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

To: epow

I find it interesting that folks like yourself have felt the compulsion to bring up the HLA in post after post after post all day, when I haven’t even been arguing for one.

If anyone needs to meet the high bar of passing a constitutional amendment, it should be those who ignore the clear provisions of the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Let them convince the American people that we don’t need those protections anymore.

Now, that’s not to say that I wouldn’t support one, if offered, with the right language. After all, obviously there are many who can’t read plain English and could benefit from the clarification.

But, the Constitution is what it is. It states that its purpose is to secure the Blessings liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY. It says that you can’t take the life of the innocent, and that states must protect the right to life. Already. As is.

What is needed first of all is for pro-lifers, and conservatives, and Republicans, to establish that fact firmly in their minds, and act as if it were so.

Anyone who misunderstands this is unfit for any office in the United States, and completely incapable of fulfilling their sworn oath.

It’s high time we begin to back this up with our franchise, our money, and our actions. Hit the politicians where it hurts, in the pocketbook and in the voting booth, and you’ll be shocked at how quick they learn to read.


192 posted on 11/18/2007 10:44:59 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies ]


To: EternalVigilance
But, the Constitution is what it is. It states that its purpose is to secure the Blessings liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY. It says that you can’t take the life of the innocent, and that states must protect the right to life. Already. As is.

I understand all that and agree in principle with what you are saying. But what you apparently have trouble coming to grips with is that in practical 21st century real world terms the Constitution means what the USSC says it means.

That may not be what the authors intended, I personally believe it's not, but nevertheless that's how it has been in practice since Marbury v Madison became the catalyst for transforming the USCC into the final arbiter of the Constitution. If you can find a way to overturn the judiciary branch's assumption of powers that were not intentionally, specifically granted to it by the authors the American people will be eternally in your debt.

205 posted on 11/19/2007 8:31:48 AM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | 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