Posted on 02/04/2020 1:39:07 PM PST by LiveFreeOrDie2001
Hah - and tho I didn’t name you, when I spoke of “even the vilest here” or some such, I might well have been including you, even before learning your new disclosure here that you are a “stalker” sort.
“Stalker”
After following the same thread and having just had an exchange with you on this thread and on the same subject as the other poster did.
Nitwit.
I was already stage four when mine was discovered, so the recommended course of treatment was a literal death sentence.
We chose to go the alternative treatment route because of that. Two years later, I'm still here and fighting.
If I may, and I don’t mean this harshly as it may seem, as you are probably a well intentioned person:
You are stating a half-truth, and then going on from there to examine President Trump’s actions or lack thereof, and make a logical (lacking other information) conclusion regarding him. I will assume the half-truth is not willful and is simple ignorance, which is NOT a slam either: The realm of ignorance for each of us is FAR greater than what we know or can figure out. It just varies a bit in type and quantity, for each of us. :-)
Heck, the main reason I come to FR is not to opine, it is to learn. Mostly I lurk, and only occasionally do I opine. ;-)
Anyway, to get to the nub of it, the “1/2” truth is that the US Constitution requires the President to protect American citizens from harm. True. The missing half, though, is that nowhere does the Constitution define a citizen in terms of the unborn.
You may try to ascertain “original intent”, which perhaps could be pushed to “the life of a US citizen begins when a woman is visibly pregnant.” That’s not actually TOO far from what our legal system has indirectly decided. Since we now have ways to actually watch a baby’s heart beating much earlier, that “definition” can be further pushed up somewhat, but it’s a very large stretch to say that was “original intent.” Even 50 years after 1787, if a woman was murdered, perhaps the penalty would be more severe if she was detectably carrying a child. But if her husband (we’ll assume he was not suspected in the crime) testified that he merely THOUGHT his wife was pregnant, the judge if he was a competent judge would throw that out, perhaps saying “we’ll leave that one to God.”
So... we have this hazy, indirect definition from our judicial branch of government as to what constitutes the beginning of life of a US citizen. (Most decent people would extend whatever that definition is to most any unborn child, but of course there is pressure from both sides of the issue to effectively push it sooner or later.)
Constitutionally and legally, what can President Trump do about that? Realistically, not much. He is not so empowered, nor should he be, unless you want a King or dictator running the show. He can use his “bully pulpit”, and he can chip away at the edges a little, legally, but he cannot legislate. Plus, this is only one of many issues, even a secondary issue in the majority of Americans’ minds, and the Dems are keeping him hopping just trying to stay in office. DT would be of 1/100th as much help, here, as he is now, if he was not in office.
Judges? If President Trump were to nominate for the Supreme Court a judge who straight up stated before the Senate he or she would overturn Roe vs. Wade, that judge would go down in flames so fast your head would swim. Dammit, I know that’s not morally right before God, but, it is reality “on the ground”, so to speak, and at present, probably legally correct. (A judge is supposed to go into ALL cases unbiased as possible, and follow the Constitution, not add to it. Would you want it otherwise? Really??)
The solution? Simply, pass legislation, or, better yet, a Constitutional Amendment to the effect that human life begins at conception, or, if not that, at least at the point where a heartbeat can be detected. Some legislation / legislators / legislatures have moved in this direction, but no passed legislation I know of has constrained itself* to this simple point.
The rest will follow.
*Hey, I might be ignorant on that point - FReepers please educate me, if so.
Note that I did not say this will be EASY. Ol’ Satan has immersed himself into some of our people awfully deeply.
Now, this issue is clearly very important to you: You can squawk and squall, make spurious arguments, and shoot your own and those you could make your own...
Or you can focus.
The choice of course is yours.
See my # 1245. Am curious to your take. Am NOT trying to restart that dust-up! :-)
The depth of your address to the false allegation adds weight. Regardless of the motivation, the poster does not, will not argue the facts, because he can not. The response simply skip the facts and move to a different rabbit trail. Therefore, I didn’t bother to extend any conversation. Thanks for the info you wrote.
Trolls come and go.
Can the President do anything to support and defend the Constitution in this regard without exceeding his authority? Yes. For example, he could veto any proposed law which says it's ok to kill some. people without due process. All recent presidents, including President Trump, have signed such bills into law.
Can the President do much more than just use the veto power to support and defend the Constitution in this regard? Yes, even if the President doesn't use the type of authority invoked by President Eisenhower during the Alabama, uh, intervention. President Trump last year tweeted that he (and only he, he claimed), knows how to stop abortion. He didn't provide any more details, but he's not the only person who's addressed the ability to abolish abortion from being performed under color of law. In 2012 and 2016, I supported a candidate for president who campaigned on his plan to uphold his oath of office and what he'd do, starting on first day of office, to quickly stop both surgical abortions and the widespread use of abortifacient drugs. Tom Hoefling was that candidate's name. He hasn't been so active on FreeRepublic in recent years, but his screen name here is EternalVigilance.
You mention judicial, legislative and public interest considerations. In this discussion, I'd like to emphasize that each government official - in executive, legislative or judicial branches - swears the oath to support and defend the Constitution. When it comes to the chief executive of any jurisdiction, such as president or governor, they can shut down abortion in their jurisdiction even if every court disagrees and even if most of the legislature is ok with depriving some persons of their lives without due process.
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.