The federal government has no right or authority over these unalienable rights, but is charged with their protection. Therefore, having no right over them, they cannot delegate that right to the states, severally or otherwise, nor can they delegate the protection, or interpretation thereof to the states, as that protection is endowed to every American equally under the Constitution … Life is decided in the most Holy of Courts, and no other should presume, without due process.
That would be a noble, common sense approach were it not for the fact, as mentioned above, that the left has made an art form out of messing with semantics, to their benefit. Unless you can come up with a Constitutional definition of ‘life’ (good luck!), your noble argument is all but toothless.
Why it is a noble and common sense approach is because it is the correct one.
There is no Constitutional definition of Life because the law has no business defining life at all. That is in fact, the problem.
So we’re back at the drawing board. Since the definition of ‘life’, God’s most generous gift to man, has now been desecrated to the degree that we must debate it -- just as we debate the definition of ‘marriage’ and the meaning of ‘is’ -- then we must seek out the most effective, Constitutional way in which to defend it. In America 2008 (sadly, a far cry from America 1787), that way is to overturn Roe V. Wade, and get the power to define out of the hands of Washington, and back into the hands of the states (the people), where it belongs.
Again, I will reiterate that this is no balm:
As long as Life is in the hands of any man it remains subject to man's law, and thereby to man's definition. What man has the right to award, he has also the right to repeal. What man sees fit to grant, he can also find himself worthy to remove.
The solution remains the same. It is paramount to cause Congress to assert itself, that it would slap down this rebellious court (and indeed, ALL rebellious courts throughout the land), how ever that end is achieved. It is not enough that the court correct itself, as that leaves the precedent in place that it may overstep it's boundaries if it so chooses.
It is *not* proper for the court to legislate from the bench. It's role is to interpret existing law. That it does take it upon itself to legislate is an affront to our lawmakers, and ultimately to the Constitution itself. We must therefore strive to elect those who will strive to strike them down on that premise alone.
The federal gov't didn't grant Inalienable rights and therefore cannot protect them..
The federal government can ONLY alienate them..
Look, be FOR abortion. You use their argument.
I am against abortion and I use the Consitution which clearly indicates the “right to life is an unalienable Right” granted by the Creator and to be upheld by our Judeo Christian government. We have failed ourselves by not enforcing this as well as my Creator. Again, I don’t know if you are an atheist.
Now if you are an atheist, I can better understand your position.
If you read the Constiituion you will understand the in no way shape or form is abortion one of our founding principles. SAHME on YOU! It is not a “state” right to murder the unborn. It never was a “right” till the Constituion was perverted for policitical reasons.
AGAIN, read it:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
—The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Consider the above words, and this is what we learn:
The right to life is a “self-evident truth;” it is not based on the speculations and shifting opinions of men.
The right to life is “unalienable” and an essential part of us. It exists independently from what others want. It is not a grant from government. It exists, whether there is a government or not. And it certainly can’t be ruled out of existence by unelected judges.
The government derives its “just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,” namely us. The Founding Fathers believed in “the capability of a people to govern themselves,” as Abraham Lincoln put it.
The reason for government is “to secure these Rights.” So the Constitution is, to use the words of the political scientist Paul Rahe, the “instrument for the im-plementation” of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, judges are not free to ignore the principles laid down in the Declaration of Independence.
Instead of being guided by the Declaration of Independence, the pro-abortion majorities in the Supreme Court’s abortion cases since 1973 have blocked out the bright light of the Declaration and groped around in the resulting “penumbra” and made up a new “right” to suit their purpose. To grasp how far down we have come from the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, try fitting this new “right” of a mother to kill her unborn child to the concepts of a “self-evident truth” or an “unalienable right.”
No more pings.
It’s time for YOU to move on.
We will NOT agree on this issue.
REMOVE me from the ping list for this topic.
You will not brow beat me into taking the pro abortion stand - which is what your contention is.
I want abortion banned and the Constitution taken seriously.
Look, be FOR abortion. You use their argument.
I am against abortion and I use the Constitution which clearly indicates the “right to life is an unalienable Right” granted by the Creator and to be upheld by our Judeo Christian government. We have failed ourselves by not enforcing this as well as my Creator. Again, I don’t know if you are an atheist.
Now if you are an atheist, I can better understand your position.
If you read the Constitution you will understand the in no way shape or form is abortion one of our founding principles. SAHME on YOU! It is not a “state” right to murder the unborn. It never was a “right” till the Constitution was perverted for political reasons.
AGAIN, read it:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
—The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Consider the above words, and this is what we learn:
The right to life is a “self-evident truth;” it is not based on the speculations and shifting opinions of men.
I do not accept you redefinitions of what is obviously a life nor have I lost all my common sense.
Remove my name from your “ping list”.
I have no further to say and I see you as an irritant.
REMOVE me from the ping list for this topic.
You will not brow beat me into taking the pro abortion stand - which is what your contention is.
I want abortion banned and the Constitution taken seriously.
Look, be FOR abortion. You use their argument.
I am against abortion and I use the Constitution which clearly indicates the “right to life is an unalienable Right” granted by the Creator and to be upheld by our Judeo Christian government. We have failed ourselves by not enforcing this as well as my Creator. Again, I don’t know if you are an atheist.
Now if you are an atheist, I can better understand your position.
If you read the Constitution you will understand the in no way shape or form is abortion one of our founding principles. SAHME on YOU! It is not a “state” right to murder the unborn. It never was a “right” till the Constitution was perverted for political reasons.
AGAIN, read it:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed…
—The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
Consider the above words, and this is what we learn:
The right to life is a “self-evident truth;” it is not based on the speculations and shifting opinions of men.
I do not accept you redefinitions of what is obviously a life nor have I lost all my common sense.
Remove my name from your “ping list”.
I have no further to say and I see you as an irritant.