Scott Brown - Martha Coakely last debate for the MA Senate seat TONIGHT 7 PM

[cornelis]

Any politician who will sell out the innocent for political advantage is liable to sell out anyone on anything. Down the road I trust Scott Brown as far as I can throw a grand piano.

That's a rather harsh view, Diamond. Scott Brown deserves criticism for his statements on Roe as law of the land. I just wouldn't go so far to say that if a person is weak in one are that they weak through and through. He is liable to sell out--aren't we all? There are no perfect politicians.

[cornelis]

area

[a fool in paradise]

If that is still “Ted Kennedy’s seat”, then get the rotten Democrats out of Ronald Reagan’s White House.

[jazminerose]

That is the wisest course by far.

[Diamond]

OK, but the powers possessed by state governments are addressed in the separate state constitutions, not the federal constitution. As a matter of fedreal law, abortion should be a state issue by virtue of the 10th Amendment.

What about the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the States from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? This Amendment certainly addresses a limit on the Powers of the States and expressly forbids them from abrogating these inalienable rights in the same way that the Federal goverment is fobidden to abrogate them. The Federal Constitution is not silent on the Powers of the States with respect to the Right to Life, Liberty and Property.

Of course I realize that Roe's twisted and convoluted sophistry was advanced with the intent to subvert these principles so that a whole class of innocent human beings could be excluded from the protection of law, but I still hold to them.

Cordially,

[Diamond]

I just wouldn't go so far to say that if a person is weak in one are that they weak through and through. He is liable to sell out--aren't we all? There are no perfect politicians.

Undoubtedly so, my FRiend cornelis. But that is easy for us to say, for some good and some pragmatic reasons, not the least of which is that we ourselves weren't chopped up by an abortionist. Is it too much to expect from a politician who claims the same name of the Party of Abraham Lincoln that he should understand basic, elemental, foundational principles of government with respect to these inalienable rights? If inalienable rights are not sacrosanct what right is? If the foundation is fatally weakened will not the whole superstructure eventually collapse?

Cordially,

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks whatisthetruth. See also the topic about how Coakely’s attack ad misspelled Massachusetts — that’s something we can attribute to having so many out-of-staters and foreign interests involved in her campaign.