Posted on 01/06/2015 1:09:50 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
get it out of the courts hands
Here (at FR).
This POS wants us to respect something that God calls an abomintion? I don’t think so! He can crawl back under the rock where he came from.
Bump for truth!
I'm always amused when libertarians insist that they have any sort of historical precedent.
Letting the states decide is not only what America, as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment, is all about, but has always given us a relatively good, clean, moral, and happy and free society, the best in the world.
Really? Does the HISTORICAL FACT of slavery support YOUR argument?
The facts of history show that whereas the states had /have laws to protect free exercise of religion, protect bearing arms, prohibit abortion, prohibit “gay marriage” (an oxymoron), the feds have been allowed to unconstitutionally overturn state law and states rights to allow 70+ million abortions, take away the Bible and prayer from schools, threaten gun laws and gay marriage laws.
Again, this libertarian talking point sounds good, but it doesn't actually mean anything.
Let's take abortion. The "let each state decide" is nothing more that the Ron Paul approach to appeasing some pro-lifers all the while insuring that abortion continues unabated.
An unborn child is either or person or he or she isn't. If they are persons then they are guaranteed protection by the 14th Amendment, it is just that simple. The "let the states decide" approach means that each state could define personhood however they choose, this was the method used to determine slavery and it was a colossal failure that very nearly destroyed our Republic.
What the "let the states decide" crowd either doesn't realize or conveniently fails to acknowledge is the simple fact that the states where most of the abortions are performed will never abolish abortion. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution means that there will be nothing to prevent women from going to these states to have abortions and the American Holocaust will continue unabated.
So yes, if you believe that an unborn child is a person, abortion is absolutely a federal matter. If you do not believe that an unborn child is a person, why do you even oppose it?
My answer is not nothing. It is for the states to nullify unconstitutional federal law and stick with their constitutionally protected laws, which most people here are clamoring for.
This brings us back to the Privileges and Immunities Clause. What happens when two sodomites get "married" in a pro-sodomy state and move to a different state? Do you honestly think that a state will be allowed to nullify a marriage that is completely legal in another state? Whether we like it or not this IS a federal matter because people move from one state to another all the time.
Intellectually, I can agree with you. Practically, post #87 says it better than I can.
Excellent refutation, wagglebee.
I care much more about Bush’s redefinition of “the rule of law” to mean “rule by unelected judges” than I do about what the gays are getting up to.
An elected Governor of a state has co-equal authority with his state courts, and even greater authority than Article III courts (except SCOTUS), to define what is and what is not constitutional.
And, since the Governor of a state, but not the courts, is sworn to take care that the laws (not the opinions, the LAWS) be faithfully executed, it is his responsibility to enforce the people’s laws until he is stopped by superior force.
A deranged opinion by a judge, or group of judges, is not “the rule of law”. Quite the opposite, it is rule by lawyers.
And, incidentally, it is also the overthrow of the Republic.
I don’t know who’s on your ping list every time you post to me, but on my reply I’ll include as much of the group I can see. I guess it’s only fair, right?
First of all, the starting point for any discussion about validity of federal action should be the Constitution which is the only source of valid federal power. If the Constitution does not delegate a specific, enumerated power to the feds, that power “is reserved to the States and People respectively.” That’s the presumption of the Constitution as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment - it is, as you put it, “LET THE STATES DECIDE”.
If you’ve got a problem with that, which you seem to, then you’ve got a problem with the very basis of our Free Constitutional Republic (after which this site is named) which is ruled by law (the Constitution, America’s ONLY legal bulwark against tyranny), not by the rule of man (tyranny, by definition).
Your argument seems to be that if things don’t turn out the way you want them, then the Constitution should be ignored and we should all do things, what, your way based on your set of morals? That’s the Leftist argument for tyranny. The Constitution has allowed America to be the freest, greatest nation on earth. It hasn’t been perfect, but nothing is this side of Heaven. But lack of perfection, regardless of general well-being, is also a Leftist argument for more federal government power and tyranny.
Your strange parallel between abortion and slavery ignores historical fact. Before the unconstitutional federal decision in Roe v. Wade, most states had anti-abortion laws. The states had prayer and Bible reading in schools until the feds unconstitutionally forbade that in the 60’s. Right now, most state have had anti-gay marriage laws on the books which the feds are in the process of trying to overturn. It is the feds, not the states, that want to unconstitutionally restrict gun ownership.
The only possible valid argument you have against letting the states decide is your theory about the P&I Clause, but the facts are that is not really a major problem among the states. If a gay couple can’t get married in their home state A, they cannot go to another state B to get married and then move back claiming Good Faith and Credit of state B because they were in state B only to circumvent state A’s anti-gay marriage laws. And the answer is not your Leftist argument for unbridled, unconstitutional federal power. The answer would be an Constitutional amendment that would be an exception to P&I allowing a state to refuse gay marriage but also forbidding the feds from interfering with state anti-gay-marriage laws.
Why do you think the feds are the answer, that somehow they are the good guys? The $4 trillion monstrous federal government is by far the greatest threat to your well-being and freedom. The feds are not you friend.
