Well in light of this...
The Constitution has already been overthrown, my FRiend.
...that would be foolishness.
Now you tell us the President has to go hat-in-hand to the Court in order to save the lives of those whom the Constitution, the Declaration and Creator's Law were designed to protect? Hogwash!
I said no such thing.
This was Lincoln's position vis a vis slavery, and it ought to be the position of every serious pro-lifer vis a vis the murder of babies.
Lincoln overthrew the Constitution. You seem to want to talk out of whichever side of your mouth works at the moment. Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's what I'm hearing.
Well it may sound harsh, but it’s a fair argument.
I don’t want to get sidetracked onto Lincoln’s handling of slavery and secession, but merely made the point that slavery was not a matter for debate - and neither is the killing of children.
It’s not a state issue. It’s not a local community issue. It’s not an issue to be decided in Washington.
It’s not an issue to be decided by the voters, by Congress, by the President, nor by the Court.
It was decided by God when He created us in His image. It was recognized and affirmed by the revolutionaries who signed the Declaration and died to enforce it. And it was given protection by the Constitution which forged the disparate states into a nation.
Who the bleep is the Supreme Court - a body inferior to God, the Declaration and the Constitution - to pretend superiority to those authorities? And why the bleep is the President pretending the executive branch is inferior to the judicial? He violates his oath who vows to uphold and defend the Constitution and then reneges on his duty to protect babies.
The Constitution was written and adopted for our benefit, not as a cover for bloodlust and barbarism against our young. To stick at technicalities (as you seem to be doing) is “penny-wise and pound-foolish”. And my argument with that is on three grounds:
1. The Constitution has been and is consistently thrown over when it becomes an obstacle to the federal government. How can they become sticklers about it now? (From Roe to Kelo to Romer to a hundred others, the Court barely makes a pretense at interpreting the Constitution. Nor does Congress, nor the President. They merely divide the spoils among themselves, using the Constitution as a rough guide.)
2. The Constitution was designed to protect our God-given, unalienable rights. When it fails to do so, it fails its entire purpose and needs to be rejected. (It doesn’t, of course.)
3. The President is charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of this nation, of which the Declaration is the first. Any law in violation of the Declaration is an illegal law, and the President should so state and so act. The Court is not a body of co-regents over this nation. Each branch is its own arbiter of the Constitution.