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 ...
No. The Constitution dictates:
"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.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
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.
"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.
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.
Floor fight!
I hope Paul’s delegate give Mitt-Witt a run for his money!
Yes, that way they can keep spoiling close elections so that the Democrat beats the Republican every time.
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?
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.
So, the oath doesn’t matter to you?
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?
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.
“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?
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?
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.
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.
Being tiresome doesn't convince people you're right, it just convinces them to stop listening.
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.
It hasn’t been answered. You’ve avoided all of the fundamental questions upon which this controversy turn.
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?
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.
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.