In other words...You can count on me to reject traditional values social conservatives and their knuckle dragging beliefs.
luciferians do not believe in the ten commandments. They have a different master.
This headline is a joke. They will be divorced in less than six months and fighting over the Labradoodle.
This was done so that divorce lawyers’ business will multiply and how many people are going to continue to get married to get benefits but they aren’t really committed to one another. It happens a lot with various demographics.
Of course it was...NOBODY is better at this than the Grand Inquisitor!
There actually exists on Free Republic, although probably not in this particular case, a subset of people who believe the states should be allowed to do absolutely anything, even full on socialism. I call them “State Supremacists”.
They were just fine with RomneyCare and would be just fine if Vermont instituted “single-payer” or a guaranteed income as long as it was on a state-level
We can do this whatever way you like.
First of all, the starting point for any discussion about validity of federal action should be the Constitution which is the only source of valid federal power. If the Constitution does not delegate a specific, enumerated power to the feds, that power “is reserved to the States and People respectively.” That’s the presumption of the Constitution as confirmed by the Tenth Amendment - it is, as you put it, “LET THE STATES DECIDE”.
Yes, but the Constitution does empower the federal government to get involved when there is a conflict between state laws, hence the Full Faith and Credit and Privileges and Immunities Clauses. Then there's always that pesky 14th Amendment that the libertarians so despise.
If you’ve got a problem with that, which you seem to, then you’ve got a problem with the very basis of our Free Constitutional Republic (after which this site is named) which is ruled by law (the Constitution, America’s ONLY legal bulwark against tyranny), not by the rule of man (tyranny, by definition).
Really, you think I have a problem with the Constitution because I point out where certain things MUST be a federal matter?
Your argument seems to be that if things don’t turn out the way you want them, then the Constitution should be ignored and we should all do things, what, your way based on your set of morals?
Where have I suggested ignoring the Constitution?
Are you talking about your pro-choice-by-state approach to abortion?
The Constitution has allowed America to be the freest, greatest nation on earth. It hasn’t been perfect, but nothing is this side of Heaven. But lack of perfection, regardless of general well-being, is also a Leftist argument for more federal government power and tyranny.
So, preserving the sanctity of marriage and ending abortion is "tyranny"?
Your strange parallel between abortion and slavery ignores historical fact.
Oh? You mean the authority to determine who is or isn't a person (or even three-fifths a person) isn't central to both slavery and abortion?
Before the unconstitutional federal decision in Roe v. Wade, most states had anti-abortion laws.
They certainly did. But the notion that they would go back to that is absurd.
Moreover, granting states the authority to declare persons to be non-persons is unconstitutional. That's what giving the states the authority would do. California and New York are responsible for nearly half of the abortions performed in the United States and they will NEVER ban abortion voluntarily.
The states had prayer and Bible reading in schools until the feds unconstitutionally forbade that in the 60’s. Right now, most state have had anti-gay marriage laws on the books which the feds are in the process of trying to overturn. It is the feds, not the states, that want to unconstitutionally restrict gun ownership.
I'm not disagreeing with any of this.
The only possible valid argument you have against letting the states decide is your theory about the P&I Clause, but the facts are that is not really a major problem among the states.
It certainly WILL be a factor if the sanctity of marriage isn't protected at the federal level.
If a gay couple can’t get married in their home state A, they cannot go to another state B to get married and then move back claiming Good Faith and Credit of state B because they were in state B only to circumvent state A’s anti-gay marriage laws.
This sounds good in theory, but it would have to be ruled on by a FEDERAL court.
And the answer is not your Leftist argument for unbridled, unconstitutional federal power.
So, you're calling me a "leftist" now? Libertarians and anti-FReepers typically compare me to the Taliban.
The answer would be an Constitutional amendment that would be an exception to P&I allowing a state to refuse gay marriage but also forbidding the feds from interfering with state anti-gay-marriage laws.
NO, the answer is an amendment preserving the sanctity of marriage as it has existed for six thousand years.
Try to understand that the Constitution was written by men who could never have envisioned the homosexual agenda and the abhorrent notion of same-sex marriage; they understood homosexuality to be a capital crime.
Why do you think the feds are the answer, that somehow they are the good guys?
I don't think they're the good guys, but I know that on vital issues they are the only way to preserve morality.
The $4 trillion monstrous federal government is by far the greatest threat to your well-being and freedom.
No, it isn't. The greatest threat to mankind is the breakdown of morality and that threat has existed since the Garden of Eden. The federal government exists to protect the rights of the individual. Not adhering to the Constitution is the problem, not the government itself.
Jeb talks like any Bush female
Yep, they are the actual statists. ANYTHING is acceptable to them as long as it's done on the state level.
**********************
On a good day. :)
You know, it's the damnedest thing, your post and this thread got me thinking about a troll who wanted to let states decide about same-sex "marriage" and called FReepers Muslims for not agreeing.
That troll's name was the_conscience. However, I don't think PapaNew was acquainted with the_conscience because he was zotted EXACTLY FIVE DAYS before PapaNew joined.
I don't know why I posted this, I just thought it was funny...
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.