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 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-384 next last
To: tacticalogic
The Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The burden is on you to prove that the framers specifically intended to exclude a certain subsection of what you have already admitted are biological persons.

It certainly isn't in the text of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendments.

"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."

No exceptions to be found there.

251 posted on 06/14/2012 5:19:13 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 250 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

They are obviously referring to individual biological persons, citizens or not, not corporate entities.

If they meant citizens, they would have said citizens. A distinction they clearly made in Section One.


252 posted on 06/14/2012 5:25:27 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 249 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The burden is on you to prove that the framers specifically intended to exclude a certain subsection of what you have already admitted are biological persons.

Did they count them in the census? If they considered them "persons" then they're entitled to representation. If they don't get counted then they're being denied representation.

What did they consider the "0 point" of a person's age, when they were first recognized as a person?

253 posted on 06/14/2012 5:32:29 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Twenty five years from when?

From birth, obviously.

That's when the privileges and immunities of citizens begin.

The God-given, unalienable right to life of persons begins at creation however.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

-- The Declaration of Independence


254 posted on 06/14/2012 5:33:46 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 250 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
From birth, obviously.

That's when the privileges and immunities of citizens begin.

Then why does it say you only have to have been a citizen for 7 years instead of 25?

255 posted on 06/14/2012 5:43:16 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
What did they consider the "0 point" of a person's age, when they were first recognized as a person?

Again, you're conflating the privileges and immunities of citizens and the God-given rights of individual persons.

Again, all citizens are persons, but not all persons are citizens.

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood this simple distinction perfectly.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A foreign visitor to our country doesn't have a right to vote or run for office. But, their rights to life, liberty and property are protected in each and every jurisdiction.

256 posted on 06/14/2012 5:46:41 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 253 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Again, you're conflating the privileges and immunities of citizens and the God-given rights of individual persons.

They state explicitly that the number of Representatives a State shall have will be determined by on enumeration of persons, not citizens. Every person gets counted, regardless of whether they are a citizen or not.

257 posted on 06/14/2012 5:52:05 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

That’s what I already said. So?


258 posted on 06/14/2012 7:18:27 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 257 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
That’s what I already said. So?

So who did they count? If they recognized unborn babies as legal "persons" they would be counted in the census. Did they count them?

And since you're a fan of questions with seemingly self-evident answers: If a person is twenty five years old, how long have they been a person?

259 posted on 06/14/2012 7:23:33 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Counting unborn persons in a census is a practical impossibility. So much so that the framers didn’t even consider such a thing. But the inability to count them does not equate to a right to kill them.

No one ever said that there aren’t practical differences between those persons who are born and those who have not yet been born and how the world must, out of the necessities created by their natural state, interact with them. There obviously are.

But the intrinsic, natural, moral qualities of both sorts of persons are identical. Their rights are God-given and unalienable, from their creation, as the founders held to be self-evident in the Declaration.

It is not an unalienable right to be counted in a census. But the right to live is.


260 posted on 06/14/2012 8:39:50 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 259 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Counting unborn persons in a census is a practical impossibility. So much so that the framers didn’t even consider such a thing.

There are many impracticalities involved.

You say that the word "person" as used in the Constitution refers both to a statutory and a biological person. That it must refer to a statutory person is self evident. That it also refers to a biological person, and was understood and intended to appears to be purely speculation. Every available test I can see that would clarify it fails to produce any evidence that was the original intent and understanding.

There is no basis I can see for a claim that what you are proposing is an exercise in an "original intent" application of the Constitution. It is an innovation - an new interpretation and application. It will have unintended consequences. If "personhood" begins at conception rather than birth, every application of the law that makes reference to that age of a person is subject to challenge.

Many other questions will be asked, from all quarters. Current technology allows us to freeze fertilized eggs almost indefinitely. If they are kept for many years, thawed out implanted, will the person be born already eligible to vote, or collect retirement benefits? While it was impractical to count them then, we do have the technology to do it now. A state could have a facility for creating and storing frozen, fertilized human eggs. The could conceivably stockpile millions of them in a relatively small space. Could the state then use this new interpretation to claim that since they are persons, they should be counted as part of the state's population, and the state then entitled to additional representatives in Congress based on additional population?

There are probably a lot more questions and potential problems this would provoke, and it doesn't appear that you've made any attempt to consider what all the consequences are going to be or are pepared to have answers to the questions.

Forcing a re-interpretation of what the word "person" means in the Constitution will cascade to a potential re-interpretation of every law already on the books that's derived from those parts of the Constitution that make reference to a "person". It would be struck down in courts just for the potential chaos it will cause figuring out how it could affect existing law.

The proper way to do this is with an amendment.

