Posted on 08/03/2007 9:36:12 PM PDT by bubman
I am going to vote for pro-life in 2008 even if it is a third party! Sorry, I am not that loyal to the Republicans. I feel Mitt is best qualified (if that is crime then sorry) and if Rudy is the nominee, then I am going to look for a third party option.
I never avoid direct questions of beliefs! Never! If I don’t know then I don’t know. If the accusser is off base then I tell them!
Actually, you don 't. Go back and read the posts.
Excellent post! : )
No, actually he's just thick. And he was CREAMED on this thread, btw.
How do you feel about Orrin Hatch?
That would make his six wives very sad.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution
I also told you that you obviously don't understand the holding in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) which is the seminal case confirming the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. The relevant language from Marbury states:
The constitution vests the whole judicial power of the United States in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as congress shall, from time to time, ordain and establish. . .
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void. . . .
It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. . . .
So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. . . .
For over two hundred years, it has been recognized that the Supreme Court possesses the final authority to determine whether the conduct of the executive branch comports with the Constitution. Thus, in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636 (1997), the Supreme Court held:
First, we have long held that when the President takes official action, the Court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Perhaps the most dramatic example of such a case is our holding that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation's steel mills in order to avert a national catastrophe. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). Despite the serious impact of that decision on the ability of the Executive Branch to accomplish its assigned mission, and the substantial time that the President must necessarily have devoted to the matter as a result of judicial involvement, we exercised our Article III jurisdiction to decide whether his official conduct conformed to the law. Our holding was an application of the principle established in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Id., at 177.
In the most recent session of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Roberts, citing Marbury, again confirmed the authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution. In the case of DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 126 S.Ct. 1854 (2006) he stated:
Chief Justice Marshall, in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), grounded the Federal Judiciary's authority to exercise judicial review and interpret the Constitution on the necessity to do so in the course of carrying out the judicial function of deciding cases. As Marshall explained, "[t]hose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule." Id., at 177.
I've repeatedly challenged the asininity of your position by pointing out that if it were correct, as you claim, it would have eliminated the need for the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments. You didn't provide any response to that point. You also didn't provide any response to my observation that if your position were correct, Clinton could have rejected the Bush v. Gore decision and entered an executive order requiring all the votes to be counted which would have created chaos and anarchy.
You (and your supporter MHGINTN) are embarrassing yourself with this absurd contention that the President has authority under the Constitution to reject a pronouncement of the Supreme Court. Your argument is so ridiculous you sound like a "jailhouse lawyer" or one of those tax seminar gurus who claims that the income tax laws are unconstitutional.
I have now provided you with both the actual text of the Constitution and several citations/quotes from Constitutional jurisprudence which clearly state that it is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution.
It is now time for you to "put up" by identifying both the actual text from the constitution and constitutional jurisprudence for your asinine position or shut up.
I don't care who you vote for. I asked you if JR knew that you are flakking for a third party here on HIS website.
You have posted five posts pushing this bi-partisan Unity party, with variations of this message on them: All Freedom loving and Pro-Life Mitt Sympathizers remember this link if Rudy wins the nomination and he is shut out because of religion. All Mitt needs is over 200,000 internet votes to guarantee a spot on Unity 2008 ticket. Here’s hoping for a Mitt/Zell Miller or Lieberman 2008 ticket! And, this " I hear grumblings of a third party movement within the conservatives of the LDS community. How long can this tolerate this bigotry?"
This, along with a couple of other posters who threatened to take their donations elsewhere today, looks suspiciously like an attempt to blackmail JR into censoring all Mitt's opposition. There were a couple of plants today posting inflammatory mormon-related posts, that haven't been involved in the ongoing Mitt threads. One wonders at the coordination involved.
The last post I saw from Jim about his first choice for nominee, it WASN'T Mitt. If JR wants to allow these kinds of tactics, it's O.K. by me, but he ought to have the option of making the choice for himself.
I just wonder what the Romney campaign thinks about it.
Not much. I don't think you should be voting.
If you had to earn the privilege of voting, more people would take it serious, and the Democrats would never be in power.
Thus, the insane, "9-11 is our fault"-
That is *not* what he said.
Do some research. It is more complicated than a bumper sticker thought.
When you get the whole policy in context, it makes sense.
“How do you feel about Orrin Hatch?”
