"SHALL CAUSE"
Do you understand? This was by definition a DEATH WARRANT.
Posted on 09/01/2012 7:45:13 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
Thanks to one of my Facebook friends, I was just today alerted to the interview Romney gave CBS news on 8/27/2012. The video is here. In the interview, Romney says, "My position has been clear throughout this campaign. I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest and the health and life of the mother."
The health of the mother exception is universally recognized by authentic pro-lifers as a loophole you can drive Roe v. Wade through. Then Romney makes the following statement, clearly putting an end to any notion that he is pro-life in any meaningful sense of the term:
"But recognize, this is the decision that will be made by the Supreme Court. The Democrats try and make this a political issue every four years, but this is a matter in the courts; it's been settled for some time in the courts...."
Translation: Pro-life is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. Romney's statement proves that with his nomination, the Republican Party effectively ceases to be the Party of Lincoln. Lincoln recognized that where a fundamental issue of unalienable rights is involved, no Supreme Court decision that fails to respect the principles of America's Declaration of Independence "settles the issue." By contrast, what we hear in Romney's interview is the slavish surrender of unchecked, unconstitutional, just plain tyrannical power to the federal courts. Did the Dred Scott decision in 1857 settle the issue of slavery? Not for Lincoln. No more can the present U.S. Supreme Court's pro-abortion jurisprudence settle the issue of abortion for us. In keeping with the Lincolnian heritage, the pro-life movement has been rooted in the Declaration's avowal of the Creator-endowed, equal, unalienable right to life. That's one of the things that made the Party of Lincoln its natural home.
But with Romney as its standard bearer, the GOP no longer upholds that avowal. To be sure, the GOP platform still makes cynical use of language drawn from America's Declaration heritage. But with his words, Romney rejects Lincoln's Declaration statesmanship; his articulation of the just cause of the Civil War; and his affirmation that the American people should never allow the Union to be dissolved on grounds that overthrow the indispensable principle of just self-government the Declaration articulates.
In this interview, Romney aims a death blow at the soul of the pro-life political cause. The timing of the interview was no accident. The evening before the vote that sealed his nomination as the GOP candidate for President, Romney makes a clear and emphatic statement nullifying the GOP's supposed platform commitment to the Declaration cause of the pro-life movement. So-called pro-life leaders and voters who back Romney cannot now deny that he stands openly within the political precincts of pro-abortion hell. As his supporters, they stand there with him. What we hear in Romney's CBS interview is the sound of the precincts' gates clanging shut behind them all. As I forewarned repeatedly: Romney's candidacy is a snare (Psalm 64:5), beware of falling into it.
Your emotional reaction to the Jeb Bush decision has clouded your reason. Wagglebee too. An innocent woman was killed and the USSC allowed it, but that doesn't mean that anyone can do anything they want to.
I think he has a PHD, which I recently learned stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.
"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."
Which parts of "no person," "no state," "any person," or "equal protection of the laws," do you fail to comprehend?
Do you not understand that the health of the mother means that for any reason whatsoever that a doctor comes up with they can abort a baby at any time?
Romney specifically included the “health” of the mother to ensure that there will be no limitation on abortion on demand.
Your reaction is for Jeb to uphold the US Constitution when the USSC did not. But due process means that Bush could not ignore the FL SC after the USSC chose not to review the case. In this case Florida law was unequally applied or misapplied the FL SC chose to ignore that for political reasons. That failure is a part of due process for Schiavo and it could not be undone.
No. It was Terri Schiavo who did not receive due process. She was not charged, tried or convicted of any capital offense before Judge Greer issued his immoral, illegal, unconstitutional death warrant, one which not only allowed but REQUIRED her to be put to death by cruel and unusual means.
Suppose a judge decided someone should be sentenced to starvation for whatever reason (convicted or not). Don’t you think the state courts and USSC would overturn that sentence in a heartbeat? There was no sentence or “death warrant” or whatever you want to call it, but an incorrectly decided custody battle as I pointed out at the time. The FL SC failed to correct it out of willful ignorance driven by politics. There is no legal remedy for that situation.
That makes no sense. Someone, Terri Schindler Schiavo, was sentenced to death by starvation and dehydration, a cruel and unusual sentence against an uncharged, untried, unconvicted, innocent person that was summarily carried out. And neither the judicial nor the executive branches in Florida or nationally lifted a finger to stop it.
Of course there was.
"SHALL CAUSE"
Do you understand? This was by definition a DEATH WARRANT.
Presumably that’s because of the 5th Amendment you quote above. Schiavo was deprived of life based on improper awarding of custody and some other errors by Greer. There is no question that errors like that lead to injustices often overturned and the victim is given back their freedom and property. In her case her life was forfeit for a mistake that has yet to be overturned. It may be someday but it wasn’t Jeb Bush’s job to do that.
the guardian shall cause, not the State. The guardian has that right, for better or for worse.
"Shall cause" means he must. No options. It's a death warrant.
The guardian has that right, for better or for worse.
Such a claim is a denial of the self-evident truth of the core moral natural law basis of this free republic. No one has the right to kill an innocent person. The individual right to life of the innocent is unalienable. It preceded and supersedes all human constitutions and laws. This is the first principle of America, as stated by Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence, by the framers of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and all of our state constitutions.
In Schiavo's case her alleged directive was inconclusive and should not have been enforced by that judge, but he had a conflict of interest and did it anyway. Lots of errors and poor decisions by appeals and FL SC followed. Unfortunately that cannot be remedied by extra-legal action.
And it’s this disregard for human life in it’s most vulnerable stage, that makes these deceivers most dangerous.
The kind that won’t blink at turning the Extortion- “care” vise on everyone else but themselves.
All the lawyer-talk in the world won’t change the fact that Terri Schindler Schiavo, an innocent woman, was brutally tortured to death, by judicial edict, and by the failure of every officer of government, at every level of governance, from Pinellas County, to Tallahassee, to Washington, DC, to keep the most important obligations of their oaths.
You got it.
“If the Mother makes the decision to have and keep the child (and there are many), I say you’re a wonderful human being. But, I refuse to force that decision.”
~ ~ ~
I wish I could change your view.
God is the creator, it’ is never our choice. Satan laughs
at a woman’s right to choose.
God cannot bless this country with non-Christian, pro-choice, pro-sodomoite candidates running for President.
It’s getting darker, a lot of you run from the Truth, Romney pretends, he is a pro-abort and has furthered the homosexual agenda. He hasn’t changed.
Fifty years of mocking God, God is going to bring His just
judgment down on this country, it’s already started. Prophecy states,everyone will realize before the end of the year.
However, Terri Schiavo GAVE NO SUCH DIRECTIVE.
In Schiavo's case her alleged directive was inconclusive and should not have been enforced by that judge,
Terri's HAD NO DIRECTIVE, in the absence of a directive the conclusion must be that she wanted to live.
Keep in mind that Terri DID NOT have any type of terminal illness, she had a disability.
I agree with all of that. The judge essentially made one up for her illegally based on some casual comments she allegedly made. Then the appeals court refused to hear the complete case and the FL SC made a bad ruling. Her Federal rights were violated by the state of Florida but the USSC punted. Unfortunately that ended it. No executive at the state or federal level could do anything about it.
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.