Posted on 05/03/2010 8:38:55 AM PDT by speciallybland
Look here, Johnny One Note, you can keep on blathering all you like, but you are not going to get anywhere. You are merely alienating a whole lot of people who might otherwise be your allies. I personally loathe abortion and consider it murder most foul. I would dearly love to see Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life act passed, which would go as far as the Fed are ALLOWED to go under our Constitution. It would set the official beginning of life as being at conception, then remove jurisdiction from the Courts to hear challenges to that definition. With life being thus defined, I believe that it would not be difficult to have the States, since murder is properly a violation of STATE law, pass their own laws punishing the murder of the unborn. I fail to see where YOUR problem lies, except that it must obviously be somewhere between your ears.
The ONLY criminal acts that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over are Piracy, Treason and Counterfeiting. ALL THE REST comes under the jurisdiction of the Several States. All of it. Excepting only crimes committed on and by the military and its personnel. These are covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
If you STILL have a problem comprehending this, my best advice is that you take it up with the Founders, whose wisdom and best judgment went into writing this document.
Keep in mind that the Preamble to the Constitution is a list of lofty goals. The specific grants of authority (and the limits thereon) come mainly in Article One. And that is ALL the authority granted to FedGov. Now just get over it. And get to work on your STATE legislature to do something to stop the carnage. It’s THEIR job after all.
The Fourteenth Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Did not the President of the United States, every member of Congress, and every member of the judicial branch swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States?
Did they swear to defend a piece of paper, or was it to defend the principles and imperative requirements of that document?
No. It is the document's clear statement of purpose.
Are you saying that you think the stated purposes of our Constitution are unattainable? Sure sounds that way, with the use of the word "lofty," as if there's no way we the people could possibly do what the Constitution says it is intended to do.
Our people, the people who stand for the unalienable rights of all, are working every day all over this country at the state level to restore and defend the unalienable rights of the child in the womb.
The ironic part is that practically NONE of the prominent pro-choice for states proponents are anywhere to be found on those battlefields. They're a bunch of lying hypocrites who are hiding behind a false position to make sure they don't have to lift a finger to protect innocent human beings.
From the GOP 2008 platform:
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
I agree completely with the platform committee's interpretation of the Fourteenth, and with their proposed solution. Rand Paul does, too.
NO he doesn't.
The Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to protect the lives of all innocent persons, and to provide for the equal protection of the law to all persons in their jurisdiction.
The Pauls, and McCain, and Palin, and Fred Thompson, and Gerald R. Ford before them, claim that this is “up to the states to decide.”
Which is preposterous.
Just as it is preposterous for you to claim that Rand Paul agrees with the Reagan plank.
The end of the abortion holocaust can and must come from the federal level, and from every other level, and from every branch. Because all of them, every single one, have sworn an oath to God, before their fellow citizens, to secure the blessings of liberty to posterity, to protect every innocent life, and to provide for the equal protection of the laws to every person.
It is not either/or. It’s all of the above.
No sworn officer has an excuse to avoid their sworn obligations just because someone else is failing to keep theirs.
Folks need to cut through the mental fog that has been plaguing them for so long.
If this country’s foundational premise is no longer that the purpose of government is to protect the unalienable rights of the people, all the people, this country is truly dead, just like the four thousand plus children they will slaughter today by cruel and unusual means.
I note that as usual not a single defender of the pro-choice for states position can or will name any other unalienable right that they are willing to apply their illogic to other than the right to life.
Which isn’t surprising, since the very question lays bare the preposterous nature of their arguments. They will not answer because they cannot answer.
We’re either ALL equally entitled our God-given unalienable rights or we’re not. And if we as a people have decided that we’re not, this republic is truly dead. The dynamite charges have been set all around the foundations, and the entire edifice WILL fall.
Your proof of this assertion would be...?
The recording is in the third "update" down the page.
Rand Paul says:
1. "I believe life begins at conception."
2. "Roe vs. Wade should be overturned."
3. "I think we should make Roe v. Wade part of our philosophy as far as states' rights, in believing that the states should have the prerogative over this."
Blackmun knew that the Fourteenth Amendment protects all innocent PERSONs. That's why in Roe he said that if the fetus is a person they are OF COURSE protected by the Amendment.
The Pauls admit that they are a person and then assert that the States can allow their killing if they want to. It's nonsense. Fatal nonsense. Fatal to the babies and fatal to the foundations of this free republic.
The Pauls consistently pretend that the Fourteenth Amendment does not exist.
Once again. Please stop pretending be a conservative. You are an AIP nutbag.
However, I think our new party's Reaganite pro-life platform is much more to the point, and therefore vastly superior:
Equal rights for our posterityBecause the stated ultimate purpose of the United States Constitution is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity," we recognize the personhood of all unborn children and their protection by the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
The right to life of all innocent persons, from fertilization to natural death, is God-given and unalienable. That is why we consider it to be a moral imperative to fully establish in law that Personhood is granted by our Creator to all human beings from the very beginning of their biological development.
For the principled man or woman, no compromise is possible concerning such a critical matter of life and death. We believe that violators of this supreme right, in words or actions, are unfit for any office of public trust, since any such violation constitutes the breaking of the oath of office and the ultimate destruction of the very basis of our liberty.
Approved in Convention August 20, 2008
© 2008 America’s Independent Party
Once again. What are you talking about? How do you define conservatism?
Every time you post to me, I’m adding another $1 to my next Rand Paul contribution.
What makes me a "nutbag," in your view? Please be specific.
I base my political philosophy in the founding paragraph of this free republic:
"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."
What is your basis?
I find my definitions of the purposes of the Constitution of the United States here:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What is your basis for understanding the purposes of the Constitution?
Go for it. It’s your money and it’s a free country.
But all the money in the world won’t make up for the fact that the Paul ideology is destructive of the principle of God-given unalienable rights and the imperative duty of all officers of government to protect them.
ka-ching!!
Keep posting. He’ll be out of pot money in twenty posts.
LOL...
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.