261 posted on 06/15/2012 5:26:26 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
There are probably a lot more questions and potential problems this would provoke, and it doesn't appear that you've made any attempt to consider what all the consequences are going to be or are pepared to have answers to the questions.

Well, we already know the consequences of your position.

I could show you photos if you'd like.

262 posted on 06/15/2012 5:55:31 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 261 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

Do you think that’s going to fix what’s wrong with your idea?


263 posted on 06/15/2012 6:12:36 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The proper way to do this is with an amendment.

You first. Amend away the word "posterity" in the statement of purpose.

pos·ter·i·ty/päˈsteritē/
Noun:

All future generations.

Synonyms:
progeny - issue - offspring

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


264 posted on 06/15/2012 6:21:52 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 261 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Now there's an idea.

Demand that the Declaration of Independence be amended.

That'll make it all work.

265 posted on 06/15/2012 6:26:18 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Do you think that’s going to fix what’s wrong with your idea?

There's nothing wrong with "my idea." It comports perfectly with the laws of nature and of Nature's God, with all the stated purposes of the framers of the U.S. Constitution, and with what even you know is right in your own heart.

Unlike your position, which is nothing more than the sort of "clever" lawyering that led directly to the dehumanization of a certain class of human beings, and the butchering of more than fifty million of them.

266 posted on 06/15/2012 6:29:34 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 263 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Those aren’t the words of the Declaration of Independence. They are the words of the U.S. Constitution.


267 posted on 06/15/2012 6:32:29 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 265 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
There's nothing wrong with "my idea."

Well then, good luck with it. I'll be watching to see how well it works out for you.

268 posted on 06/15/2012 6:33:27 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You’re so concerned about what constitutes a “statutory person.”

Why are you then completely unconcerned about who constitutes “posterity”?


269 posted on 06/15/2012 6:35:36 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 265 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
I'm concerned with doing something that might actually work.

You sit there and argue that anybody that doesn't agree to do it your way just wants to kill babies. I'll watch and see how that works out for you.

270 posted on 06/15/2012 6:40:56 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Your way has been tried for forty years. The evidence is already in.


271 posted on 06/15/2012 6:51:47 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 270 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

How long have you been at it your way, and what’s your success rate so far?


272 posted on 06/15/2012 6:54:06 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

A couple of years. And our “success rate” is zero. They’re still killing babies, under the color of “law.”


273 posted on 06/15/2012 7:01:38 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 272 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

So all the evidence so far says your idea doesn’t work, either?


274 posted on 06/15/2012 7:04:27 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
No. It just means there are too many still playing the same old word games that you are, and putting their pet constitutional theories ahead of what is self-evidently true.

"Either life is always and in all circumstances sacred, or intrinsically of no account; it is inconceivable that it should be in some cases the one, and in some the other." -- Malcolm Muggeridge

275 posted on 06/15/2012 7:14:45 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 274 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
"The traditional Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life, regardless of its stage or condition. This ethic...has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social policy. The reverence for each and every human life has also been a keystone of Western medicine. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra-uterine or extra-uterine, until death."

-- California Medicine, September, 1970


276 posted on 06/15/2012 7:31:50 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 274 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

If we’re picking people to draw out of their own conscience and experience a ‘new’ Constitution, we should not look principally for good lawyers. We should look to people who agree with us. When we are in that mode, you realize we have rendered the Constitution useless. —Antonin Gregory Scalia, Supreme Court Justice


277 posted on 06/15/2012 7:36:15 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You speak of the Constitution, and following it, but consistently ignore its stated purposes, all of which abortion violates, and continue to do EXACTLY what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.


278 posted on 06/15/2012 7:44:35 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 277 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

And from that you conclude that the federal government should control the practice of medicine?


279 posted on 06/15/2012 7:44:50 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You speak of the Constitution, and following it, but consistently ignore its stated purposes, all of which abortion violates, and continue to do EXACTLY what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.

All I have done is express an opinion that ending abortion is best pursued by the process of amendment, and that I do not believe trying to do it by Executive Order will be successful.

Please explain to me and everyone else how that is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

280 posted on 06/15/2012 7:51:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

No. Not unless they’re killing people.

You obviously don’t understand the quote. They were saying that killing people has no place in the legitimate practice of medicine.

Do you think Dr. Mengele’s practice of “medicine” should have not been meddled with?


281 posted on 06/15/2012 7:55:19 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 279 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

I’m not saying any more until I get this business of disagreeing with you being a federal crime sorted out.


282 posted on 06/15/2012 8:05:28 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Please explain to me and everyone else how that is a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

You've argued right along that because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention abortion, or the rights of the unborn (even though it actually does by the use of the word "posterity"), these biological persons (as you admit them to be) are not to be considered persons constitutionally.

But the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids that.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So, even if you choose to ignore all the stated purposes of the document. Even if you pretend that it doesn't specifically protect all individual human persons, without exception, you cannot legitimately argue from silence. The founders were careful to say that such an argument is not to be countenanced.

