you.

134 posted on 06/13/2012 5:46:55 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Is the child in the womb a person or not?

Not to the federal government. You might not like it but that's the way it's been for as long as the federal government has existed. That can be changed by the States, but not by you.

135 posted on 06/13/2012 5:47:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
That's been asked and answered already.

Being tiresome doesn't convince people you're right, it just convinces them to stop listening.

136 posted on 06/13/2012 5:53:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

I’m asking you your take on the obvious facts of the matter. And you’re avoiding answering this crucial question, because you know the truth, and you know that if you admit to the truth, you will have lost this debate. It’s as simple as that.


137 posted on 06/13/2012 5:53:53 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It hasn’t been answered. You’ve avoided all of the fundamental questions upon which this controversy turn.


138 posted on 06/13/2012 5:55:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Is a child in the womb a person?

Does the Constitution imperatively require the equal protection of the right to life of all persons, in all jurisdictions?

Does the Constitution of the United States require each officer of government in this country to swear an oath before God to support the Constitution?

Is it unreasonable to expect that they do so?


139 posted on 06/13/2012 6:01:03 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I’m asking you your take on the obvious facts of the matter. And you’re avoiding answering this crucial question, because you know the truth, and you know that if you admit to the truth, you will have lost this debate. It’s as simple as that.

I'm giving you my take. You want me to tell you I believe a baby in the womb is a person, so that you can then tell me I must support your interpretation of the Constitution.

That means we're going to sit here and decide what the Constitution means between us, according to what we understand the words to mean to us right now. That's "living document" textualism.

I told you right up front, I'm an originalist. If you can't tolerate that, say so and we'll leave it at that and you can play your bullshit word games with somebody else.

140 posted on 06/13/2012 6:01:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Again, if you’re an originalist, show me some evidence that the framers of the Amendment intended to exclude certain classes of persons, even though the explicit words of the Amendment absolutely preclude such a possibility.


141 posted on 06/13/2012 6:06:02 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
That means we're going to sit here and decide what the Constitution means between us, according to what we understand the words to mean to us right now. That's "living document" textualism.

Actually, it is the ignoring of the simple meaning of words, and the clear requirements of those words, that leads to that.

142 posted on 06/13/2012 6:08:25 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Again, if you’re an originalist, show me some evidence that the framers of the Amendment intended to exclude certain classes of persons, even though the explicit words of the Amendment absolutely preclude such a possibility.

The evidence is there in the Constitutoin that they considered personhood to begin at birth. A person's age is calculated from birth, not conception. A person's citizenship is determined by his place of birth, not his place of conception. When they conducted the very first census, they counted all persons and did not include unborn babies.

If the original intent was as you claim, then abortion would have been outlawed in all the States and enforced by the federal government from the very beginning, and unborn babies would have been counted as persons in the census.

143 posted on 06/13/2012 6:15:27 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You want me to tell you I believe a baby in the womb is a person, so that you can then tell me I must support your interpretation of the Constitution.

If they are a person, it isn't a matter of private interpretation. It is a simple matter of whether you give one whit about following the most straightforward and self-evident requirements of the supreme law of the land or not.

If you are willing to ignore or redefine such words as "person," or "any," or "no," or "equal," or "protection," how in the world can we trust you with any other word in the Constitution?

Why would we look to someone who avoids the simple meanings of words, and the self-evident facts of nature, as an honest judge of the intent of the framers?

144 posted on 06/13/2012 6:15:45 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The evidence is there in the Constitutoin that they considered personhood to begin at birth. A person's age is calculated from birth, not conception. A person's citizenship is determined by his place of birth, not his place of conception. When they conducted the very first census, they counted all persons and did not include unborn babies.

Finally it's coming out. You agree with Blackmun and the Roe court majority that the child in the womb is not a person, constitutionally-speaking.

In spite of the Constitution's self-stated ultimate purpose, which is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity."

145 posted on 06/13/2012 6:30:32 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If they are a person, it isn't a matter of private interpretation.

Slaves were not considered "persons" under the original intent of the Constitution. Obviously there was some disagreement about that, but the fact that some people did consider them "persons" did not change federal law, or the original intent of the Constitution. It took an amendment, ratified by the States to do that, and the original intent of that amendment is now in effect.

Whether or not someone is a person (as a legal entity) is and always has been a matter of interpretation.

146 posted on 06/13/2012 6:30:41 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Whether or not someone is a person (as a legal entity) is and always has been a matter of interpretation.

Well, if folks refuse to see or admit to what the founders asserted to be self-evident, what's a guy gonna do?

147 posted on 06/13/2012 6:37:07 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Finally it's coming out. You agree with Blackmun and the Roe court majority that the child in the womb is not a person, constitutionally-speaking.

I disagree with Roe v Wade. There is no constituional "right to privacy" that prevents a state from outlawing the practice of abortion if they so choose. No such "right" is defined in the Constitution, and no enumerated power was granted to the federal government to assume control of it. The Tenth Amendment unequivocally leaves the matter to the States.

If you're going to tell lies about me, you'll have to do better than that for anyone to believe you.

148 posted on 06/13/2012 6:38:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Well, if folks refuse to see or admit to what the founders asserted to be self-evident, what's a guy gonna do?

If what's self-evident to you doesn't appear to be self-evident to anyone else, you might need to investigate your grasp on reality.

149 posted on 06/13/2012 6:42:25 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The Tenth Amendment does no such thing. It speaks only of legitimate powers, of the general government, of the states, and of the people. There is no legitimate power to alienate unalienable rights. Never has been, never will be. You should stop listening to Ron Paul.


150 posted on 06/13/2012 6:47:37 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The saving of the republic begins the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-384 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson