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.
God and God's law are not secular law.
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.
I don't think the President pretends any such thing and he can't overturn SCOTUS unilaterally without violating the Constitution. Arguing that SCOTUS has violated it isn't valid unless you believe "two wrongs make a right." The rule of law isn't restored by ignoring it for your own benefit. But Congress is the body Constitutionally mandated to challenge SCOTUS not the Executive.
To stick at technicalities (as you seem to be doing) is “penny-wise and pound-foolish”.
Holding to the position that you can't declare the Constitution dead on one hand and talk about how to use the Constitution as a remedy is hardly a "technicality." It's just a bare minimum hold on reality. I demand at least that much in an argument.
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?
Red herring. Two rights don't make a wrong. Anarchists can't "work within the system."
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.)
Well if it doesn't need to be rejected then it hasn't failed I guess. (Which Founding Father promised a flawless Constitution or the flawless implementation of it?)
3. The President is charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of this nation, of which the Declaration is the first.
I understand your sentiment about that but it is another fallacy. The DoI may be the source of the guiding philosophy our founders used to establish the Constitution (the actual first Supreme Law of the Land) but the DoI is not a part of our secular canon of laws.