Posted on 06/08/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
See ya.
Possible, but not likely.
"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."-- Ronald Reagan
"It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration, to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. A just estimate of that love of power, and proneness to abuse it, which predominates in the human heart, is sufficient to satisfy us of the truth of this position. The necessity of reciprocal checks in the exercise of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositaries, and constituting each the guardian of the public weal against invasions by the others, has been evinced by experiments ancient and modern; some of them in our country and under our own eyes. To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them. If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield."
I can sympathize the objective, but your chosen means suck skunk butt.
Please explain how the executive - whose primary charge is the execution of the laws, of which the Constitution is supreme - securing the lives of the innocents who are being slaughtered - as the Constitution explicitly and imperatively demands - can be an encroachment on the other branches, or a usurpation of any other branch’s legitimate power.
Your quote from Washington is a non sequitur.
The usurpers and tyrants are those who are aiding and abetting the killing of children, not those who desire to protect them. You have the world turned upside down.
By claiming authority via sophistry and misrepresentation.
By the way, you obviously don’t understand my “chosen means” at all. Your blinders won’t let you see it.
If all other officers of government, at all levels, in every branch, will simply do THEIR first sworn duty, which is to equally protect the lives of the people, the president won’t have to do anything at all.
http://www.equalprotectionforposterity.com/the-equal-protection-for-posterity-resolution.html
If his duty is to protect the rights of the people, he has the authority to fulfill his duty. It’s foolishness and a mockery to claim otherwise.
Sophistry is the hiding of the truth under a cloud of misleading words. The idea that I’m doing that is laughable. I don’t know of any candidate who is being as open and honest about his intentions as I am.
If you want sophistry and misrepresentation, go read any communication from the Romney campaign.
If you're claiming you're going to do this because some other official isn't doing their job, they you are consolidating power of another department to the Executive branch.
Yes. Typically by taking the meaning of a word in one context and applying it in another. Like carefully avoiding the historical context of when the federal government has always acknowleged a "person", and instead taking the word "person" in a different context and then transparently slipping that back into the first context.
Wrong. We're talking about life here, the defense of which is the first duty of all officers of government in this country.
A tree is a tree.
A blade of grass is a blade of grass.
A rock is a rock.
Nature is nature, no matter what you pretend.
The summation of the work of Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence:
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
Okay, when the first-place candidate has 1300 or so bound delegates, there’s a limit to how much difference guys with one or two hundred delegates are going to make in the platform.
I understand. You have to keep repeating that to prevent the distinction between a statutory person and a biological person from getting in. That allows you to substitute the biological definition for the statutory definition, effectively changing the law by rhetorical subterfuge.
You're now admitting that we're talking about a biological person? Maybe we're making progress.
effectively changing the law by rhetorical subterfuge
The supreme law says:
"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."
It's hard for me to imagine a phrase that could be any more of a "rhetorical subterfuge" than the euphemism "statutory person."
Like Blackmun and his colleagues you're using lawyer-talk to dehumanize the child and leave them with absolutely no protection. That's the bottom line.
Fifty-four million and counting now...
You've got one kind of "person" that can only be biological person, and one that can be a person, corporation, city, or country. If that strains your comprehension then we're probably at the end of the discussion.
The laws come with their own definitions of the terms used that may not be the same as the definitions used outside of that context. If you change the definitions, you've effectively changed the law. If you're doing that then you're assuming the power that was granted to the legislature.
Sorry buddy. The Fourteenth Amendment isn’t talking about corporations. And that ain’t a little city in mama’s belly.
What’s your followup plan for when you tell the USSC “there’s no such thing as a statutory person” and they rip you to shreds?
Trying to conflate corporate personhood with the natural rights of human beings, invididuals to live is ludicrous.
I never said there isn’t any such thing as a statutory person. That would be ridiculous. About as ridiculous as using it as euphemistic cover for the killing of innocent flesh and blood persons.
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.
