Posted on 03/11/2007 7:40:49 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
TAMPA -- He's campaigning hard for support from Republican social conservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case.
"I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts," Romney said in a television interview airing today.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Well, R just lost my vote. Unless he continues on to urge all executions to be done the Terry S way.
Cruel and inhumane?
Nope. Starving and dying of thirst is a beautiful death, so says Dems, RINOs, and the deluded.
yes, it makes no sense...the government must be involved to protect the innocent. Because Terri was not able to help herself she was deemed worthy of death...not to mention the millions of babies in the womb that have and are being murdered.
What politician knows or cares about the Constitution. No Dems do. No RINOs. Only
Of course they didn't. That's why they made it so clear that you can't kill somebody without a fair trial and a conviction on a capital offense. Greer signed a literal death warrant without benefit of any of the above, and unfortunately, the minds of our legal and political class, as well as the chief executives of FL and the US, are so clouded with emanations and penubras and the myths of judicial supremacy, that they can't understand the simplest concepts that lie at the very foundations of our form of government and our society.
"Trying to destroy any and all Republicans must be your favorite past time."
Shilling,spinning and making excuses for any and every Republican must be yours.
No way. It was only hard in the minds of those doing the killing and their accessories. To the rest of us, it was very easy, and very simple: Care for the weakest among us.
What it does not guarantee is that an out of control judiciary will abide by it. It does not guarantee that a judge won't insert language into it that doesn't exist, nor that some gullible citizens won't go along with such corruption. It does, however, clearly state certain rights of The People, which are not to be usurped, by anyone. But again, it doesn't guarantee that some corrupt judge won't disregard it.
No, it isn't! There is nothing in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, or any other Amendment that excludes States from abiding by them. It doesn't say that we have the right not to have those rights taken away by the Federal Government, but the States can do as they damned well please. These are rights that The People have. If the States are specifically entitled to revoke those rights at a whim, they aren't rights at all.
Neither does you 35 word post which you are allowed up to 300 words, but than that would not give justic Romney.
"I generally think that it's not a good idea for courts to legislate. Nor is it great idea for legislatures to adjudicate in a specific circumstance," Romney said in the taped interview that airs at 11 a.m. on Bay News 9 in the Tampa Bay area.
Romney, 59, is building a formidable campaign operation early in Florida, and Saturday night he addressed 500 party activists at the Hillsborough County Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day dinner fundraiser. He spoke to Miami-Dade Republicans Friday.
"He spoke from the heart; you could really feel his commitment," said Vickie Gentry of Lutz, who knew little about Romney before the dinner. "I had tears in my eyes."
That is exactly what the Florida Courts did they legislate from the bench!
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger, except by a probate judge; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, except by a probate judge; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, except by a probate judge; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation, except by a probate judge.
That's not the original. That's the one they're using now...
Oops. It's so easy to get them mixed up, don't you know? LOL
It's an epidemic.
Too bad they don't read the whole thing instead of what EV always want to spew!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1799287/posts?page=410#410
Michelle Malkin
Gov. Mitt Romney, to his credit (and probably to his peril), has weighed in clearly and forcefully:
''My concern is with this young girl and her current status. In light of reported improvements in her medical condition, it should be clear to everyone that no action should be taken to end this girl's life."
If you pray, pray hard.
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004337.htm
I learn so much at FR. Why, on this very thread, I learned that the Fourteenth Amendment is the one that exempts States from recognizing the rights of The People spelled out in The Bill of Rights. I never knew that!
Ditto--not only that, he can't beat Hillary.
A different case altogether. Nice try.
But, even this sentence shows the depth of Mitt Romney's misunderstanding of the right to life. "In light of reported improvements"?? Whatever could that possibly have to do with someone's right to live?
In other words, if she hadn't improved, she should have been killed?
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.