Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon. So do they now support a state's right to outlaw abortion, thus making a federal Roe v. Wade decision irrelevant?
1 posted on 02/27/2004 7:22:56 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: rwfromkansas; Tredge; SAMWolf; It's me; nowings; LADY J; Zavien Doombringer; Pharmboy; Taliesan; ...
Laura Ingraham PING!


2 posted on 02/27/2004 7:23:58 AM PST by Choose Ye This Day (I've got a fever...and the only prescription is MORE COWBELL! --rock legend, Bruce Dickinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
>>So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon. So do they now support a state's right to outlaw abortion, thus making a federal Roe v. Wade decision irrelevant?<<

Good question - how mny states had a law on the books against abortion at the time of Roe v. Wade? 38? Over 40?

3 posted on 02/27/2004 7:25:58 AM PST by Dan Middleton (Go Blue Jackets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Whether it's the issue of marriage, prayer at football games, or God in the Pledge of Allegiance, we've seen courts from coast to coast venture far beyond proper role in a naked attempt to create a new, forward-thinking social, political, and cultural framework.

Thanks for the ping. Another strong effort by Ingraham.

My only difference with her is in her use of the phrase "forward-thinking". I refuse to believe that the trashing of our national values and scandalization of our culture is "forward-thinking" in any way.

4 posted on 02/27/2004 7:33:22 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Forever is as far as I'll go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
In 100 years (less, actually) the Roe v Wade decision will be seamlessly linked with the Dred Scott decision as examples of terrible court decisions that led to long periods of suffering in the US before a moral status quo was re-asserted.

The homosexual marriage decisisons are the spark that sets the fire, but the fuel has been piling up for over 30 years.

9 posted on 02/27/2004 7:41:16 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (You can see it coming like a train on a track.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Restraining the judiciary must be the top priority for conservative from now until judges get back to the business of judging.

Laura Bump


11 posted on 02/27/2004 7:47:52 AM PST by SAMWolf (I even have boring dreams...I fall asleep in my sleep!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Ingraham writes well on this. I just wish she wasn't such a whiner on her radio program. Her constant whining is grating to listen to so I keep having to change stations.Ingraham writes well on this.
13 posted on 02/27/2004 7:52:03 AM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Help me to understand how 60-70% of Americans being opposed to homosexual marriage are all "right wing". Why are liberals never asked about this? Even a majority of democrats oppose gay marriage. If anything it is a "wedge issue" for the democrat leadership. This is a GOOD thing.
16 posted on 02/27/2004 8:00:58 AM PST by boop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Ingraham says that this is a last resort given the abuse by the courts. Why are we going to the last resort and we havn't taken the first resorts yet? Those first resorts are impeachment, nullification, interposition, and the use of Article III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.

The marriage amendment should not be necessary. These actions by SF's mayor and the Massachutsetts judiciary are lawless and unconstitutional. We simply cannot amend the constitution every time the left decides to disregard it. We need to hold these officials accountable through impeachment, recall, nullification, interposition and arrest where necessary.

I am so seek of this endless deference to judicial tyranny.

When oh when will some elected executive officer in some state or federal capacity, in fulfilling his constitutional duty to honestly interpet the constitution (federal or state) just disregard the unconstitutional rulings of any court and dare the legislature to impeach him for it? When will some legislature impeach just ONE judge for an unconstitutional ruling?

To say that the courts have the final word on the constitutionality of a law NO MATTER WHAT THEY RULE is to say that the system of checks and balances envisioned by the founders does not exist any more.

Alan Keyes gave the best summation of this issue that I've heard yet. He said that every branch of government has a duty to honestly interpret the constitution. If the president honestly feels the courts make an unconstitutional and lawless ruling, then the president should disregard that ruling and refuse to enforce the provisions that he felt were blatantly unconstitutional. If the Congress felt the president was wrong in this decision, then it was their duty to impeach him for it. If the electorate felt that the Congress was wrong for impeaching the president or the failure to impeach him, they can remove them at the next election, as well as the president for any presidential actions that they considered wrongful.

Lest anyone consider this formula has a recipe for chaos, then I submit to you there is no chaos worse than an unchecked oligarchic Judiciary. We are not living under the rule of law when judges make law up to suit their whims has they engage in objective based adjudication.
21 posted on 02/27/2004 8:06:32 AM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Good girl!!!
22 posted on 02/27/2004 8:08:46 AM PST by King Black Robe (With freedom of religion and speech now abridged, it is time to go after the press.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
President Bush should make it abundantly clear that this is a last resort given what the abuse by courts on the federal and state level.

It's not a last resort. Attempts at impeachment should come first.

33 posted on 02/27/2004 8:32:26 AM PST by Sloth (We cannot defeat foreign enemies of the Constitution if we yield to the domestic ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
Can you feel the pendulum swing? I can.

I'll feel the pendulum swing when a Republican controlled Senate can end a silly parliamentary trick like a filibuster.

34 posted on 02/27/2004 8:40:21 AM PST by hattend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Coulter or Ingraham?

I vote for Ingraham.

41 posted on 02/27/2004 9:35:40 AM PST by GSWarrior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
President Bush and his supporters have to make clear that the fight over the gay marriage amendment is not a fight about gays, not a fight about marriage, but a fight about the power of the Courts.

bump

42 posted on 02/27/2004 9:38:15 AM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
"From time to time in our history, Presidents have had to challenge the Supreme Court. Lincoln openly disagreed with the Court's Dred Scott Decision. FDR threatened to pack the Court because of its New Deal decisions. These presidents played a vital role in preventing the Court from thwarting the legitimate wishes of the American people."

The Dred Scott decision was based on the "full faith" clause which the Left is now using to push gay "marriage". Maybe someone should tell them that.

But FDR tried to pack the Court because the Court kept ruling New Deal programs unconstitutional, which they were. Sorry, Laura, that one won't fly.

44 posted on 02/27/2004 1:03:29 PM PST by Chairman Fred (@mousiedung.commie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS


Go get'em Laura!!!
48 posted on 02/27/2004 6:56:01 PM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MNLDS
So now the Dems are on the States-rights bandwagon.

Bet the reaction would be very different if certain town mayors decided to started to ignore gun laws, citing the Constitutional right to bear arms.

52 posted on 03/02/2004 5:56:03 PM PST by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson