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

To: fetal heart beats by 21st day
O.K., you're wrong here. If you subscribe to true Conservative principles and classic federalism, then you should realize that the federal government had NO business getting involved in the Schiavo case, period. It was a state and local matter, and should have ended there, rather than becoming the national circus that it did.

The federal government has a DUTY to “uphold the Constitution” and to “protect and defend life.”

While the federal government does have the duty to upheld the U.S. Constitution, there is NO provision in the document that orders the government to "protect and defend life", as you put it. That is a matter left for the states, under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm sympathetic to your zeal in defending "life," but every time the federal government gets involved in the issue, it turns into a big mess, in which we lose more and more of our liberty. State's rights, remember?

37 posted on 02/14/2008 5:00:52 AM PST by Virginia Ridgerunner ("We must not forget that there is a war on and our troops are in the thick of it!"--Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: Virginia Ridgerunner

“When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands whivh have connected them with one another....they should declare the causes which impel them to Separation.”

“We hold these Truths to be self-evident,

that all Men 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 United States Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

The founders of the US, on the purpose of the new govt.


40 posted on 02/14/2008 5:31:58 AM PST by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

States rights do not trump God-given unalienable rights, the protection of which are the primary reason for the very existence of government.

Like too many now, you obviously don’t understand the difference between enumerated powers and enumerated and unenumerated rights.

Your views in this matter, which are shared by far too many now, are destroying America.


41 posted on 02/14/2008 5:36:00 AM PST by EternalVigilance (Oh say does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

“While the federal government does have the duty to upheld the U.S. Constitution, there is NO provision in the document that orders the government to “protect and defend life”, as you put it. That is a matter left for the states, under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.”

When the US Constituion was ratified in 1787, it included the Bill of Rights, which declared some specific restrictions on the federal government.

“No person shall...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...”

The Fifth Amenment’s Due Process REQUIREMENT of the US Constitution.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Due Process clause was incorporated, making the Due Process clause binding on state governments as well as the federal govt.

The Equal Protection clause was added to ensure its uniform application to all persons, commonly understood throughout history and, until 1973, as human beings.

“...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.”

Terri Schiavo was “deprived of life” under a Florida court order.

She was denied equal protection of the law.

The state has no constitutional or moral authority to order innocent people to death.

The federal government has a constitutional duty to defend innocent human life.

Anyone who tells you the state has the right to kill innocent human beings under its state rights umbrella is a liar.


49 posted on 02/14/2008 5:48:41 AM PST by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

“If you subscribe to true Conservative principles and classic federalism, “

I do subscribe to Conservative principles and classic federalism.

I believe, as the founders did, that life comes from God.

I believe, as the founders did, that capital offenses, after being tried in court, following Due Process and Equal Protection requirements, may have capital punishment as their consequence.

I believe, as the founders did, that power should be shared, and not concentrated in the hands of a few.

I believe, as the founders did, that in order to prevent tyranny, some duties, such as the duty to protect innocent human life, should be shared by all levels of govt, while other responsibilities should be reserved to the states. This is classic federalism.

I believe in adhering to those principles and applying those principles to all innocent human beings.

I beleive in CONSERVING the foundational principles of our government, no matter which Johnny Come Lately tries to redefine the meaning of Conservatism or federalism.


51 posted on 02/14/2008 6:00:36 AM PST by fetal heart beats by 21st day (Defending human life is not a federalist issue. It is the business of all of humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

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