Posted on 07/12/2009 9:15:01 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
I’ve posted here for almost ten years as myself. Every one of you who are whining know exactly who I am. Get off it.
Is it possible for Dr. Keyes to edify, or must he only tear down?
Murder can never be lawful in the United States. It’s not possible.
He edifies continuously. He can’t help it if you won’t listen, and can only hear the necessary rebuke.
http://candst.tripod.com/doinotlaw.htm
Basic point:
“The first thing that can clearly be stated about the Declaration is that it is not law. That is, none of its provisions can be law unless enacted into law. The Declaration is inspiring, but its most inspirational parts today remain in the realm of politics, not law. It mostly represents a ringing statement of political philosophy from a past age. The Declaration did not purport to create a new government or to enact any new laws. The bulk of it is exactly what it claimed to be: an announcement to the world of American reasons for renouncing its ties to Great Britain. New governments and new laws were created later-in state constitutions and the Articles of Confederation.”
It was great to do the research though on organic law. Set me back on coding my programs but enlightening stuff so I really mean it when I say thanks.
True enough (now), although scarcely in the way you intended it, one imagines.
Ah, well. Do carry on, then.
...when Charles Gibson asked her about Roe v. Wade she declared "I think that states should be able to decide that issue." In reaction, ....I observed that "Palin is being touted as an unequivocally pro-life politician ... Her words suggest that, on the contrary, she regards the issue of respect for innocent life as a matter of personal opinion rather than public principle...."
She did no such thing. He's answering the wrong question. She said that laws about abortion should be a matter for the States. She did not interpolate anything about what those laws should be and gave Keyes no reason to infer that she would not wholeheartedly support laws severely restricting or banning abortion in her home State.
His further extrapolation of his error and conclusion that Palin's seeming failure to declaim 100% barrel-proof opposition to abortion anywhere in the United States (which btw implies that Keyes favors federalizing the issue just as the Roe activists did, only in the opposite direction) must lead inevitably to a "gigatomb" of innocents, is an exercise in "slippery-slope" consequentialism that has no warrant, since his premise is false to begin with.
That’s an obfuscation. Abortion is not only immoral. It is illegal, a violation of the most important fundamentals of our Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.
And, if you want to preserve a Union based on the rule of law, it must always be so. As soon as you cut the moral and legal foundations out from under our republic, liberty cannot survive.
Saying that Keyes and Palin are both pro-life would be the saem as saying that Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln were both anti-slavery.
You’re the one wanting a federal law portecting one group of people.
Why not a federal law against killing a 1-hour-old? Why not a federal law against killing a twenty-year-old?
Why not have the federal government take over writing all criminal laws?
We ended up with Roe because of Justices who read the Constitution the way you do.
I have news for you: The Union that is the USA is already on life support. It is nearly dead. You’re not gonna bring it back to life. You’re not God.
Byrn vs. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH & HOSPITALS
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1774&posts=5&start=1
Judge Adrian Burke:
*excerpt*
The more telling fact than the present legislation’s irrationality is its unconstitutionality. The unconstitutionality stems from its inherent conflict with the Declaration of Independence, the basic instrument which gave birth to our democracy. The Declaration has the force of law and the constitutions of the United States and of the various States must harmonize with its tenets. The Declaration when it proclaimed “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” restated the natural law. It was intended to serve as a perpetual reminder that rulers, legislators and Judges were without power to deprive human beings of their rights.
Unless there had been a Thomas Jefferson who was educated by a philosophy professor to know the primacy of the natural law — there would be no United States of America. For, if the Declaration had been written by a pragmatist for expedient reasons we never could have enlisted the sympathies and agreement of such a large part of the then world, including members of the British Parliament in our righteous cause. They would know the pragmatic reasoning would be nothing more than pettifoggery, and had no basis in law.
We began our legal life as a Nation and a State with the guarantee that these were inalienable rights that come not from the State but from an external source of authority superior to the State which authority regulated our inalienable liberties and with which our laws and Constitutions must now conform. That authority alone establishes the norms which test the validity of State legislation. It also tests the Constitutions and the United Nations Convention against genocide which forbids any Nation or State to classify any group of living human beings as fit subjects for annihilation. In sum, there is the law which forbids such expediency. It is the inalienable right to life in the nature of the child embryo who is “a human” and is “a living being”.
Inalienable means that it is incapable of being surrendered (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). Thus, the butchering of a foetus under the present law is inherently wrong, as it is an illegal interference with the life of a human being of nature.
The report of the Governor’s commission explanation that it was not dealing with “morality” but only law, overlooked the fact that it turned its back on the law — the natural law reiterated in the Declaration of Independence. The reasons given for the enactment of the present abortion law are irrational from a medical, scientific and factually objective analysis. There is no need for abortion except in very limited medical circumstances.
Chapter 127 of the Laws of 1970, authorizing abortion “on demand” is a resort to expediency which is recognized everywhere as the death of principle. The rationale of the majority opinion admits that customs do change and the Legislature could, if it should in the future be the attitude of the Legislature, do away with old folks and eliminate the great expense the aged are to the taxpayers. This, of course, would parallel the Hitler laws which decreed the death of all the inmates of mental hospitals and also decreed that for [p894] many purposes non-Aryans were nonpersons.
Chief Judge Lehman’s understanding of inalienable rights is the only understanding that makes any sense out of the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the United Nations Convention against genocide.
According to the majority opinion, valid law is a merger of legislative and executive emotions, whims and hunches — announced today and perhaps changed tomorrow. One’s rights are never permanent as the existence of the natural law is denied. The majority suggests that all law is man made. Such a philosophy of law we know would not attract persons educated in philosophy. Others, however, are attracted by pragmatism. This is just as dangerous as expediency because certain individuals think: we are realistic and self-sufficient — this legislation will control population growth and assist the taxpayers.
*excerpt*
It certainly won’t be “brought back to life” without God. And it also won’t be restored and defended by those men who have given up on America’s most important principles.
Now you've betrayed yourself. You're not a serious person. If Keyes thinks the same as you do, he's not serious either.
You and he have picked her to attack because she is the perfect foil for your purpose. She is attractive, well known, boldly pro-life, and that makes her perfect for your purpose. You could attack someone else, someone who was pro-abortion, or a "moderate" but no one would read your piece or pay you any attention. So you picked her.
Its understandable, but not particularly noble.
Wrong. I advocate the protection of the rights of all by all.
We ended up with Roe because of Justices who read the Constitution the way you do.
No, we ended up with Roe because of judges who claimed that children of a certain class are not persons, and therefore are not protected by the Constitution.
Which, one way or another, you're doing as well.
Again, this is not about personalities. This is about the most fundamental principles America is predicated upon.
No, he isn't. He's using a moral issue to demand that Sarah Palin support authoritarian central government in handing down laws to the States to enforce, as if it were an imperium. Just as the majority in Roe did.
In this, Keyes's zest for Lincolnian reform-by-canister and constitutional amendments written with bayonets is showing through. Palin's a better Originalist than he is. He is verging on becoming an outright Phalangist.
Magnificient!
He’ll be on the goats scale when God gets through with him.
*nods sagely*
Dead wrong.
Objectively, ontologically, permanently, fatally.
There is only one litmus for constitutionality, and that is the black-letter law of the Constitution itself. Period. End of paragraph. End of subject.
Thanks for posting.
<bows>
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.