Posted on 09/14/2016 10:21:48 AM PDT by Impala64ssa
According to this news source, he is Democrat:
http://universalfreepress.com/2016/democrat-mayor-ohio-rape/
But, of course we knew that if he was a Republican, it would be national news, Trump’s name would be mentioned several times in the article, and the term “war on women” would be brought up.
No. It’s the Democrat war on babies and children.
This...next progressive cause/anti-faith/traditionalist conquest.
Satan's lawyers are already lining up, dems filling federal judgeship's, hollywood/academia at the ready...
Pure human waste that needs to be flushed.
Here you go...democrat
http://universalfreepress.com/2016/democrat-mayor-ohio-rape/
Since his party affiliation is not mentioned .....
I agree. It is interesting the different interpretations of our Constitution at times though.
The Left plain ignores it, and 'some' on the right attribute to it things I don't think it intended.
Can't think of a good example at this moment, but discussions do tend to get interesting at times.
Thanks - pretty complete registration info for the 14 states covered ...
I’m a terrible person. The first thing I though of was the “Montana Stick” when he states the girl was a willing participant.
Apparently not enough.
Millstone around neck... throw into water...
Regards,
Raise the bar for conviction.
Make the penalty being burned alive.
All of sudden the problem drops to 1/100th of what it is now.
I’m sick of American ‘compassion’.
Connecting this creep to a political party wasn't done because we as conservatives are infallible or above the fray. I suspect that those who claimed he was a Democrat was an illustration in how stories like these are reported in the media.
If this guy were a Republican, the title, along with numerous references within the article would say as much. Since the guy is apparently a Democrat, his party affiliation is buried. Standard, mainstream media modus operandi.
Pedophilia encouraged in the democrat party.
“Filings obtained by the Youngstown Vindicator go into extensive detail about his purported admissions during group discussions at the psychiatric ward.”
There is only one thing sickos like him like as much as molesting children and it is reliving the event by retelling them. If I was the father of this child, I would put a bullet in his brain and dare a grand jury to indict me.
I think that is a good point Lou L.
On that basis, I agree with the observation.
explaining that he is a "willing recipient" of the bullet.
ofc?
“of course”
internet abbreviation
I’m developing a discussion on the subject of the average Joe learning HIS Constitution and it includes what I call Perverted Presumptions of the Constitution which has been continually eroded from the start by those who love government. Every perversion of the Constitution has been an increase in the power of the central government. All the “living” Constitution concept is, is weakening the limitations on the power of federal government. It is basically as socialist agenda.
FYI, the website where I hope to get all this in soon is
http://sonsofconstitutionalliberty
The discussion I have so far about the Perverted Presumptions of the Constitution is below.
The 4th step in understanding the Constitution is understanding modern PERVERTED PRESUMPTIONS that depart from the Constitutional as written and originally understood and intended. Such perversions are generally those Congressional acts and SCOTUS decisions over the last 100 years or so that have given the feds sweeping, authoritative, and actually totalitarian powers with little to no constitutional reasoning or basis for doing so. The big three perversions plus a forth that I have added, are
1) “The Incorporation Doctrine” - judicial misapplication of the 14th Amendment giving the feds sweeping powers not contemplated by the ratifiers of the amendment who intended the 14th Amendment to be a Reconstruction Amendment establishing ex-slaves as full citizens, nothing more.
2) The [Interstate] “Commerce Clause” (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 3) astonishingly been expanded by Congress and ratified by SCOTUS to give the feds almost unlimited power over intrastate and local economic activities again, not contemplated by the ratifiers of the Constitution.
3) The “Necessary and Proper Clause” (Art I, Sec 8, Cl 18), originally intended to allow executive enforcement and regulation pursuant to legislation within the scope of the Constitution, the N&P Clause has been expanded beyond constitutional grounds and limits to such an extent that a quasi-fourth branch of government has been created: the Administrative State with behemoth unconstitutional bureaucracies.
4) The power and effect of SCOTUS decisions. Society and the legal community have granted SCOTUS much greater power than what the ratifiers of the Constitution contemplated. Nowhere does the Constitution give SCOTUS power to create national law. SCOTUS is the judicial, not legislative branch, given power to decide INDIVIDUAL CASES and CONTROVERSIES (Art III, Sec 2). Thus SCOTUS decisions, if soundly based on the Constitution, are valid but limited to precedent for like cases. A SCOTUS decision that is deemed unconstitutional should be ignored and nullified by the states and the other federal branches, but not without sound Constitution-based explanation and reasons for such nullification.
Post-1900 SCOTUS decisions are generally problematic while pre-1900 decisions are better and more helpful in accurately interpreting constitutional phrases. There are very few good resources that critically analyze SCOTUS decisions based on sound constitutional understanding, and Judge Robert Bork’s books are one of those rare resources. https://www.amazon.com/Tempting-America-Robert-H-Bork/dp/0684843374
Thanks for the great response. I appreciate what you are trying to do.
I don’t consider myself a Constitutional scholar, so I will admit that on some questions my eyes glaze over, and I simply address what I think should be the outcome, rather than address exactly why.
Your efforts would probably help me a quite a bit to understand certain matters.
I haven’t studied up on the 14th Amendment. I do realize it is quite problematic.
The other issues you touched on, are problematic too. I appreciate you raising them to the level of my awareness.
It’s seldom that happens.
I’ll book mark your post and return to it, checking out the links. The Bork suggestion would probably be a great place to start.
I’ll check out your site too.
Thanks again.
More rough draft I have written on the 14th Amendment below...
