Posted on 01/08/2008 8:08:31 AM PST by Poser
At my polling place this morning, a Ron Paul supporter tried to hand me a Constitution. I told him I was insulted. He asked why.
In Georgia:
No person may campaign; distribute literature of written or printed matter of any kind; wear campaign buttons, signs, pins, stickers, T-shirts, etc.; circulate petitions; or perform similar activities within 150 feet of the building in which a polling place is located.
In most situations this would include the driveway and parking lot of any polling place.
About the only thing you may see here, is a person in a uniform or other clothing that may give a hint of how they could vote such as craft-workers or soccer moms.
I hope you are aware that you are in a very tiny minority, with no chance whatsoever of getting your preferences enforced as law and thus no chance of saving a single baby from dismemberment.
Meanwhile, if Roe were overturned, a significant number of states would enact restrictions on abortion that actually would save lives.
But you oppose this course because it isn’t the ideal position that you support, thus acting as a de facto ally of the pro-Roe forces.
The perfect is so often the enemy of the good, or even the not quite as bad. Unfortunately, in the real fallen world those are often our only real choices. Perfect isn’t possible.
Either we’re a nation premised on the God-given rights to life and liberty or we’re not.
That’s nice. Now tell me how you are going to go about getting the rest of the country, or even the Supreme Court, to believe your interpretation of the Constitution’s preamble, as that is the only way your method will work.
Well, it could start by folks like yourself acknowledging the plain meaning of words.
First, off that doesn’t answer the question. Second, your interpretation of the preamble is by no means plain. A textualist interpretation of the document using words as the meant at the time of the writing (as in Scalia’s wont in judicial interpretation) is by no standard as clear as you think.
Two questions:
1) Is a child in the womb a person?
2) Who does the word “posterity” refer to?
It’s good to figure that out, since the founders recognized that whoever these people are they have equal standing with themselves in the right to the enjoyment of “the Blessings of Liberty.”
As to #1, personally, yes I do. However the constitution is not specific on this in my view, despite your interpretation. Also, even if your interpretation is correct, it is meaningless unless the Supreme Court also agrees which as of now it does not. #2 Given the meaning of the word at the time it was written as well as the intent of the phrase, it refers to future generations. Under no interpretation at the time the Constitution was written would this have referred to unborn children in the womb. It takes a stretch of Constitutional interpretation similar to what judicial liberals engage in to make that interpretation.
Oh bullhockey. Words mean what they mean. If they don't, our founding documents, the basis of our laws, are meaningless pieces of paper. Which is what the folks you're agreeing with think, and which is why our form of republican government is being destroyed.
"Person" means an individual human being, and "posterity" means those who are not yet born.
I’m glad he didn’t tell you that your mother wears army boots.
Yes they do, but one still has to take into consideration what the words meant at the time the document was written. Saying "posterity" and the phrase in its context refers to those in the womb as some sort of proscription against abortion simply is not supported by reasonable facts.
By the way, when are you going to answer my question?
That would have been fun. I could have started crying and talking about my dead mom. I wonder how a hippie dude would handle that.
I did answer your question. You just refused to hear it.
Since the question dealt with how you will get the majority of Americans and even more specifically, the Supreme Court, to accept your interpretation no you did not answer it.
Do you think that the men who approved the following words could have possibly conceived of the brutal murder of fifty million children being "okay" under the Constitution they wrote?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
As I answered originally, it has to start with folks like you acknowledging the simple meaning of words. If you can’t be convinced, the killing of thousands of children per day will continue.
Paulistinians can be a nasty bunch, as Mark Levin and Sean Hannity can attest. And this morning on Laura Ingraham's radio show, given the opportunity to chide his minions for harassing and pelting Fox News employees with snowballs, he instead said that it was an example of "blowback" after FNC excluded him from the last debate. "Unintended consequences, I love it!"
No I do not believed the founders conceived of the current situation regarding abortion. That still does not change the meaning of words at the time they were written.
And how do you plan to accomplish this? Lofty intentions mean nothing without a plan of action that sees them realized.
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.