Because, they well understood the truth that Blackstone posited so well:

"Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolate. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."

-- William Blackstone


283 posted on 06/15/2012 8:09:55 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 280 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
All I've done is argue that the definition of "person" in the Constittuion has not historically been applied in the manner you say it should be.

Now you're telling me it's a violation of the Ninth Amendment to make that argument.

284 posted on 06/15/2012 8:14:12 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

It is a violation of the Ninth Amendment to strip away the unalienable rights of the people based on some conclusion that the Constitution doesn’t specifically address those rights. Why is that so hard to understand?


285 posted on 06/15/2012 8:18:07 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 284 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
It is a violation of the Ninth Amendment to strip away the unalienable rights of the people based on some conclusion that the Constitution doesn’t specifically address those rights. Why is that so hard to understand?

What is hard to understand is how simply making the argument that an amendment would be better than an Excutive Order constitutes actually stripping away those rights and being in violation of that Amendment.

286 posted on 06/15/2012 8:24:00 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Again, there is no need for an executive order if all officers of government, at all levels, in every branch, will simply fulfill the primary reason for the existence of their offices, which is the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable rights of the people, all the people, beginning with the right to live.


287 posted on 06/15/2012 8:29:57 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 286 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

The idea that we need an amendment in order to fulfill the first and primary purpose of government is ludicrous.

But it sure has made a fine diversion for forty years.


288 posted on 06/15/2012 8:34:41 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 286 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
That still doesn't explain how arguing that an amendment would be better constitutes a violation of the Ninth Amendment.

You've accused me of committing a crime, and I'd like an explanation.

289 posted on 06/15/2012 8:39:41 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
The idea that we need an amendment in order to fulfill the first and primary purpose of government is ludicrous.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. I find the idea that the President can do it by simple decree dubious. Even if you could, what's to stop the next President from un-doing it just as easily?

290 posted on 06/15/2012 8:44:25 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 288 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You’re arguing that they are not a person, constitutionally, even though you admit that, biologically, they are in fact a person.

You argue that the unborn are not mentioned (even though they are), and that therefore their rights can be legitimately stripped from them.

The Ninth Amendment expressly forbids that.

It’s pretty simple.


291 posted on 06/15/2012 8:52:15 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 289 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Even if you could, what's to stop the next President from un-doing it just as easily?

In the first place, as I've told you repeatedly, the president wouldn't need to do a thing if every other officer of government, in each branch, at every level, were simply fulfilling the first reason for the existence of their offices, which is to protect the rights of the people, all the people, beginning with their right to live.

If this were so, as it should be, any president who tried to open the door to the wholesale slaughter of more millions of helpless, innocent human beings would be checked on every front.

That's how our form of government is supposed to work.

292 posted on 06/15/2012 8:58:50 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 290 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
You argue that the unborn are not mentioned (even though they are), and that therefore their rights can be legitimately stripped from them.

The Ninth Amendment expressly forbids that.

The Ninth Amendment forbids making an argument that you can mischaracterize is "stripping rights"?

If you really believe that, and you were the President then I'd expect you'd have the Justice Department prosecuting me for that.

293 posted on 06/15/2012 9:00:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
In the first place, as I've told you repeatedly, the president wouldn't need to do a thing if every other officer of government, in each branch, at every level, were simply fulfilling the first reason for the existence of their offices, which is to protect the rights of the people, all the people, beginning with their right to live.

And you're running on a platform that electing you President will make that happen, immediatly and ever after, and I find it very hard to believe you can do that.

294 posted on 06/15/2012 9:22:18 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Wow. What a stretch.


295 posted on 06/15/2012 9:32:27 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 293 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Actually, this is what I'm "running on."

The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution

This Resolution is the heart of my platform, the platform of our party, and of the Leadership Pledge that every leader in our party, either inside or outside of public office, must be consistently accountable to.

If every American who calls themselves "conservative" would simply follow our example, the abortion holocaust would come to a speedy end.

296 posted on 06/15/2012 9:45:12 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 294 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

You accused me of a crime. I take that very seriously.


297 posted on 06/15/2012 9:51:12 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Misunderstanding the Constitution may be destructive but it isn’t a crime in any way that I’m aware of.


298 posted on 06/15/2012 9:56:15 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 297 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
If every American who calls themselves "conservative" would simply follow our example, the abortion holocaust would come to a speedy end.

What are you going to do about the people who don't?

299 posted on 06/15/2012 9:56:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Convince ‘em, or fight ‘em. Of course.

What are you going to do to pass this amendment of which you speak, and what will its wording be?


300 posted on 06/15/2012 9:59:14 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 299 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 201-250251-300301-350351-384 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