Posted on 05/03/2010 8:38:55 AM PDT by speciallybland
Christian conservative leader James Dobson withdrew his endorsement of Kentucky Senate candidate Trey Grayson Monday, switching his support to Rand Paul’s campaign and accusing “senior members of the GOP” of misleading him about Paul’s record on abortion.
Dobson said in an audio recording that he made an “embarrassing mistake” as a result of misunderstanding Paul’s position on abortion.
“I was given misleading information about the candidacy of Dr. Rand Paul, who is running in the Republican Primary for the U.S. Senate. Senior members of the GOP told me Dr. Paul is pro-choice and that he opposes many conservative perspectives, so I endorsed his opponent,” Dobson explained. “But now I've received further information from OB/GYNs in Kentucky whom I trust, and from interviewing the candidate himself.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Due process is what is due to the accused in a criminal trial. If, e.g., murder was legal then there would be no accused, no trial, and no occasion for due process. Constitutional protections protect us from the government, not each other.
That makes no sense. And it is factually wrong. Ever heard of Eminent Domain? A noncriminal, an ordinary *person* under the law, cannot be deprived of property without just compensation. Same principle, noncriminal context.
The Constitution creates a system, an interlocking handshake relationship between the federal and the states, whereby the powers and limitations of the federal are intentionally shaped to the contour of natural rights, precisely because it is those rights that the system, as a whole, must defend by procedures enacted in the states. The states are no more free to ignore murder than they are to ignore slavery. And, as if to make clear what should be obvious to any reasonable person, the 14th Amendment confirms that the states can be held to a legal obligation to provide due process to all *persons* with respect to life, freedom, and property.
And really, how else can it be? There is no more basic function of government than the protection of innocent human life. Any government or any system of related governments that fails to do so is, under natural law, invalid, of no force and effect, not a real government. Why do you suppose those natural, inalienable rights were thus identified in the Declaration? For show? For pomp and high sounding rhetoric with no meaning, with no practical effect in law? Such a thought is offensive to the depth of wisdom and character of our Founders. They could not have imagined the nightmare interpretation you artificially impose on their design, where genocide, the mass murder of millions of babies, is an acceptable byproduct, as long as the states have free choice on the matter.
You're lying. I have addressed this argument with you HEAD-ON.
It is YOU who will not answer MY questions about this very point.
So, let's try it again:
Please answer the question.
.... Just so we're clear: are you saying that if any State does legalize Abortion (or Rape, or some other Civil Harm against the citizenry), that the President should launch a punitive military assault upon that State? If that's what you're saying, then just say it.
Well? Any answer?
Or do you want to ping "ALL" lurkers to your own unwillingness to address my questions?
You still haven’t answered my question.
So, just to clarify: Do you believe that Illinois, for example, can outlaw free speech and freedom of the press? Can Massachusetts outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms? Can North Dakota strip away parental rights? Can Missouri end trial by jury?
The Declaration of Independence is a legal nullity.
Nope.
We're not talking about States making laws.
We're talking about States repealing laws.
So don't keep dodging the question. Answer it.
Let's try YET AGAIN, and see if you have the gumption to step up to the plate:
Please answer the question.
....Just so we're clear: are you saying that if any State does legalize Abortion (or Rape, or some other Civil Harm against the citizenry), that the President should launch a punitive military assault upon that State? If that's what you're saying, then just say it.
Well? Any answer? Or do you want to ping "ALL" lurkers to your own unwillingness to address my questions?
Then they can't alienate the supreme right, the right to life, either.
And if they do make war on the people by alienating their God-given rights they are in rebellion, and the national government, in all its branches, has a sworn duty to stop them. I've already made this clear, over and over and over again. Your problem is that you just don't listen. You're too blinded by your ideology.
In point of fact, a State Legislature has the capability to repeal any State Law they want. The question is, if a State does repeal a given Law against some Civil Harm, then what should the Federal Government do about it, if anything?
And if they do make war on the people by alienating their God-given rights they are in rebellion, and the national government, in all its branches, has a sworn duty to stop them. I've already made this clear, over and over and over again. Your problem is that you just don't listen. You're too blinded by your ideology.
All that you've made clear is what you keep repeating: "the national government, in all its branches, has a sworn duty to stop them". The question I have been asking, as you well know, is: STOP THEM HOW?
Well? Is that what you are saying?
