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
Thanks for the encouraging words.
We’ve got until August to get 7500+ signatures in CT. It’s doable.
No, EV understands the Constitution. It's just that the principles of the Constitution do not matter on things he wants to change but does matter on areas he wants to protect. People like him are dangerous.
What are the pictures next to the women??
The presidential finding in and of itself does nothing but clarify the chief executive’s understanding of the law.
Let me ask you a couple of questions:
1) Is the President required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States?
2) Does the Constitution of the United States imperatively require the equal protection of the right to life of every individual person?
3) Does the Constitution of the United States imperatively require every state to provide for the equal protection of the laws?
4) Is the child in the womb a person?
...and if Obama wins???
Romney, whose base is the party of the Rs, which has many conservative members, HAS to listen, and list, more toward the conservative voice than Obama. Obama is completely unteathered from any conservative concept. Romney must, at the very least, pay lip service to conservative ideas.
I generally reject your “Great Conspiracy” theory. Notice, I am not mocking, I just don’t agree.
Please point to the "constitutional principle" that excuses the president from his first duty, which is to protect the lives, the liberty, and the property of the people.
As another FReeper said, if you fear Obama vote for Romney. If you fear God, Don’t.
Glad you liked that. :-)
Thanks.
or you can skip that step ... if you're billionaire or otherwise nationally famous ...
And when your actions as president are Constitutionally challenged, do you expect Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia to support you?
My point was that Perot was not a conservative, as you say, you weren’t either, Perot was to the right of Romney of course, but he was no conservative.
The "fire" that conservatives hope to be holding Romney's feet to, would have dwindled into dying embers crushed by the landslide "mandate."
No, I have never held public office.
If that’s your criteria, rather than the restoration of the first moral, constitutional principles upon which our form of government and our claim to liberty are premised, you’ll have to choose someone else.
Thanks.
>>as you say, you weren’t either,<<
I was Pro-choice. Back when we were told that babies in the womb were blobs of tissue, when the only Ultrasound that was done on my sisters was the one for my nephew with birth defects and when it was hard to know who was right with little information and no internet. Lots of conservatives back then in my age group were Pro-Choice out of ignorance.
I was a fiscal conservative and Perot worked for lots of conservative.
That’s the point. Even my friend in Australia knew who he was. And he is the ONLY third party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt to make it.
The president swears to support the Constitution, not to obey judges who issue immoral, unconstitutional opinions.
Then explain to a liberal how my third party vote in the presidential isn't a vote "for" Romney.
Because that person is labeling a vote for anyone but the Democrat candidate, as a vote for Romney.
Wrong. Patently, mathematically, wrong.
A vote for "this guy" is denying a vote to BOTH Romney and Obama and would be 100% neutral in influencing the outcome of O v R -- though it would weaken the "voter mandate" of either.
Gullible enough to think conservatives would be able to hold a committed statist Republican's "feet to the fire" after his brand of "moderate progressive" politics won in a landslide?
My 'criteria' is to evict the current Occupier_WH. In the 2008 POTUS election, over 129 million votes were cast. It is highly likely that the winner of the 2012 POTUS election will need over 65 million votes. Therefore, my criteria will, of necessity, include only someone who can obtain 65 million votes from the American public.
After law enforcement officials, the courts and prosecutors on the state and federal levels all ignore your order, what do you do next?
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.