Orin Hatch isn’t running for President AND he represents the majority religion of his state. I have maintained over many posts that the presidential race is quite different, and that religious views at that level can have devastating impacts because of the concentrated power. I have a Mormon governor here in Nevada, who I voted FOR. But especially after having witnessed the delusions and obfuscations on these threads meant to annoint Romney as a second coming, I would never vote Mormon at the presidential level, though that isn’t the same as saying Romney has no right to run.
I think 10 to 20 % of the Christian right believes the same way, dooming his candidacy.
Hatch and Reid both also are examples of ineffective Mormons in power, I don’t think they serve as role models.
In the end, Romney showed far more patience with the self-important half-educated boob who was interviewing him than I would have shown. But the boob came out completely deflated and incoherent. It was a thing of beauty.
The only other candidate I have seen do the same thing nearly as well in a live give-and-take session (La-Z-Boy Fred Thompson's carefully scripted and choreographed YouTube non-debate with Michael Moore doesn't count), is Rudy Giuliani. I can't support Giuliani because of his social liberalism, but I do admire his fire, fight, and feistiness in the ring of public discourse. We desperately need those qualities in the next Republican president. Otherwise, our enemies from Pelosi to bin Laden will roll right over us.
As I listened to Romney I imagined him going toe-toe with Pelosi and Reid. They would be terribly outmatched.
Romney is nothing more than Bill Clinton without the sleaze.
That was because Mitt was taking a political moral position that disagreed with the LDS position. His presidential platform is morally in line with his church. There would be no need to consult them.
I think you did..but I'm a male lesbian, and prone to mistakes. Ha!
IF you did indeed write that...then I would ask you to go back and re-read my post. Here's the post number 234.
It's an accurate reply to your post.
Thanks..appreciate it....
IMO, I think it's more....
Many don't vocalize it.
Many are in that "silent majority"....
Sometimes to correctly understand a post, one most go back and review an exchange and more than one post.
I think it doesn’t come NEAR approaching 10 to 20%. Religion is not a major issue with most voters today.
Did you write the post, or not?
LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,...
It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power” (History of the Church, Vol.6, Ch.14, p.305-6).
LDS President Brigham Young declared that God was once a finite being:
“It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has once been a finite being” (Deseret News, Nov.16, 1859, p.290).
LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith said that God had a father, a grandfather, etc.:
“Our father in heaven, according to the Prophet, had a father, and since there has been a condition of this kind through all eternity, each Father had a Father” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:47).
LDS President Joseph F. Smith taught that God was born as a mortal on some other earth:
“I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions...Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman” (Deseret News, Church News, Sept.19, 1936, p.2).
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie taught:
“The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same” (A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p.64)
LDS Apostle Melvin Ballard explained that God has a wife:
“For as we have a Father in heaven, so also we have a Mother there, a glorified, exalted, ennobled Mother” (As quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, LDS Church manual, 1976, p.129).
LDS Doctrine and Covenants promises the faithful LDS couple that they can achieve godhood in the same manner as God the Father:
“...if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity,... they shall [have]...a continuation of the seeds [children] forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting,... Then shall they be gods, because they have all power,... and continuation of the lives,... [endless procreation of spirit children]” (Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:18-22)
LDS President Brigham Young taught that faithful Mormons can achieve godhood:
“Intelligent beings are organized to become Gods, even the Sons of God, to dwell in the presence of the Gods, and become associated with the highest intelligences that dwell in eternity. We are now in the school, and must practice upon what we receive” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p.245).
LDS President Joseph F. Smith said:
“We are precisely in the same condition and under the same circumstances that God our heavenly Father was when he was passing through this, or a similar ordeal” (Gospel Doctrine, p.54).
LDS Apostle James E. Talmage taught that God progressed from a mortal to a god:
“We believe in a God who is Himself progressive, whose majesty is intelligence; whose perfection consists in eternal advancement — a Being who has attained His exalted state by a path which now His children are permitted to follow, whose glory it is their heritage to share. In spite of the opposition of the sects, in the face of direct charges of blasphemy, the Church proclaims the eternal truth: ‘As man is, God once was; as God is, man may be’” (Articles of Faith, Ch.24, p.430 - p.431).
You spin like a democrat. The point you orignally made wasn ‘t AT ALL the point of my post. As I said, YOU DIDN’T GET IT.
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.