Posted on 06/11/2012 9:17:17 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
"All officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, have as the first obligation of their sacred oath the protection of all innocent lives within their jurisdiction.
Should I be elected to the office of President of the United States, I will keep my oath.
Justice Blackmun, in Roe vs. Wade, admitted that “of course” the child in the womb is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, if they are a person.
Since it is self-evident that they are a person, my first act as President, after having sworn the oath, will be to publish a presidential finding to that effect.
My second act will be to ask for the resignation of anyone in the executive branch who will not act accordingly.
My third act will be to order the closing of every abortion facility in the country, as per the explicit, imperative requirement of the Supreme Law of the Land.
'No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.'
'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.'”
-- Tom Hoefling
“ABO reduces many of its advocates into positions of having to lie (’Reagan was once pro-abortion’) and deceive (’A vote for anyone but Romney is a vote for Obama’) in order to persuade (bully) people into joining them.”
I plan to vote for Gov. Romney in November (assuming he is the Republican nominee and the Kenyan anti-Christ is the Democrat nominee), but I don't find it necessary to lie about then-Gov. Reagan's record. Neither do I feel it's necessary to bully folks into joining me.
I understand how folks feel about Gov. Romney. I'm not much of a fan, myself. I'd really rather go to the dentist than vote for Willard M. Romney (and I HATE going to the dentist). I'm not going to criticize someone who believes they just can't pull that lever.
But in my own judgment, for any number of reasons, four more years of the Kenyan anti-Christ is worse than four or eight years of President Romney. As I respect those who disagree with me, I'd appreciate some respect back.
sitetest
Please don't take this as an insult, but I honestly couldn't care less who you vote for.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Great! Your posting to me had led me to believe that you wanted all of us to vote for your man Romney, that it was important to you that everyone join you as a Romney supporter.
Since he/she has referenced it, I'm going with LSD as the only explanation (the old "projection" trick).
It's been fun. Enjoy.
For a guy who pretended to be uninterested, you sure keep posting about me.
Yep, LSD is a strong possibility.
;-)
I don’t know what happens to you people that become Romney devotees, but it isn’t pretty.
Oops, that's presuming you're a "she".
Have a great evening, I'm outta here. Good luck with that projection stuff.
In post #247, for instance, did you write, “And to declare that this country couldn’t survive four more years of Obama, is the equivalent of a pup rolling over on his back and piddling all over the floor: totally submissive.” And then did you end that post with, another insult stating that the poster was so afraid? yup, you’re smoothe, but you’re still just insulting folks for not falling in line with your reasoning. I’ve had a couple more freepers use the same reasoning, that we should not vote for Rominy (rhymes with hominy, the tasteless corn product) to prevent Obama from winning because we are giving a mandate to Milt. Your premise assumes you know what the voting will be in each state, so you know how many votes should be withheld from Rominy so that if he cannot be allowed to win big (a false premise ont he face of it, the election is going to be a squeaker akin to 2004) so he won’t have a mandate. If folks don’t fal at your feet and worship your reasoning you resort to telling them they’re so afraid they’re like puppies widdling in fear? Yup, you’re a smoothe one, but you’re just insulting to try and shut opposition to your meme. But I will congratulate you on duping some freepers into using your same flawed reasoning. I had one earlier today trying to insult me with that meme. [Don’t get the big head now Finny.]
You are either severely misinformed or your are a troll . . . judging by your posts on this thread I'm going with troll.
IBTZ.
After thinking about it for more than a year now, I've concluded it's a toss-up. My vote will accordingly be NEUTRAL as to choosing between those two, but it will be instrumental in weakening the mandate. You like to "LOL" about it, but mandates are significant -- ask Bill Clinton, whose 43% non-mandate got him the Republican Revolution.
I don't know how Jay Carney answered it, and I don't care.
I'm used to being in the minority ... I'm also used to being proved correct down the road in my minority opinion. I was in the minority thinking that Hillary wouldn't get the nomination and that the GOP was letting itself be manipulated with the "Anybody but Hillary" meme. I was in the minority thinking that in 2009, Romney posed the biggest in-party threat to Republicans and needed to have a stake driven through his political heart; that opinion was poo-pooed by those who thought Romney's days were "over" after his 2008 defeat.
Not that I haven't been wrong a lot of times, and I expect you have, too.
But how you can deny that weakening the winner's mandate when that winner is guaranteed to be an anti-conservative isn't at least as reasonable a strategy in view of the PROBABILITY that an anti-Obama landslide would quickly morph into a pro-Romney mandate ... ?
Obama "in charge" with a Congress and nation full of voters who opposed him, is a far different reality than the Omnipotent Oz worst-case nightmare ABO has spun out of Obama.
And an on-the-record, pro-global-warming, pro state-run health care Romney "in charge" after a landslide of Americans voted FOR him, would ASSUREDLY make conservatives weaker and moderates stronger. Looking at the whole picture, it's clear to me that it's a toss-up as to which is worse, Romney or Obama.
So I will vote to give whichever one wins the most pathetic "victory" possible.
“Then reconsider your position, because I believe your position is based upon a theory that the president is required to defer to the Supreme Court when it comes to interpreting the Constitution “
Seriously that is your point. Of course the Executive Branch is subordinate to the Supreme Court when it comes to “interpreting the Constitution” & laws.
Just as the USSC is subordinate to the Executive Branch when it comes to enforcing the law.
Quick primer - Legislature makes the law, Courts interpret the law, and Executive enforces the law. I think I learned that in the 8th grade civics class from Mrs. Anderson. Tough old bird who loved our country.
There is that weird Romneyness thing again that takes over Romney devotees.
You know I'm not a she yet pretend not to know, and the reason you have been attacking me is because I'm NOT supporting Romney, yet you then accuse me of being for him.
This is a new strangeness among romeybots, to aggressively push and promote Romney, to attack anyone who does not support Romney, and to deny being for Romney the entire time they are doing it.
“Show us that part of the Constitution that grants legislative authority to the courts, please.”
Good grief man, tell me you really aren’t that far out of touch. What part allows the President to use the military for his personal whims?
So a guy who professes to be a “serious” candidate for President is advocating a police state using the Constitution as his power. Yet he has shown an utter ignorance of the Constitution.
wow
You are suggesting using military force to apply your interpretation of the Constitution in a way which goes against the interpretation of the Court system. The Court system is the only entity with the Constitutional power to interpret the law. They say what the Constitution means, not you.
You are a wanna be dictator. Sure you’d start with abortion but then you’d continue on with your next personal agenda item.
Well, I do hate to be the one to tell you this, but another tough old bird named Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Declaration of Independence, our first Secretary of State, our second Vice President and our third President) disagreed with Mrs. Anderson. Jefferson wrote:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
Maybe if Jefferson had taken Mrs. Anderson's civics class . . .
This thread is quite literally a three-ring circus!
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.