To: Beelzebubba
..Federalism, does not empower the states to violate a fundamental right which permeates our foundational documents— taking of innocent life...
41 posted on
08/28/2007 2:30:59 PM PDT by
WalterSkinner
( In Memory of My Father--WWII Vet and Patriot 1926-2007)
To: WalterSkinner
..Federalism, does not empower the states to violate a fundamental right which permeates our foundational documents— taking of innocent life...You can say that all you want. However, that does not revoke Roe. It does not recognize the personhood of a fetus. Like it or not, SCOTUS is the current arbiter. Any legislation would have to survive SCOTUS. Any amendment would require 3/4s of the states to ratify - can you find 38 states that would do such in this day and age?
I will push for what I think is possible now (getting Roe overturned), and hope that incremental steps will create momentum for larger steps later as public mood swings against abortion.
42 posted on
08/28/2007 2:33:57 PM PDT by
dirtboy
(Chertoff needs to move out of DC, not move to Justice.)
To: WalterSkinner
..Federalism, does not empower the states to violate a fundamental right which permeates our foundational documents— taking of innocent life... Amen.
49 posted on
08/28/2007 2:49:30 PM PDT by
EternalVigilance
(States' rights don't trump God-given, unalienable rights...support the Reagan pro-life platform)
To: WalterSkinner
..Federalism, does not empower the states to violate a fundamental right which permeates our foundational documents— taking of innocent life...
Nor does it empower me to pull down my pants and slide on the ice.
What’s your point?
136 posted on
08/28/2007 5:42:42 PM PDT by
Atlas Sneezed
("We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won't chip away at them" -Mitt Romney)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson