Posted on 09/11/2008 10:57:32 PM PDT by joanie-f
If I murder somebody (in the state of MD), does the Federal government have the right to arrest and try me?
Answer: NO. the state has to do so.
Reason: Federalism. You call it false federalism. You are wrong.
The right to life is the supreme right. Which critical, but lesser, rights do you also think are state issues? The right to keep and bear arms? Free speech? Freedom of assembly? The right against self-incrimination?
In which article, which amendment is this enumerated? You claim the Ninth Amendment, which states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
That's all well and good. But, in light of the 10th Amendment, you are spewing meaningless drivel:
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.
Look, FRiend, you talk about a "RTL" amendment. I agree with that, as it limits Congress' power to make laws to fund abortion. It also changes that paradigm so that criminal assault and homicide laws would apply to the pre-born. But, if you take a look at Article 5 of the Constitution, you will learn that the Executive Branch has absolutely no role in the amendment process:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
The President doesn't sign the amendment, he doesn't propose the amendment, he doesn't vote on the amendment. He has no authority when it comes to amending the constitution.
What the Executive can do is to propose SCOTUS justices who will overturn Roe. And return the power to the states, where it belongs. And that's what Palin advocated. As she should.
I think it far more likely that we can get America to take one step in the direction of being a Godly nation by electing Sarah Palin than we are to get them to take two steps by joining the one half of one percent who will vote AIP. Especially in swing states like Pennsylvania and Iowa. If I lived in, say, North Dakota or Utah, my opinion would be different.
And, if I were taking bets, I repeat that I'd wager that should the McMaverick win, Sarah will resign in one, two years tops citing "family matters." This timetable will be greatly accelerated should Biden drop off the Dim ticket and Hillary actually accept the veep slot. (2nd choice for 2nd place???)
More popcorn, please...
This guy is on the right track but misidentifies the true problem:
1) MARXISM is our nation's most serious threat!
2) The “virtue” our Founding Fathers talked about is based upon Judeo Christian values and beliefs. A free society is **impossible** without a moral and honest people of good will who see one another as equal before God.
Atheistic Marxists have infiltrated every aspect of our culture and government to the very highest levels, except the military. MARXTSM is our real enemy.
Schools are the Marxists’ **most** important weapon. The Marxists and their Useful Idiots are hard at work destroying freedom in our government schools and our colleges and universities. They are doing all they can to destroy the Judeo Christian values that our children will need to defend freedom. We will lose freedom in the voting booth.
I believe that is coming. McCain has show a real genius for timing, so far. The time is not right yet. McCain needs to hit Obama with this about 2 weeks before the election.
You have to start sometime, and somewhere.
“I think Clarence Thomas gives the correct assessment re: the govt’s obligation to defend and protect innocent human life.”
Clarence Thomas is correct!
Palin’s personal opinion means a lot, because she could be POTUS some day, and she will be an important advisor to McCain.
“It’s not a stretch at all. It’s a stretch to call someone who doesn’t believe that our most fundamental God-given right, the right to life, belongs to all, “pro-life.”
Does anyone even remember what the word “unalienable” even means any more? Have your brains turned to mush?
John McCain and Sarah Palin are no more pro-life than Stephen A. Douglas was anti-slavery.”
Sarah Palin walked the walk, by having a child with Down Syndrome, and she said that we should not create an embryo only to destroy it.
You’re fighting for Alan Keyes with a broken sword, and you can’t win a fight with that broken sword.
Keyes is a fine man, but like all human beings is not perfect. He believes in reparations for some Blacks.
Putting aside the fact that you're skipping completely over what we already know John McCain to be, and ignoring the fact that he's already openly admitted to you that his first and most important act will be to "reach across the aisle," in the short run, her opinions only carry the weight that John McCain gives them. In the long run, she's already shown that she shares his views concerning the false federalism that alienates unalienable rights. So, it looks to me like a lose-lose.
You're making a pro-"choice" argument, not a pro-life one. Not killing your child is not praiseworthy. Where have we sunk to when not killing your child is considered to be proof that you're pro-life?
She is PRO LIFE.