I am sorry you think so, but that is not the argument I made. I am arguing from construction. The Constitution is to the Declaration what bylaws are to a mission statement. The bylaws bind action, the mission statement explains the bylaws. Such explanations are powerful aids in preventing abuse of ambiguities in the bylaws. I repeat, and you have not answered me on this, any interpretation of federalism or the Constitution which results in the justification of genocide must be flawed in terms of general principles of ethics and governance, and must be specifically flawed in term of constitutional interpretation. The Founders would not go where you (or Ron Paul) are going with their language, or their federalism.
Furthermore, with the addition of the 14th Amendment, any exploitable ambiguity has been eliminated with respect to the state’s general obligation to protect life, liberty, and property, making it unnecessary to use the Declaration as organic law (although I still think an excellent argument can be made it retains that force, despite any claims of some in the judiciary to the contrary). BTW, I note you have not yet answered me regarding the generalized impact of the 14th either.
I've been there, I know.
The left wing has been whining for decades that conservatives want to impose a Christian theocracy in America. I now believe that at least in the case of a few (less than ten of the whole user base) Freepers, that is true.
This, of course, is the core, where those who call themselves liberals, and those who call themselves libertarians, meet. Probe deeply enough and this is always what one finds. It it in the rejection of the most fundamental and indispensable premise of America.
"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..."
And, of course, you're just as dead wrong as those who call themselves liberals.
For there is nothing to impose. As Ben Franklin said at the Constitutional Convention, "God governs in the affairs of men," already - always has - no matter what you or I think or believe about it. There's nothing to "impose," by me or anyone. The only question left is whether we will conform ourselves as a nation to His standard of right - as expressed in the Natural Law - and prosper, or whether we will choose to deny our own nature and the nature of the creation, and destroy ourselves...individually and as a nation.
There are many means short of what you characterize as "punitive military assault."
But, just to keep things in perspective, let's remember that we're talking about stopping a heinous practice that in its most vivid sense amounts to the willful torturing to death of at least four or five thousand innocent, helpless, little children every day in this country. By a small group of heartless little Mengeles with medical degrees, scalpels, and suction machines.
One hardly needs the Army, Air Force, and the Marines to stop them. All one needs is the commitment by those who have taken the oath to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land and a few US Marshals.
Unless you're going to take up arms to defend the Mengeles.
I just wish that people would have what's called "The Courage of their Convictions".
It means that if the Logic of your Argument compels you to an extreme, perhaps unpopular conclusion -- then you either re-examine your Argument; or, if you still believe your original Argument to be correct, then you take it all the way to its logical extreme, you declare it, and you stand by it.
Let's take the subject of Abortion, as an example:
Now that's not a "popular" position for me to take.
Indeed, as I just pointed out, it may not even be a "necessary" position for me to take, given that historically the States were able to prohibit abortion quite effectively by just going after the Abortionists themselves.
But I understand that my position, if taken to its logical extreme, would necessitate prosecuting the woman also -- if that's what it takes to effectively prohibit abortion. And, since that's the ultimate conclusion to which the Logic of my Argument compels me, I'm willing to take that position and stand by it, if that what it takes.
Likewise, if EV believes that any States which fail to outlaw abortion, should be subject to Military Invasion by the Federal Government -- then he should just say, "States which fail to outlaw abortion should be subject to Military Invasion by the Federal Government". Stake out your position, and stand by it, if that's what you believe.
It's just a matter of having The Courage of your Convictions, that's all.
Michael Steele.
Enough said.
Right. The House and Senate could refuse to Seat a given State's Representatives and Senators. They could continue to collect all Federal Taxes from a State, while blocking any Federal Spending for that State. And so on.
My question is simply whether or not, if lesser means fail, you believe that the President should be willing to order the Military Invasion of a State which fails to outlaw abortion.
Do you, or Don't you? You still have not answered that specific question. And every time you try to dodge it, I'm going to call you on it. Every single time.
So, let's TRY IT AGAIN:
Have you the Courage of your Convictions to take such a straightforward stance? "YES", or "NO", please. One word. We'll proceed from there.
I guess we'll find out. Or perhaps we're finding out already.
Cornyn is from the same cloth of stupid as carla fiorina who was his immediate predicessor.
The GOP leadership (alleged) is against the tea party. They don’t want ordinary people in THEIR club.
If I were POTUS I would use every means at my constitutional disposal to stop the wholesale killing of innocent human beings. This has been obvious from all my remarks, notwithstanding your characterizations.
Ka-ching!
I agree.
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.