Below is a part of Q&A argument posted earlier as to the original intent of the ratifiers of the 14A and why the Incorporation Doctrine should be repealed and made void.
The flawed, so-called "Incorporation Doctrine" is one of the justifications used for federal interference with state abortion and marriage laws. Below is a discussion with some reasons why this incredible expansion of federal power is unconstitutional, unwarranted, and unwanted.
Q: What is the basis for saying that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply only to former slaves?
A: - The historical context of the post-civil war reconstruction period to instate the former slaves as full U.S. citizens with full rights as others.
- The legal context of this being the middle of the three reconstruction amendments.
- The lack of clear text that proves specific provision of unparalleled and massive expansion of federal power which would have been completely out of place from the purpose of these post-civil war reconstruction amendments and would have produced much evidence, of which there is none, of debate and discussion about such a radical departure from American governance, as noted below.
- The weight of the probative value of accuracy and precedent in a SCOTUS case decided four years after the amendment was ratified versus 131 years later.
- The intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters. Thomas’ argument rests on the drafters’ intent to apply Corfield v. Coryell rights. But as noted below, there is scant evidence this was intended by the ratifiers and it is the intent of the ratifiers, not the drafters, that counts.
Judge Robert Bork, the generally recognized leading scholar on Constitutional Law of his time and most notably focused on original understanding and intent in construction, said this about the fourteenth amendment:
"The fourteenth amendment was adopted shortly after the Civil War, and all commentators are agreed that its primary purpose was the protection of the recently freed slaves. As we have seen, of the amendment's three clauses, two have been pressed into service of judicial imperialism - the due process and equal protection clauses - while the third, the privileges and immunities clause, has remained a cadaver that it was left by the Slaughter-House Cases.
"The due process clause will not do as a warrant for the creation of new constitutional rights because, as Ely notes, it is simply a requirement that government not do certain things to people without fair procedures, not a statement of what things may not be done. The fifth amendment's due process clause, which applied only against the federal government, was later copied in the fourteenth amendment, which applied to the states. 'There is general agreement that the earlier clause had been understood at the time of its inclusion to refer to lawful procedures. What recorded comment there was at the time of replication in the fourteenth amendment is devoid of any reference that gives the provision more than a procedural connotation' (J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust (1980) at 105-16). That is true, and it is more than enough to condemn the hundreds of cases, stretching from Dred Scott to today, in which the courts have given the due process clause substantive content in order to read their own notions of policy into the Constitution.
"Bingham and Howard meant these additional rights [taken from Corfield v. Coryell]. That the ratifiers did is far less clear. Certainly there is no evidence that the ratifying convention intended such power in judges, and it is their intent, not the drafters’, that counts. Nor is it easy to imagine the northern states, victorious in a Civil War that lead to the fourteenth amendment, should have decided to turn over to the federal courts not only the protection of the rights of freed slaves but an unlimited power to frustrate the will of the Northern states themselves. The only significant exercise of judicial review in the past century had been Dred Scott, a decision hated in the North and one hardly likely to encourage the notion that courts should be given carte blanche to set aside legislative acts.
"Had any such radical departure from the American method of governance been intended, had courts been intended to supplant legislatures, there would be more than a shred of evidence to that effect. That proposal would have provoked an enormous debate and public discussion.
"We know there is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts. We know that a constitutional revolution of that magnitude would have provoked widespread and heated (to put it mildly) discussion but there is no record of any such discussion. The rather sweeping mandate must be judged counterfeit” (R. Bork, The Tempting of America (1990), excerpted at 180-83).
And, therefore, in reference to Justice Miller’s opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Bork says, “ Miller was following sound judicial instinct: to reject a construction of a new amendment that would leave the Court at large in the field of public policy without any guidelines other than the views of its members. [ ] In a word, the history of the fourteenth amendment gave judges no guidance on any subject other than the protection of blacks. Beyond that, the Justices had nothing more to apply than their personal views. That, Miller thought, was reason enough to confine the amendment almost entirely to the subject of race” (id. at 37-38).
Q: Under Bork's interpretation, a state could disarm its citizens and it would be entirely constitutional.
A: Yes, but you miss some important issues.
1) States are local governance, governed by the people of the state through the ballot by representation and directly by initiative and propositions. The majority of people of a given state are in control of what that state does as long as the feds don't interfere.
2) History shows it is the FEDS who impose noxious and unconstitutional requirements on the states. History also shows that the states, left alone, generally are in harmony with the rights and freedoms of individuals. Easiest example is abortion. Before 1973, the states generally prohibited abortion. It was SCOTUS and their application of the 14A against the states that outlawed state anti-abortion laws, allowing the infanticide of some 70 million unborn. Another easy example is currently, the greatest pressure against gun ownership isn't the states, it's the feds.
3) The freedom of states to run their own show, generally, is much more in line with the constitutional design of federalism. And, again, history tells us that the chances of a state disarming its citizens is much less likely than the feds forcing disarmament using the 14A as their club.
I agree with Bork and Miller and believe simply that the ratifiers were trying to put former slaves on equal footing with all U.S. citizens. Just guessing (something Bork, admirably, was loathe to do which is why he might have been one of our greatest Justices if he had been given the chance), my sense is the ratifiers were simply wanting to confirm that states could not discriminate against black out-of staters. In that sense, P&I in the 14A doesn't add anything, only confirms the full citizenship status of former slaves. But that's my opinion only, not a constitutional basis for construction. I sense it's probably Bork's also, but he was disciplined and discrete enough to keep his personal opinions separate from valid constitutional construction.
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.