She is not dumb enough to believe that if she becomes VP or President that suddenly we will have a dictatorship instead of a democracy with the Supreme Court intervening. She is an old fashioned Republican that respects states rights. She doesn’t want the FEDERAL LEVEL to make states decisions in everything.
What other unalienable rights, other than the unalienable right to life, do you think are open to state “choice”?
Well, at this point we have only two requirements:
1. Win the election.
2. Do the job.
We can’t do 2 unless we do 1 first.
Sure, this is childish. But the one or two months between the end of the conventions and Election Day are not enough to re-educate a whole country.
That requires taking back the government and gradually rebuilding the culture—a matter of decades, not months.
Are we introducing these kindergarten stupidities into the news cycles? Of course not. They have been there since the start of the Countercultural Revolution in 1968, and steadily reinforced as the left has seized the levers of power, especially in our schools, colleges, and media.
You don’t undo that by wishing it gone. First you have to take back the levers of power and start appointing decent, sensible people to the judiciary . . . and ultimately to the proper education of our children. Getting someone like Sarah Palin into office, as a wonderful example of the culture as it should be, is a great first step.
Mostly what the current McCain ads are doing is simply to show Obama, the Democrats, and the media FOR WHAT THEY ARE.
This is perfectly illustrated in Norm Coleman’s recent ad against Al Franken. In one sense, it is trivial in stupid. But what it DOES do is throw the Democrats’ inanity and stupidity and boorishness back in their faces, for everyone to see:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/09/021496.php
What could be a more effective way of beginning to turn the culture back toward traditional values? What better than to have someone stand up and say, “The Emperor is naked!”
..I might disagree with EV a little today, but I know he is not for Obama, tacitly or otherwise, and I'm extremely tired of you posters who continue to bait and bait and bait FR members who disagree with you.
Get over it!
You are confusing Republican ideology with her position on Right to Life. It is Republican ideology that wants states to have the choice in how they decide this issue. The hope is that the states will not want babies murdered. It is Demoncrat ideology that wants nearly everything at the FEDERAL level.
Personally speaking I am PRO LIFE but want this decision to be at the FEDERAL level since I no longer have confidence in individual states to do what is right. So that is where I am more of a renegade against Republican ideology. Life is a MAJOR issue and I don't want some states allowing it and other states not to allow it. I want ABORTION BANNED IN ALL STATES and this is not Republican ideology.
Sarah Palinis sticking to the Republican ideology but PERSONALLY LIVES what she knows is right - don't kill your baby!
You are confusing Republican ideology with her position on Right to Life. It is Republican ideology that wants states to have the choice in how they decide this issue. The hope is that the states will not want babies murdered. It is Demoncrat ideology that wants nearly everything at the FEDERAL level.
Personally speaking I am PRO LIFE but want this decision to be at the FEDERAL level since I no longer have confidence in individual states to do what is right. So that is where I am more of a renegade against Republican ideology. Life is a MAJOR issue and I don't want some states allowing it and other states not to allow it. I want ABORTION BANNED IN ALL STATES and this is not Republican ideology - AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL! Notice at the FEDERAL LEVEL!
Sarah Palinis sticking to the Republican ideology but PERSONALLY LIVES what she knows is right - don't kill your baby! So Sarah is PRO LIFE or against abortion but is sticking to Republical ideology for decisions at the STATE level.
And we must not factor out God!!...My prayer is Sarah Palin will influence John McCain rather than the other way around.
I already see a more humanizing effect on McCain's daughter, Meghan and wife, Cindy.
I always thought of Cindy as the Ice Queen, but lately I think I'm seeing some genuine melting occur and a real person shining through.
It is not. The Reagan pro-life platform which has been in place since 1984 recognizes the personhood of the unborn, and their protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.
A position McCain and Palin do not hold.
PERSONALLY LIVES what she knows is right - don't kill your baby!
The fact that you didn't kill you baby is not a pro-life credential. If it were you would have to consider Hillary Clinton "pro-life" because she didn't kill Chelsea.
You don't realize it, but you're making a pro-"choice" argument, not a pro-life one.
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.