Posted on 11/04/2007 4:46:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
Most definitely.
14th amendment, too?
The 14th Amendment, protecting life and liberty as it does, clearly is implicated in the abortion issue. My reply, however, was to a post questioning, I think, what part of the Constitution would allow new state abortion statutes, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, to be appealed to Federal Courts on Constitutional grounds.
The congress can, if it wants, pass a statute taking jurisdiction over such matters away from Federal Courts. The tougher part is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. There would probably have to be an amendment to "fix" that one although DOMA purports to do it now by statute.
Thanks. I still don’t buy his judge-barring-amendment stance - if he was in fact talking about an amendment. It’s one of the strangest constitutional “fixes” I’ve ever heard of.
FreeReign:Your remark is unsupportable by any text in the Constitution.
Article One, Section 9. “ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
Article Three, Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
What?
Your remark is still unsupportable by any text in the Constitution, including the above two cites.
The Constitution protects life in two ways.
1.)The Constitution specifically protects life against government. See Trial and Punishments, Amendment 5.
2.)The Constitution affords the protection of life against other citizens by leaving it up to the citizens of the states and local governments to pass laws at that level to protect life from other citizens. See Powers of the States and the People, Amendment 10.
No. The 14th amendment protects life and liberty against government. It does not protect life and liberty from the private citizen abortionist.
I believe half of Rudy's support is based on this fact; Hollywood couldn't right a better script than this.
I believe that this is the reason Rudy is polling so well with conservatives. Hillary is the Sword of Damocles hanging above us all.
Give it a rest.
You might also add: we should adopt the "incremental" approach the Dems use for change. Nibble from the outside in; win small victories until public opinion begins to change. Look how the Dems go after smokers: first ban smoking advertising, next ban smoking in workplaces, next ban smoking in private homes, next ban smoking outside, etc.
However, having a media savvy nominee certainly wouldn't hurt our chances in 2008.
I’ll FReep mail you.
Many of us have had posts that we make on here used by some of the big guns in the New Media with the idea always being to build our side up while removing the terrorist dems from the scene.
Those who would upset that balance that we normally maintain on on this thread have no business being here whatsoever, IMHO.
“Do you really think McCain will drop out before the primaries?”
His temper could lead him anywhere.
Most of the potential Rep nominees are media savvy. Paul may be the only one who isn’t. When you hold the office of governor, mayor, senator and congressman, it is hard to stay in office without understanding how the media works and how to use it to best advantage.
You can tell 41 loves fishing.
I saw Dubya on Roland Martin's show... they were bass-fishing on one of Bush's ponds in Crawford using plastic worms. LOL... 43 said he didn't use them much and it showed. He just tossed it out and reeled it back in like a crank-bait!
I believe that ultimately, the power should be in the people and that means we have representatives (servants, if you will) who reflect our wishes ..... if something comes up that our reps feel absolutely it is in the best interests of the country that they should go against the wishes of the people, then they have a duty to make the case to us and it better be a good one (leadership skills should kick in here, not the current condescending attitude that the people are too dumb to know what is good for them). What we have now are politicians who will say and do anything to get elected and then they totally ignore their constituents (comprehensive immigration bill is the prime example) and do what it takes to stay in office and improve their own situations. Way too many are so entrenched that it would take dynamite to remove them from office and they do whatever they please - will of the people or not, mostly not. I personally believe in term limits, actually choosing & electing good people (not just accepting whoever ‘the parties’ put up) and holding reps strictly accountable (letters, e-mails, phone calls, attending town meetings when reps return home during breaks). ‘We the people’ need to take our power back and I thought the GW quote was a good reminder/example of just how upside down our current situation is compared to what was intended by the Constitution. My 2 cents, for whatever it’s worth! :-)
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.