8mm
Posted on 03/01/2008 6:03:52 PM PST by wagglebee
I say they keep fighting to get the law through. Frickin libs ‘that should be the end of that law’ barbra streisand garbage. They NEVER stop fighting they just keep at it. We gotta adopt this mindset and KEEP AT IT too. Keep forcing THEM to show up and fight in court. Keep them having to spend their money. Keep them busy while we advance multiple offenses from different angles, causing THEIR resources to be stretched thinner and thinner.
Fork them. Keep fighting. Keep pushiing for the law. It will never be over until Christ comes back. Until then, keep fighting. They don’t give up. We can’t either. We gotta hit back harder and smarter and chip away and pierce through their defenses. If they block us one way we’ve got two other avenues to hit them and when they go after those two we hit them again from the original attack.
A hunter does not take human life. The death penalty does not take innocent life.
Can you imagine the poor Obamas, having to hear that their girls wanted an abortion across state lines? I'm glad they'll be spared that knowledge. Can't burden them with such bologna since they've got a country to run [into the ground].
Sarcasm off.
I know! They never accept anything and always try to drag the conversation somewhere else.
I'm not sure what I said that you disagree with. We may not be on the same sheet of music. But thank you for your opinion.
As a side note concerning the 14th A., I do have a problem with the USSC's application of the 14th A. in Roe v. Wade. More specifically, the 14th A. applies enumerated privileges and immunities to the states. This is evidenced by the fact that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., referenced the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing explicit privileges and immunities that the 14th A. applied to the states; Bingham ignored the 9th Amendment when he discussed the 14th Amendment.
So the problem that I have with Roe v. Wade is that the Court used the 14th A. in conjunction with the "wild card" 9th A. to apply a non-enumerated right to the states. And it still remains that the USSC ignored the 9th A. protected rights of unborn children and the 9th A. protected right of a man to be a father.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, what a mess!
In fact, given that the New York Supreme Court was honest enough to admit New York's state constitution didn't address the issue of gay marriage and left it to New York lawmakers to resolve the issue, perhaps the USSC should have let federal lawmakers decide what to do with abortion issues.
Instead, the corrupt USSC majority essentially seized the fact that the federal Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion to legalize abortion from the bench.
Again, what a mess!
I disagree with the notion that any state has any right to alienate the unalienable rights of any person.
This idea represents the destruction of the very foundation of our republican form of government.
And the first storm that rolls in is going to flatten a building without a foundation.
I agree with you that no state has the right to alienate the unalienable rights of any person. I'd appreciate if you would point out what I said in a previous post that led you to believe that I thought otherwise.
Your post number 11.
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.