Replies

"But again, the problem is that my pursuit of happiness is not necessarily yours. What if what makes you happy, deprives me of my pursuit of happiness?"

Ever hear the expression "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose"? That is what the standard was. If it affected the rights of another negatively, it was impermissible. If your concept of happiness is burning down your neighbor's house, it would deprive your neighbor of his property, and possibly his life, and wouldn't be permissible. Mike Schiavo's standard of happiness seems to be to deprive his wife of her life. It isn't permissible. Problem being is that the courts have now said it IS! Ah, WRONG!

The 1st Amendment didn't take prayer from schools, nor did it allow 'state secrets' to be published. Judges did that. Men. Very fallible men. And as far as Satanism being allowed as religion? I am not about to say it isn't one. The practitioners of it think it is. I think they are idiots, but it isn't my place to say they can't, nor is it the governments.

The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed. This allowed citizens to own cannon back then, capable of firing solid, explosive and grape shot. An 'assault rifle' pales in comparison, a mere pea shooter. The cannon were expensive, so few people actually owned them, but own them they did. Came in right handy in 1812. Most of the cannon we used against the British were privately owned.

The 5th Amendment doesn't allow crimes to go unpunished. The people who refuse to testify do. I note with dismay that I see a pattern to this post of yours. You blame the Constitution for the decisions of judges and others. The Constitution must be held blameless for the mistaken rulings judges have made, unless you are willing to blame the short skirt a woman wears for the rape the criminal commits.

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic, not the laws of Florida. If the laws of Florida allow them to strip a disabled woman of her life, in contravention of her rights to Life, Liberty, and even your most treasured right to the pursuit of Happiness (I would think the first two would be the more important to you, but evidently not), then I must find myself in opposition to those laws.

What say you?

Going back to the original thread here, Jeb Bush did swear an oath to God to uphold those laws.

George W. Bush swore an oath to God to uphold the U.S. Constitution, the tenth Amendment to which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Both Jeb and George are men of strong faith. I am certain that this must put them in a quandry. What do they do? Which oath do they keep?

I swore an oath to defend the Constitution, to defend it from enemies both foreign and domestic, not the laws of Florida. If the laws of Florida allow them to strip a disabled woman of her life, in contravention of her rights to Life, Liberty, and even your most treasured right to the pursuit of Happiness (I would think the first two would be the more important to you, but evidently not), then I must find myself in opposition to those laws.

My son is studying law enforcement, he wants to be a cop. I told him that I have always admired cops and admired the profession, and of course he knows that. But he should always understand that the day may come that he has to act in accordance to a higher law. He may have to resign, or he may have to take other action to preserve his conscience.

The cops who stand and prevent the family from bringing water into the room, the nurses and nurse aids who have obeyed orders not to help her, have soiled their consciences and will have to carry that to the grave.

If my son were to lend himself to this thing, I would not understand. I would be shamed.